Professional Development
Lessons Learned
Teachers are not accustomed to investigating technology and developing
classroom applications at the same time because they have not been given
the opportunity (Cwikla, in press). These teachers’ previous technology
experiences were in the form of lecture-style workshops. As evidenced
by the TRT teachers’ comments, the types of professional development
sessions previously experienced were not pertinent to their everyday
practice. One of the purposes of the TRT was to provide a setting where
teachers could collaboratively develop lessons using technology, create
their own lessons, and bring a product back to their classroom. The
TRT created a need for these teachers to explore the technology hardware
and simultaneously develop a classroom lesson.
Bob shared, "When you're in a small group, you've got incentive
to say, ‘Well, hey, this should work for me, and I'd better make
it work, otherwise somebody else will be in here doing this stuff. So
I feel like there's a motivation factor in there." The teachers
were motivated simply by their participation in a peer group of other
carefully selected mathematics middle school teachers, and they felt
privileged to be invited and involved with a technology innovation.
The Japanese Lesson Study type of small group peer collaboration proved
practical and effective for the TRT teachers as opposed to some of the
more traditional workshops they had experienced. Anna remarked, "A
lot of times when we have staff development, if it's somebody who's
not a classroom teacher, if it's some consultant who comes in, it tends
to be theory heavy, and not enough stuff that is practical." Bob
agreed, “I guess I'm beyond the stage where I want to hear a lot
of idealistic generalities about how to teach. I do have experience
in what I'm teaching to have my own ideas about what I need to do."
These notions are echoed in other research detailing teachers’
responses to traditional professional development experiences that are
removed from their daily practice and not focused on specific ways to
improve learning and teaching (Cwikla, 2002; Cwikla, 2004). The work
of teachers is time intensive, demanding almost continual human interaction
and communication, leaving teachers few opportunities for meaningful
quiet reflection and thoughtful improvement of classroom practice. Teachers
want their time to be well spent and professional activities to result
in new ideas and/or products for their practice.
The TRT provided teachers a peer forum for their professional growth
that is research-based, embedded in their own practice, and carefully
crafted to move one lesson plan at a time into increased technology
use. The teachers of the TRT were not required to participate, were
not compensated financially, but rather chose to take time after school
to come together and talk about how to incorporate technology into their
classrooms. Recently, we were asked by one of the teacher’s assistant
principals, “Is he doing this for a class at the university?”
I answered, “No, he’s part of a team, and they all work
together on this during their own time.” The drive for these teachers
has been participating as part of a team, helping each other learn about
technology, and knowing they would all have a polished classroom product
that they had crafted.
Implications for
Teachers
Teachers who are not satisfied with their technology training and want
to update their classroom curriculum can begin to improve and enhance
their existing practice one lesson at a time by collaborating with other
dedicated colleagues. Using the TRT as a model, teachers can assemble
professional groups for purposes of exploring technology applications.
Teachers can begin with any technology they have available to them,
choose a topic, and follow a similar path and lesson construction. Other
devices can serve as a TRT focus, such as (1) scientific calculators,
(2) graphing calculators, (3) a television and VCR, (4) a Smart Board,
(5) desktop or laptop computers, or (6) Tablet personal computers.
It would also be helpful to identify colleagues with technology experience
to serve as seeds for technology integration. Most importantly, integrating
technology must begin with lessons teachers will use in their classroom
and mathematics topics of importance to their curriculum. Otherwise,
it is likely that technology will be perceived as just another item
on the curriculum list to cover and will not be used as a vehicle for
students to learn about and explore mathematics. As we have found with
this group, when teachers take the opportunity to dialogue about technology
and potential mathematics lessons, their professional growth is embedded
in their daily classroom practice and this proves exceedingly valuable.
About
the Authors
Dr. Julia Cwikla
is a mathematics teacher educator at the University of Southern Mississippi
Gulf Coast in Long Beach, MS. Her research interests are mathematics
teacher education, professional development, and technology integration.
julie_cwikla@yahoo.com
Dr. Timothy
Morse is a teacher educator at the University of Southern Mississippi
Gulf Coast in Long Beach, MS, and is also a Special Educator Coordinator
for the Harrison County School District in south Mississippi. His research
interests are in educational technology.
TMorse@harrison.k12.ms.us
Send correspondence
to:
Department of Mathematics
University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast
244 Lovers Lane
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
References
Becker, H. (1994). Analysis
and trends of school use of new information technologies.
Retrieved February l0, 2004, from http://www.gse.uci.edu/doehome/EdResource/Publications/EdTechUse/C-TBLCNT.HTM
Cwikla, J. (2002). Mathematics
teachers' report of the influence of professional development activities
on their attention to students’ thinking. The Professional
Educator, 24, 75-94.
Cwikla, J. (2004). Less experienced
mathematics teachers report the problems with their professional support
system. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(2),
181-197.
Cwikla, J. (in press). A
vehicle for mathematics lessons: Teachers learning to use PDAs in the
classroom. In W. Masalski (Ed.), NCTM 2005 Yearbook.
Jacobsen, M., Clifford, P.,
and Friessen, S. (2002). Preparing teachers for technology integration:
Creating a culture of inquiry in the context of use. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(3). Referenced January
31, 2003, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss3/currentpractice/article2.cfm
Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson
study: A handbook for teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia:
Research for Better Schools.
Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., and
Marx, R. (2001). Log on education: Handheld devices are ready-at-hand.
[Electronic version.] Communications of the ACM, 44, 15-20.
Stigler, J. & Hiebert,
J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers
for improving education in the classroom. NY: The Free Press.
Swan, K. O., Swan, G.M.,
Van Hover, S.D., and Bell, R. L. (2002). A novice’s guide to handheld
computing. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29, 22-27.
Waits, B. & Demana, F.
(2000). Calculators in mathematics teaching and learning: Past, present,
and future. In Maurice Burke and Frances Curcio (Eds.), NCTM 2000
Yearbook (pp. 51-66). Reston, Va.: NCTM.
