In the early 1970s, there was a growing concern over the effectiveness of inservice education. This concern resulted in a plethora of research to determine the attitudes of educators about these programs (Ainsworth, 1976; Brim & Tollett, 1974; Zigarmi, Betz, & Jensen, 1977). The findings indicated an overall dissatisfaction with current inservice efforts but a strong agreement that inservice education was paramount if school programs and practices were to be improved (Wood & Kleine, 1987). During the late 1970s and early 1980s, many major studies were conducted to determine the characteristics of effective inservice programs, focusing not on attitudes but on actual practice. While no one pretends to have discovered all of the elements that make inservice programs completely successful, there is substantial literature available on effective inservice practices. Sparks (1983) described five types of training activities that characterize effective staff development approaches when measured by change in teacher behaviors. These components are described below:
Wade's (1984-1985) meta-analysis of 91 inservice studies revealed the following effective inservice practices:
Gall and Renchler's (1985) study exemplifies an attempt to describe a research-based model of effective staff development. The study reviewed the literature to identify effective staff development practices. Gall and Renchler considered practices to be effective if:
Based on the literature review, six dimensions for classifying effective inservice programs were identified: (a) teacher objectives, (b) student objectives, (c) delivery system, (d) organizational context, (e) governance, and (f) selection and evaluation. A total of 27 effective inservice practices were associated with the six dimensions. A major study conducted by the Rand Corporation (Berman & McLauglin, 1974) examined 293 federally funded school improvement programs to identify factors that impacted their success or failure. The sample consisted of 852 administrators and 689 teachers. The research design involved field studies examining projects in action as well as follow-up investigations two years after the original research was conducted. The study concluded effective inservice programs have some identifying characteristics. Programs were considered effective if they had concrete application to the classroom and provided long-term assistance to participants. Assistance included local resource personnel that individuals could contact for advice. Effective programs met the local needs and concerns of the participants. The study showed that principals were actively involved in inservice programs designated as effective. A meta-analysis of nearly 200 research studies, plus an extensive review of the literature on inservice education conducted by Showers et al. (1987), revealed the following:
Korinek, Schmid, and McAdams (1985) examined the literature to identify the most commonly stated guidelines for producing effective inservice programs. The review led to reports in the literature that met four criteria: (a) involved work that was conducted in the United States, (b) published after 1957, (c) included specific recommendations and/or conclusions about inservice for practicing teachers, and (d) published in a refereed journal if a comparison or test of procedures was described. From over 100 reports, only 17 studies met the criteria. "Best practice" statements were derived from tallying the number of times a specific practice was mentioned in the reports. If a specific practice was mentioned six or more times, it was considered a best practice. The best practices were associated with the three most common models of inservice programs: information transmission, skill acquisition, and behavior change. The following 14 best practices emerged:
According to Locke (1985), inservice programs are most effective when teachers are heavily involved in the planning process. Wood, McQuarrie, and Thompson's (1982) research-based model advocates involving participants in planning training programs. Participants serve on planning teams which assess needs, explore various research-based approaches, select content, determine goals and objectives, schedule training sessions, and monitor implementation of the program. Inservice programs are likely to be successful to the degree that the instructors are effective communicators, are or have been teachers themselves, and are able to model the skills they are teaching others (Vacca, 1983). In reviewing the research, Wood and Kleine (1987) found that teachers prefer their peers as trainers. Wu's (1987) review of the research found that when peers are trainers, teachers feel more comfortable exchanging ideas, play a more active role in workshops, and report they receive more practical suggestions. However, there is evidence that expert trainers who have the critical qualities teachers value in their peers can also be highly effective (Crandall, 1983). The design and delivery of staff development activities should be based on individual differences such as preferred learning modes, learning pace, experience, and background, as well as adapted to teachers' changing needs and concerns (Knox, 1987). A statewide survey of computer inservice programs in Texas supported the belief that teachers have different needs depending upon the subject and grade level they teach (Anderson & Smith, 1984). Also, the activities involved in inservice programs are most effective when spaced one or more weeks apart so that content can be "chunked" for improved comprehension and teachers have the opportunity to reflect upon and gradually integrate new skills into classroom practice (Jones, 1989; Sparks, 1983; U.S. Congress, 1988). Characteristics of Effective Technology Inservice: Technology staff development was defined by Bailey and Lumley (1994) as
Effective staff development has been identified by numerous researchers as a necessary prerequisite to the successful integration of educational technology into the schools (U.S. Congress, 1988, 1995; Wood & Smellie, 1990). A wide variety of in-service activities have been initiated by school districts, regional educational centers, private consultants, and commercial vendors. However, little is known about the effectiveness of these programs. Therefore, teachers and administrators have little empirical data with which to judge the merits of a particular inservice approach. Similarly, educators responsible for providing technology-based inservice programs have little to guide them in developing new programs or improving existing ones. As Stecher and Solorzano (1987) concluded,
There is an abundance of technical competencies for teachers and suggested training agendas in the literature; however, most are based on opinion, not empirical research. As a result, the literature on effective technology inservice programs and their practices is sparse. The research of Stecher and Solorzano (1987) represents one of the largest efforts to determine the characteristics of effective computer inservice. Over 30 individuals from all over the U.S. were asked to suggest school districts or agencies that were doing an outstanding job of training teachers to use computers. From these suggestions, a list of approximately 50 organizations were compiled representing over 30 school districts, 12 institutes of higher learning, and 6 regional educational centers. A decision was made to focus on district-based programs and eight school districts were selected to participate. Data collection methods included interviews and direct observations. The study resulted in the identification of the following practices related to effective inservice programs:
According to Kinnaman (1990), school administrators responsible for planning and developing computing inservice programs should consider the following. First, activities should be designed that will engage teachers in reflection about the benefits and limitations of teaching with technology. Second, inservice experiences should be provided that are ongoing and systematic. These sessions should allow teachers to develop their skill and comfort level with computers over time. Third, large group workshops should be supplemented with peer coaching and modeling sessions, allowing teachers to benefit directly from their colleagues' expertise. Fourth, inservice activities should be structured within the curriculum for which teachers are responsible, not isolated as a separate discipline. Fifth, inservices should provide a great deal of hands-on, exploratory experiences with technology--giving time for teachers to reflect and share their ideas concerning how to use technology in the classroom. The importance of teachers' reflection on their experiences is underscored by the findings from Persky's (1990) study of teachers learning to use technology in which she concluded:
The content of technology inservice programs has varied through the history of computing. In the late 1970s and the early 1980s the focus was primarily on programming. As more educational software became available, inservice workshops focused on teaching classroom applications and computer tools. According to Stasz and Shavelson (1985), school districts have attempted to meet the training needs of teachers by designing short technology workshops that cover the following topics:
Stasz and Shavelson reported that the integration of computers with instruction was the least well-addressed area in their study of 60 microcomputer-using teachers. The researchers also reported that computer workshops are limited because they focus primarily on skill building and provide little follow-up. Teachers need continuing support and training as they begin using computers in their everyday classroom activities (Carrier & Glenn, 1991). Diem (1981) stressed the importance of follow-up activities after the conclusion of a computer workshop. Uhlig (1983) reinforced this point by defining computer literacy as a continuous process, not an event. While developing skill in the mechanical operation of hardware and software is important, it is no longer sufficient. Information-age learning environments require teachers to apply their knowledge of teaching in a technology enhanced classroom that supports a variety of teaching/learning strategies. Recognizing this shift in emphasis, Stakenas, Tishkin, and Resnick (1992) suggested five areas of computer competence for K-12 classroom teachers:
Willis (1993) reiterated this shift by suggesting that the brief shelf life of the skills taught in typical technology workshops indicates the need to place hardware and software details in the background and bring curriculum integration and instructional strategies to the forefront. According to Rodgers et al. (1985), the best utilization of the computer is integrating it into various areas in the curriculum. A national study conducted by Electronic Learning (Siegel, 1995) indicated that while 60% of respondents agreed with the importance of inservice programs focusing on integrating technology into the curriculum, 66% reported offering workshops on specific software titles or hardware, rather than on how to use technology in the classroom. Only 21% of the class offerings focused on curriculum integration. The study also revealed limitations in these workshops including being too short in duration and lacking follow-up.
|
