Blog Entry/ Reflection on ITF observation

When I arrived at my school, IMPACT model was in place and a grant had been received. The grant purchased a great deal of new equipment never before seen by our teachers. Promethean boards, document cameras, mounted projectors and laptop computers were everywhere. Installations were in process and my position was funded. All schools now have Instructional Technology Facilitators, Media Coordinators and Media Assistants. Flexible access to staff, labs and a plethoria of equipment exists. Research says that the greatest barrier to integration of information technology is access to resources. Access was guaranteed. Or was it? Integration will follow Or will it? ( Jacobson) This quest has been life long for me. If they have it, will they learn it. If they learn it what will they use it for? What can I do to make it work?

For me to begin to reflect on the process and current situation, I want to go back to my arrival at the school and my prior history. The goal is to see where match and mismatch exists and then look at solutions. The other goal is to share since this is part of my ongoing blog.

IMPACT model development began in the 90’s. I was one of the Appalachain State graduate assistants sent to nearby counties to do some of the first trainings in using technology in the classroom. Newly arrived from the classroom, my enthusiasm overflowed. I had a volunteer assistantship since I was admitted late to the program. I knew the value of the assistantship and simply invited myself to join the TEAM. Later my graduate advisors told me they doubted my ability to do training with adults because I seemed timid with them. But when I worked with the teachers, I came alive. I wasn’t aware of this timidity, of course. As with most people, I’m ‘self’ blind at times. I just knew I loved what technology could do with students who might otherwise fall through the cracks. I love kids so I naturally adopted anything, which helps students. My approach, which developed over the intervening years, became very constructivist in nature –even when working with adults. I know in my heart and in my experience that ‘workshop’ models only work to provide very simple introductory information and that for teachers to use technology in the classroom, this introduction has to be followed by teacher support and empowerment.

What does that empowerment look like? It looks like key teachers supported to provide peer support. It looks like key teachers learning to do training with their peers in longer sessions. It looks like working together with their grade level (horizontal teaming) to develop the best learning environment for kids using tools. Then sharing what works across grades (vertical teaming). The tools a teacher could use are collaboration, technology, information skills, and solid reflection on self and on teammates work. It is putting the needs of kids before everything else, including self.

So where does that leave me as the instructional technology facilitator? The ITF provides umbrella support as part of the instructional team. It means guiding, supporting, talking, and identifying needs of individuals and teams. It means putting self last and focusing on the teachers and kids, which need support. Sometimes that ability to put self-last gets in my way because it saps confidence. Sometimes the ITF gets rained upon. More on that as time goes by.

Fast forward though the years working in public schools and colleges. These ideas, taught me in graduate school, and then experienced had become ingrained in my practice and me. That meant when I arrived at the IMPACT school with tons of new equipment, I knew I needed to focus on getting teachers up to basic skill levels, especially key leaders. Never mind that during the time the current technology was developing, I was in administration at the college level and had never seen this equipment in action. I knew how to project manage the equipment side of the equation. I knew how to learn so I began learning with the teachers. The next year we still had to continue to learn equipment and software and begin mainstream training. Training ran into a roadblock because of the district did not have a system in place to ensure that teachers were not overloaded by professional development. Very limited time and too many initiatives led to less formal training for IMPACT. We added to the ITF workload an immense level of paper work with a continuation of the grant. Through the grant, the district added equipment exponentially but could not fund technical support (other than grant funded temporary support) - adding to everyone's workload. This left the ITF with limited time to train and with teachers having too little time to learn.

During this time, leaders emerged and began to take ownership of certain technologies. A pair of second grade teachers became the Promethean board experts, a fourth grade teacher became the student response system expert and a pair 5th grade teachers got so excited about 21st century skills around blogs, wikis that these permeate their lessons and life. Interestingly enough, access to the tools was all it took for the teacher leaders to find a niche and grow. The teachers follow the adoption of innovation to a tee, with this group being the innovators. Despite my experience and study in this field, it was a surprise to see it so intimately. Another surprise was how some of the teachers I would have expected to be early adopters not only were not but they were almost rigidly so. They love technology in their lives; they are strong teachers in some or many ways but cannot marry the two, so far. They rejected attempts to move them forward. Of course, with my focus on the people and their needs, I took the rejection very personally.

Where are we now? Now, beginning year three of my tenure in the school, I see growth in team building everywhere. Affecting me greatly at my school is an increase in teaming with the MC and Tech contact as well as teachers. Globally, I see a change on the implementation of IMPACT at all our schools but especially in one of them. The move is less toward large single projects to more targeted integrated skills. I am observing that ITF to learn more about what this looks like. The experience of observing quarterly planning was eye opening. They took from 11:30 to 3:00 (but were still talking when I had to leave at 3) I saw true collaboration, which included the MC, ITF, and district literacy coach in the process. The team chose a specific literacy strategy they were working on. In this case how to keep high flying readers engaged and interactive with the teacher when the teacher has to spend 4/5 of the reading each week with the lower performers.

I hope to implement differently this year. I think we should move toward the method the other school is using.

Possible issues in doing so include:

• No 1st quarter planning
• Only 2 hours with each team
• Focus on over all curriculum not IMPACT specific – which was developmentally necessary in our school where there is no cohesive approach to instructional design
• Not teacher driven – leadership driven
• Teachers only make last minute request for support despite repeated request for planning prior to working on projects.
• Only scattered collaboration: some teams have it down and they are the same teams moving quickly forward in information technology in true collaborative manner

Possible solutions include:

• ½ day quarterly planning every quarter including first.
• Focus on IMPACT model as is now presenting
• Teacher driven – ITF/MC facilitated
• Less focus on overall curriculum and more on specific instructional skills
• Continue to work in a targeted manner working on two strands: collaboration and Information/Technology/Instructional skills. Collaboration and understanding of the process is foundational to integration and skills development but neither should exist in isolation
• Continue curriculum mapping process but pull it out into team meetings and administrative meetings.

As I wrote the above, I had not attended a team meeting this year. I just returned from one and a light bulb went off! The team I was working with today has had issues with collaboration and team cohesiveness. Today was the payoff for the last two years. They were working on their smart goals. They were cohesive. They were collaborative. They functioned like a true PLC, valuing the contributions of everyone and moving forward with their goals and use of data. This makes me rethink some of the solutions I suggested. It was so cool to see it work!! Next steps:

• Debrief with the other ITF
• Discuss with Principals what I observed
• Include MTAC in the conversation.
• Identify what matches with the overall school vision and IMPACT model and adjust.
  
• Continue the converatrion and observation with my fellow ITF. we're well matched to provide mutual support and growth
  
• Continue taking time to blog becasue it helps me think through what I'm seeing and thinking. writing for me IS learning.