Gerard, Libby F., Varma, Keisha, Corliss, Stephanie B., & Linn, Marcia C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408-448.
In any learning situation, prior knowledge is a double-edged sword. Prior knowledge is necessary to learning, but can also get in the way of learning. Learning requires eliciting learners’ prior knowledge and building upon it, and helping learners make connections between old and new knowledge, but also helping them distinguish between the old and the new. If new knowledge is merely added without support, it may simply be adapted to fit in with old knowledge, and as a result, the application of “new” learning may not look much different from the application of the “old” knowledge. The conundrum of prior knowledge as both necessary for and an impediment to learning seems to be especially pronounced when it comes to teachers learning new ways to teach in their areas of specialization. The teachers in the 43 studies synthesized here were, in the words of this review’s authors, “experienced in terms of teaching science and novices in terms of using instructional technology” (p. 419). These teachers, as specialists in science, could be expected to have formed well-established ways of teaching science, ways that had defined them as successful science teachers and which had probably become well-practiced routines that reduced classroom uncertainty as well as reduced the expenditure of time, energy, and mental space required to plan, implement, and assess instruction. When confronted with new ways of teaching, especially ways fraught with as much uncertainty as the incorporation of new technology can bring into instruction, one might well expect teachers who felt they had already mastered their content areas and been successful as content area teachers to resist incorporating new ways of teaching. They might well be expected to try to adapt technology to fit their existing practices, instead of transforming existing practice as a result of the new capabilities that technology provides. The direct instruction model is a powerful piece of the schema of teaching and learning for most of us, because it is a model we all experienced abundantly in our own schooling, and had modeled for us repeatedly by our teachers, both when we were students ourselves and when we looked to our mentors as aspiring and beginning teachers. It is all too easy to simply make new technology support direct instruction, as it can do in so many ways. In the end, though, the result is just a more efficient version of the old way of teaching. Our “state-of-the art” technology becomes no more than glorified typewriters, overhead projectors, and teacher demonstrations. Technology presents ways of completely transforming student learning and taking it to higher levels than direct instruction ever could, but from what the research discussed here tells us, teachers require extensive long-term support that enables them to distinguish between prior knowledge and the potentially transforming new possibilities that technology presents. They need support as they apply new technologies, and that support needs to be evidence-based, helping teachers directly see how incorporating new technologies can increase the level of their students’ learning.
When new technology comes into the classroom, the reality is that there are often technical difficulties of various kinds with it. If school districts are willing to fund technical support (an expensive human resource) along with the purchase of hardware and software, those difficulties can probably be resolved over time. However, it appears from the research cited here that the first year of implementing new technology can be a “deal-breaker” when technological difficulties arise. Such difficulties interfere with a teacher’s ability to believe in his or her efficacy, and basically make the job immediately harder. In such cases, why wouldn’t a teacher want to say “Who needs this?” and fall back on what he or she has felt successful implementing in the past? The authors here strongly state the need for professional development to last longer than one year, so that all the “bugs” can get worked out. People have to be comfortable and confident with the practical use of new technology, the “how-tos”, and get beyond the fears, before they can address the deeper possibilities of the technology. Unfortunately, the intensive, long-term process of professional development and support the authors here recommend is going to be extremely expensive. “Support” means hiring permanent personnel who have high levels of technological skill, high levels of specific pedagogical content knowledge, and the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to teach others about incorporating technology within specific content areas. The individuals who are needed for this work will be expensive and difficult to find, and will themselves have to be supported in ongoing professional development, if they are to stay abreast of the rapid changes in technology, in education, and in the content areas. If students’ science knowledge is ever to reach the high levels we need it to, school districts will need to make long-term financial commitments to make that happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment