Introduction

Walking the halls of this elementary school in 2005 to get a representative
sample, a snapshot of technology integration, how would a typical morning
appear? Downstairs to our right are the first grade rooms, speech therapy,
special education and functional life skills classes. Taking a peek into the first
grade rooms, students have just finished calendar time and have moved to group
activities. Some are cutting and pasting, one group is doing guided reading with
the teacher, and two students are using Reader Rabbit software on computers.
Speech teachers are working individually with students at tables, and functional
life skills students are in groups working with several teacher assistants, one of
whom helps with Starfall (a free, Internet-based program) for phonics practice on
two computers. To the far left, on this hall are a computer lab, kindergarten, and
second grade rooms. Kindergarteners are sitting together on the floor for readaloud
time with their teachers. A look in the computer lab shows that it is empty
at this time, a few pages printing from the laser printer networked to teachers’
desk PCs. Second grade students are writing at their desks. Some students are
writing by hand in spiral writing journals, some are conferencing with the teacher,
and others have laptop computers at their desks where they work between the
laptop and a handwritten copy.

Upstairs, the view is much the same. Most third grade classes are reading
whole-class novels practicing reading strategies with sticky-note questions as
they read together. SAIL teachers who assist with at-risk students are at their
desks reading email. The upstairs computer lab computers, printers, and
scanner are idle. Fourth grade classes are into their rotations, some doing whole
class math and some working on handwritten writing drafts. Most of the fifth
grade students are at their desks with laptops creating food chain
representations with Inspiration software. The teachers are demonstrating
techniques for modeling from a laptop/digital projector cart. Special education
students work individually with teachers on activities related to their individual
educational programs (IEPs).

Specials teachers are doing whole group activities in art, PE, and music. The
library is busy with students checking out books using the barcode scanner. A
handful of students look for resources from the school/district database at kiosks.
At this time, however, none of the digital cameras, video cameras, Turning Points
response devices, or Mimio interactive whiteboard devices have been checked
out for classroom use from the library’s resources.

Technology is available. Tech-knowledge is not present in many classrooms. In
a school armed with strong, up-to-date hardware and software, what should
happen to assist in integrating available technologies seamlessly into student
learning experiences? To find answers to this question, it may help to look at research
to find first, reasons why technology initiatives often fail in public schools; second, evidence
for promoting technology use in schools; third, ways to empower teachers in technology use;
fourth, reasons and methods for designing a community of practice for teachers using
technology to sustain this use; and finally, viewing implications and conclusions reached for school
technology integration.

For the purpose of this paper, technology will be defined as computers including
desktop and laptop computers, peripheral hardware including printers and
scanners, video cameras, digital still cameras, interactive whiteboard devices,
interactive input devices, software, online resources, databases, and network
resources.

Reasons Why Technology Initiatives Often Fall Short in Schools

From the time that computers came to popular public use, their acquisition in
some public schools has come in a top-down fashion (Cuban, 2001). Such is the
experience within the Round Rock Independent School District where from the
beginning of mass technology acquisition, personnel in the instructional
technology department and budget office determined what computer purchases
would be made for schools through the bid process, and campus administrators
would determine placement of hardware and software (Mary Jo Humphreys,
Lead Instructional Technology Specialist, personal communication, 2006).
According to some researchers, administrators deal with budgets, make
purchasing contracts for districts, and oversee the purchasing power of individual
schools. There is little direct classroom teacher input into such decisions,
creating conflict between the actual needs of the stakeholders and the perceived
needs as communicated to administrators by vendors who have a unique
financial gain in promoting technology acquisition (Cuban, 2001 and McGrail,
2006).

There is a growing sense that while the physical availability of technology in
schools is critical, these same administrators who make purchases do not
recognize that the presence of the technology in schools is not enough to
promote its use, because what is most critical is the vision of the stakeholders for
technology use (McGrail, 2006). What then, contributes to teachers’ uncertainty
in integrating technology? “Four larger clusters of conflict contributed to this
ambivalence: 1) conflicts surrounding institutional control in implementing the
laptop program and teacher agency; 2) conflicts surrounding standardized
testing’s uncertain relationship with technology mandates; 3) conflicts
surrounding technology uses in the general curriculum and technology allocation
in specific class types; and 4) conflicts surrounding professional identity and the
challenges that both student and teacher technology use brought to this identity”
(McGrail, 2006).

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 presents a distinctive problem for teachers
integrating technology due to mandated standardized testing in public schools.
“The assumption underpinning the establishment of standards and test based
accountability systems is that they a) motivate teachers and schools to improve
student learning; and b) encourage teachers to focus on specific types of
learning. Some observers have raised concerns that the locus on specific types
of learning too often translates into ‘teaching to the test’” (Russell & Abrams,
2004). Teachers, in fact, report that they feel uncertain about integrating
technology into a curriculum already packed in preparation for tests (McGrail,
2006). They perceive technology integration as being a secondary concern in a
system with so much emphasis on the standardized testing (McGrail, 2006). It is
evident, in addition, that pressure from this testing has had more adverse effects
on use of technology in schools. Writing tests in particular offer a problem for
technology integration due to the fact that standardized writing tests are paperbased
and not reflective of the abilities of students used to composition on
computers, making teachers reluctant to practice digital composition in the
classroom (Russell & Abrams, 2004).

Other inhibiting factors to technology use in schools are commonly noted in
educational research. Teachers are often reluctant to use technology finding it
unreliable and counterproductive in some instances reporting that the technology
was inefficient, failed, or didn’t function as planned (McGrail, 2004; Cuban,
2001). Traditional competencies for teachers in the past have not included
computer skills, leaving teachers ill-prepared for implementing computer use
(McGrail, 2004) and lack of time for learning competencies and time for
developing comfort levels for successful integration is seldom available (Chiero,
Sherry, Bohlin, et al, 2003).

Evidence for Promoting Technology Use in Schools

Even with the reluctance of some teachers to incorporate technology into the
learning experiences of their classrooms, a growing body of evidence exists for
promoting the use of technology in schools. These benefits reach all students
including those with disabilities, those from urban and low-performing settings, as
well as general and gifted education classrooms. Added benefits have been
found as well for teachers themselves.

There are many new digital literacies present in the workplace and outside of the
school environment today which have not yet been fully embraced by schools.
Unless students are prepared in the new literacies related to technology, a new
form of illiteracy—digital illiteracy--will be born for the coming generation.
Children have a right to be equipped in these literacies including the use of
computers and the web (Rubenstein, 2006). Computers, in fact, offer access to
reading texts in a variety of formats such as multimedia, video, and audio not
previously available the print-only world, giving opportunities to reach struggling readers
in a variety of delivery methods (Rubenstein, 2006). In addition, it is
essential that these technologies and related skills are provided for students in
urban and low-performing settings. Because these students are more likely to
lack opportunities at home, it is increasingly important that they are provided in
school (Russell & Abrams, 2004). Additionally, children with disabilities are now
able to use assistive technologies which enrich their academic experiences,
allowing them to do what was unimaginable in previous years. Using their own
computers, these students can complete Internet research, take notes, and write
their own papers without the assistance of a full-time aide (Curtis, 2005).

Technology also provides practical aspects in today’s classroom. Students are
noted to have increased time-on-task and attention spans because of their active
involvement in what they do. This involvement, in turn, translates into fewer
discipline management problems for teachers and administrators (Harpine,
2004). Technology itself can provide opportunities for teachers to organize
information and complete daily tasks in a more efficient and timely manner. In
addition it can “provide an answer to the chronic and debilitating effects of
teacher isolation and time constraints” by providing opportunities to communicate
and find new resources in a digital environment (Serim, 1999).

It is noted that while increased academic skill mastery is a primary goal for
schools, another is to prepare students to become dynamic citizens of the future.
This will require the educational system to encourage life-long learners who can
work cooperatively to solve real-world problems and think creatively (Harpine,
2004). Indeed, it promotes many of the skills found among those thought to
better prepare students for the future including “the ability to think quickly, adapt
to changing conditions, build alliances to address large scale challenges, and
work comfortably in a global information environment” (Riel & Fulton, 2001).
Technology-infused curriculum supplements the packed elementary curriculum
rather than adding to it, offering activities which involve students in
communicating, problem-solving, as well as increasing, implementing, and
mastering academic skills in an engaging context which leads to greater retention
(Harpine, 2004).

Empowering Teachers to Use Technology

“According to results from the 2005 National Speak Up Survey, 74 percent [of
teachers] agree that technology has made their job easier, and 47 percent
believe that technology has had the greatest impact in teaching and instructional
support. In regards to student performance, teachers report that students are
more active learners with richer multimedia learning experiences because of
technology use in the classroom” (Rivero, 2006). Given then that technology,
when integrated effectively, creates positive effects in schools, how can teachers
be empowered to use it with the maximum outcome? We know that teachers must feel
confident and capable to model its use in their classrooms to fully facilitate positive student
experiences (Serim, 1999). Research tells us that prospective teachers should receive
training through immersion in authentic situations which have a base in curriculum and
technology grounded in situated learning (Dawson, 2006). It is essential,
however, that these prospective teachers are given opportunities to reflect upon
their experiences because their learning comes more from the reflection than
from the experience itself (Dawson, 2006).

Professional development for all teachers, both novice and veteran, is mirrored in
the same experiential form of training that is recommended for prospective
teachers, with an emphasis on authentic practice and reflective activity. Their
development may be enhanced through awareness of levels of technology
integration outlined in the LoTi [Level of Technology Implementation framework]
continuum (Dawson, 2006) or in other similar research-based continuums
evidencing levels of incorporation in best practice models. This offers to
educators the opportunity to assess where they are on the continuum, reflect,
and set goals for appropriate applications in their classes.

Given the time and agency to plan and implement technology initiatives and to
revise their curriculum as they feel is appropriate, teachers are more likely to
embrace the technology itself and the professional development needed to put
technology into service in their classrooms (McGrail, 2006). This emancipation
will offer to teachers the feeling that they are empowered to choose whether or
not to use technology and to what extent based on their own skills and goals.
Given this freedom, “a one-size-fits-all approach to computer instruction for
teachers will not succeed. Teachers will continue to require customized
approaches to computer instruction in their professional development” (McGrail,
2006).

Designing a Community of Practice for Elementary Teachers Using Technology

Knowing that teachers’ professional development will be most effective grounded
in authentic experiences in a situated learning environment, experience
demonstrates that a community of practice may present the most authentic
experience available without the one-size-fits-all, “sit and get” approach typical of
many forms of professional development (Rivero, 2006). Schools and larger
educational institutions have many such communities, both formal and informal,
but how might one be created for this specific purpose if not already present?
Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder tell us that the design of such communities is
more a matter of shepherding or facilitating them rather than creating
communities from the ground up (2002). The idea is to build upon networks or
personal connections which already exist in the institution and to assist in their
development (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). These researchers offer
seven principals for ushering this growth:
1. Design for evolution. Due to fluid boundaries and changing memberships,
the community itself will change, building capacity within, and must be
cognizant and prepared for this process of transformation.
2. Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives. Information
from the outside offers opportunities for members of the community to see
what they could accomplish upon its inward flow.
3. Invite different levels of participation. Not everyone within the community
is ready to participate in the same manner, therefore membership can
offer comfort where they are, then build a center of interest that draws
them in as their interests are piqued.
4. Develop both public and private community spaces. The web of
relationships within the community grows sometimes in private dialogue
(face-to-face, blogs, or email), and at times in public communication
situations (wikkis, and other physical or virtual community spaces
accessible to all).
5. Focus on value. Communities continue to live and grow because they
offer a recognized value to the larger environment.
6. Combine familiarity and excitement. A comfortable community will have
security and daily interactions as well as innovative events with new
people who enter the community bringing fresh and exciting perspectives.
7. Create a rhythm for the community. A combination of varying sizes and
types of gatherings creates a balance between exposure to many different
ideas and the comfort of familiar associations. Without a balanced
rhythm, members of the community are left feeling overwhelmed.
(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002)

The community model for professional development has a history of successes.
They include groups marked by share sessions in which teachers share
strategies and thoughts about technology integration (Chiero, Sherry, Bohlin, et
al, 2003). Within these same groups is a variety of expertise, but the emphasis is
on sharing, support, and construction of new knowledge (Chiero, Sherry, Bohlin,
et al, 2003). This is the sole purpose of these communities because “the only
‘work’ that the community does is to create knowledge. Once created, that
knowledge is captured, stored, and made readily available to other members in
dynamic exchange supported by a knowledge architecture” (Wallace, 2006).
Here members of the community can work together to build from strengths of
those with particular expertise, thus giving others the power to bring forward the
abilities of others who lack such expertise (Riel & Fulton, 2001). In this way the
community works together to create common understandings.

Deb Wallace notes that the communities of practice model, originated as in
business design, is expanding into the arena of learning communities and professional
development with the focus remaining on sharing knowledge (2006).
She offers thinking points for those considering nurturing a learning community of
practice including an organization which has first, members prepared for
collaboration and sharing; second, a supportive culture; third availability of
technology for communication, seeking, and sharing knowledge; and fourth,
aligned organizational vision and mission. The last, point for consideration is
realistic expectation for outcomes—work in, value out (Wallace, 2006).

Research Questions

This action research project considers both my own experience and reflective
activities relating to the underdeveloped uses of available instructional
technologies at my primary elementary campus. The research will be guided by
the following questions:
1) In what ways will inviting teachers to assist in organizing technology
resources available on campus increase their use?
2) In what ways will recognizing and rewarding expertise in the community of
teachers increase their use of technologies?
3) In what ways will providing/offering opportunities for continued learning
develop teachers’ technology integration?
4) In what ways will the development of community sharing/reflective
opportunities increase development of technology integration?

Work Cited

Chiero, Robin, Sherry, Lorraine, Bohlin, Roy, & Harris, Susan. (2003). Increasing
comfort, confidence, and competence in technology infusion with learning
communities. Tech Trends, 47(2), 34-38.

Curtis, Diane. (2005, February) Assistive technologies: Enabling dreams.

Edutopia. Retrieved November 25, 2006 from Edutopia Online database.

Dawson, Kara. (2006). Teacher enquiry: A vehicle to merge prospective
teachers’ experience and reflection during curriculum-based, technologyenganced
field experiences. Journal of Research in Technology Education, 38 (3), 265-292.

Harpine, Linda, Hickey, Marcia, & Whiting, Virginia. (2003-2004, December-
January). An elementary school technology education curriculum resource
guide. The Technology Teacher, 63 (4), 28-29.

McGrail, Ewa. (2006, June). “It’s a double-edged sword, this technology
business”: secondary English teachers’ perspectives on a schoolwide
laptop technology initiative. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1055-1079.

Riel, Margaret, & Fulton, Kathleen. (2001) Technology’s Role in Supporting
Learning Communities for the New Millennium. Kappan, 82(7), 518-523.

Rivero, Victor. (2006, September). Teaching your staff: Professional
development programs are critical, but the method of training is what truly
matters. American School Board Journal, 54-55.

Rubenstein, Grace. (2006, February) Tech Teaches. Edutopia. Retrieved
November 25, 2006, 2006 from Edutopia Online database.

Russell, Michael, & Abram, Lisa. (2004, June). Instructional uses of computers
for writing: The effect of state testing programs. Teachers College
Record, 106(6).

Serim, Ferdi. (1999, May). Uncommon sense: Educators reinventing the
profession from the inside out. Edutopia. Retrieved October 25, 2006
from Edutopia Online database.

Wallace, Deb. (2006, February). The learning engine: Building capabilities
through communities of practice. Information Outlook, 10(21), 27-30.

Wenger, Etienne, McDermott, Richard, & Snyder, William M. (2002, March).
Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge -
Seven principles for cultivating communities of practice. Harvard
Business School Working Knowledge, 1-9.

Debby Jones
Instructional Technology Specialist

Caldwell Hts. Elem.
512-428-7344
Bluebonnet Elem.
512-428-7731
Round Rock, TX

Home
851 County Road 116
Georgetown, TX 78626
512-863-8304
cell: 512-461-3621

email:
jones_debora@msn.com
debby_jones@roundrockisd.org