|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Research summary
"I need help." We've all said it when we started using a new piece of hardware or software. And, while we joke about not being able to program a home VCR, schools and districts that are integrating computer networks and the dizzying array of software and hardware can't laugh away technical problems. They need help, and the issue of support goes beyond keeping the "wires and boxes" up and running. Lack of support presents many barriers to adopting emerging technologies into education (Rogers, 1999). These may include the scarcity of technical support in the form of user services and staff necessary to maintain components of the technology infrastructure. Something as minor as the lack of toner or ink cartridges for printers can have major impact on teachers who have planned activities dependent upon them. A lack of institutional support can also inhibit technology adoption. Attitudes towards technology and its uses also help determine what technologies and strategies are employed (Rogers, 1999). To be successful, school leaders must also provide pedagogical support to teachers faced with integrating technology into their classrooms. Do not falsely assume that there will be few technology problems just because equipment is new (Fisher & Dove, 1999). Cartwright (1996) notes that early in the adoption of computers in schools, training and support needs were expected to be short-term problems that would go away as computers became widespread. Computers and their peripherals are much more sophisticated than their educational technology predecessors, such as record players and televisions, and teachers should not be expected to solve complicated equipment malfunctions or maintenance problems. Schools and/or districts must provide maintenance either in-house or through outside contracts (Fisher & Dove, 1999). Equipment downtime can result in frustration, leading some teachers to avoid technology use (Consortium for School Networking, 1999). Knowing that they have support can encourage teachers to continue with their integration efforts despite their inability to solve all of their own technology troubles (Wolinsky, 1999). A good start is to incorporate support issues in planning. Anderson (1996) lists the following points to consider:
Support and professional development will be your largest ongoing costs (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997). These two components can reasonably be considered the most critical components in the effective infusion of technology, but they often receive less attention than hardware, software, and networking concerns (Baily & Pownell, 1998). The difficulty of anticipating the need for consumable technology supplies -- such as toner cartridges, paper, storage materials, and software upgrades -- makes it hard to project these costs at the beginning of new technology initiatives. Remember that, as new technologies are adopted, the quantity and variety of these supplies increases (Fisher & Dove, 1999).
Many schools and districts struggle with funding technology support personnel. Finding and retaining support personnel can be difficult. Teachers note that many support personnel are paid salaries much greater than instructional personnel. Some schools report difficulty finding support personnel who have the interpersonal skills to work in a school environment. The increasing demand for technology support personnel means there is also high turnover (Fisher & Dove, 1999). While you must consider these difficulties, once you find technology support personnel, they will be assets (Candiotti & Clarke, 1998).
Given the investment required to provide a significant number of computers for instructional purposes, it's unfortunate that their useful life is only three to five years (Consortium for School Networking, 1999). Total-cost-of-ownership models for businesses are usually calculated on a three-year cycle, but schools may be able to stretch this to five years. Some schools may be expected to etend the life of computers beyond five years, but this may actually negate an attempt at savings, as older machines often require greater maintenance and support costs.
Inadequate long-range planning can seriously compromise future equipment use (AEL, 2000). While a purchasing and replacement cycle of five years is recommended, schools traditionally use one-year funding cycles, not long-range budgets. Because schools or districts may not be able to make long-term budget commitments, many experts recommend that schools purchase computers with the most memory and processing power they can afford (Consortium for School Networking, 1999).
Older equipment may be designated to less intensive work. For example, computers that can still run word-processing software are useful for text-based projects. Older computers can also be used as "dumb" terminals for proprietary software (such as inventory and cataloging software used in libraries and media centers) or can be designated as single use machines for individual software titles (AEL, 2000). Older computers may actually need more support as they become less reliable. You may also be surprised by fees charged to dispose of computers (Consortium for School Networking, 1999).
Anderson (1996) lists considerations that may reduce maintenance costs in the long run. Routine monitoring of equipment and basic preventative maintenance can reduce many major equipment failures. When buying equipment, also consider purchasing common replacement parts at the same time. Maintenance contracts may give a false sense of security. Read contracts and warranties closely and know what is and is not covered. Make sure equipment is accessible in case repairs are necessary, and keep maintenance logs of all equipment. These logs can provide assessment data when further purchasing decisions are required. Outside maintenance services are an option, and some vendors now offer leasing of computers with maintenance support and replacement built into the contract. Include basic maintenance in training sessions -- for both staff and students -- and consider outside volunteers as a resource for low-cost or free service (Anderson, 1996).
Teachers who integrate technology are faced with several new challenges. They must be able to select appropriate software, develop strategies to integrate the technology into their activities, and assess students in new ways (Fulton, 1996; Panel on Educational Technology, 1997). Collaborative work supported by groupware, telecommunications software, and multimedia applications demands both new teaching and new assessment skills. Teachers need sustained pedagogical support in order to successfully integrate them.
Teachers may explore several avenues to find this support -- observing peers who are successful with new technology, consulting with experienced mentor teachers, and establishing a dialogue with other teachers faced with the same challenges. Estimates say that the typical teacher will take between three to six years to fully integrate educational technology into teaching and learning; ongoing changes and advancements in technology may ensure that this process is never fully complete (Panel on Educational Technology, 1997).
One distance education program incorporated pedagogical support by pairing instructional designers with teachers to help them match required course objectives and skills to appropriate software and teaching methods (Shaeffer & Farr, 1993). The instructional designers also monitored the course electronically and responded to teacher concerns as they arose. This coaching of teachers has made significant impact on retention and return rates for both instructors and students. Teachers appreciate this pedagogical support and report changes in their teaching. For many, this is their first opportunity they have had to discuss pedagogy with a colleague.
The most-often recommended support strategy is the designation of full-time support personnel. The number of support personnel varies widely, however, with schools reporting a ratio of support personnel to other staff as high as 1:500. This compares to reports from business of 1:50 (Consortium for School Networking, 1999). The number of support staff will depend on the actual number of workstations, as well as the variety of platforms, operating systems, and different software applications.
Observations from the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP), now called the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP), indicate that staff roles must be defined clearly in order to provide the best match between the support requirements of the school or district and the qualifications of candidates (Department of Commerce, 1996). These programs have indicated that potential support staff should be able to interact and communicate comfortably with both technical and non-technical staff and should be able to explain technical skills in plain English for staff members at the early adoption stages. As has been mentioned, support staff turnover should be expected but the effects from this turnover can be countered by training staff to understand several job functions so the school can continue to function without serious interruption. One school district provides important categories that should be addressed during the interviewing process of potential support personnel. These relate to the candidates' technical expertise, understanding of technology in an instructional environment, professional development, and Internet knowledge and experience (Smith, 1997).
When a designated support person cannot be hired, many districts rely on teachers with technological experience for technical support (Consortium for School Networking, 1999; Panel on Educational Technology, 1997; Smith, 1997). Unfortunately, this solution can create problems if such teachers are not provided sufficient time and supplies to complete both their teaching and support duties. Without training, these individuals may also have limited impact. This solution has been called by some teachers the "unenviable position of providing troubleshooting and stopgap maintenance" (Fisher & Dove, 1999, p. 5.).
Some schools capitalize on the interest and motivation of students or outside volunteers. In one example (Lowe & Vespestad, 1999), student interest at a middle school supported the formation of a computer club despite the limited technological proficiency by sponsoring teachers. Building from initial interest in basic programming, gaming, and troubleshooting, the program has blossomed, and members provide classroom technical support as well as some technology training of teachers during the day and community members in the evening. Generation www.Y (http://www.genyes.org/index.php) was originally a recipient of a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program from the U.S. Department of Education but has flourished to become a model program partnering students with teachers to provide technology support. Begun in Olympia, Washington, Generation www.Y now has partner schools all over the nation.
As with many of the challenges of technology integration, technology itself can offer some solutions to the support dilemma (Fulton, 1996; Panel on Educational Technology, 1997). Computer-mediated communication tools allow teachers to create, share, and evaluate materials online. Teachers can serve as mentors or simply share stories throughout their school, district, or across geographic boundaries. Videotapes and broadcast video options, such as teleconferencing and streaming video, allow teachers to observe successful peers who have faced integration challenges. One such Web-based program classrooms@work/tools@hand, gives teachers a way to hear, see and gain from others' experiences (http://www.netc.org/classrooms@work). Robust online environments can support professional development opportunities to help teachers develop basic maintenance and troubleshooting skills as well as advanced pedagogical strategies -- often with flexible scheduling opportunities and in the convenience of teachers' own homes.
AEL. (2000). Principal connections: A guide to technology leadership. [Computer Software]. Charleston, WV: AEL.
Anderson, L. (1996) Guidebook for developing an effective instructional technology plan, Version 2.0. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University.
Bailey, G. & Pownell, D. (1998). Technology staff-development and support programs: Applying Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Learning & Leading With Technology, 26(3), 47-51,64.
Candiotti, A. & Clarke, N. (1998). Combining universal access with faculty development and academic facilities. Communications of the ACM, 41(1), 36-41.
Cartwright, P. G. (1996). Planning for academic computing: Important trends and issues. Change, 28(4), 57-59. Available: http://static.elibrary.com/c/change/july171996/planningforacademiccomputingimportanttrendsandissu/
Coley, R. J., Cradler, J. & Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. Schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Available: http://preservicetech.edreform.net/resource/2296
Consortium for School Networking. (1999). Taking TCO to the classroom. A school administrator's guide to planning for the total cost of new technology. Washington, DC: Consortium for School Networking. Available: http://classroomtco.cosn.org/news.html#release
Fisher, S. & Dove, M. K. (1999). Muffled voices: Teachers' concerns regarding technological change. In SITE 99: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432 281)
Fulton, K. (1996). Moving from boxes and wires to 21st Century teaching. T.H.E. Journal, 24(4), 76-79.
Lowe, M. J. & Vespestad, K. M. (1999). Using technology as a tool to enhance teaching and learning. NASSP Bulletin, 83(607), 30-37.
Panel on Educational Technology. (1997, March). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k-12ed.html
Rogers, P. L. (1999). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 556)
Shaeffer, J. M. & Farr, C. W. (1993). Evaluation: A key piece in the distance education puzzle. Ways of evaluating the use of distance learning technologies. T.H.E. Journal, 20(9), 79-82.
Smith, R. A. (1997) Find the perfect technology coordinator: Interviewing to the fullest. Learning and Leading with Technology, 24(6), 56-58.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1996). Lessons learned from the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/top/publicationmedia/lessons/lessons.htm
Wolinsky, A. (1999). What works in staff development. MultiMedia Schools, 6(2). Available: http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/MMStocs/mar99toc.htm
[top] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
