|
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT
2000 Implementation Grant
Annual Education Degrees Awarded: 1147
PT3 abstract - PT3 website
Project Contact:
(801) 378-5617
When Brigham Young University's school of education set out to infuse technology throughout its course offerings, it had two critical advantages: a supportive dean and a solid technology infrastructure already in place. These two factors - leadership and infrastructure - can make or break an institution's efforts to integrate technology. Having them already in place, PT3 project director Nancy Wentworth and her staff were able to focus their efforts exclusively on a program tailored to faculty needs, aligned with NCATE and ISTE NETS standards, and built on proven strategies for change.
BYU chose a "design team" approach to upgrading its courses. But rather than dictate the composition of the teams, BYU let the faculty form their own teams among naturally occurring alliances. This helped avoid a common pitfall of forcing a change structure onto a culture that is famously independent. It also ensured that existing alliances and teamwork would motivate stragglers within the teams.
Given the opportunity to participate in the project, teams formed around faculty who were teaching the same course and around methods faculty who were teaching the same subject, like secondary history. To encourage even broader participation, project staff "nudged" faculty who taught some of the program's core courses. The teams were composed of education faculty, methods teachers, cooperating teachers, and instructional design and technology specialists. The number of design teams has grown with each year of the grant.
Just as the grant team didn't dictate the membership of the design teams, it did not specify the changes that faculty would make in their own courses. They opted against requiring that all instructors of the core introductory sections teach from the same syllabus, for example. Wentworth and her team feared that such dictates would cause resentment and resistance among their colleagues.
Instead, BYU created a contract for faculty participants. For the school's part, the basic contract stipulated that BYU project staff would ensure that the design team had the resources and support needed to integrate technology into their courses. Correspondingly, team members were required to participate in workshops and training, and to produce meaningful changes to their courses as a direct result of that training. As a major incentive made possible by the grant, nominal compensation was provided to design team members who fulfilled the requirements of the contract - that is, if they created specific "deliverables" that translated into long-term, technology integration changes to their courses.
Acceptable deliverables included curricular tasks and activities, instructional materials, and instructional-related projects such as electronic portfolios. A research element was another component of the contract: Wentworth and her staff encouraged participating faculty to make presentations at national meetings.
Currently 14 design teams are participating in PT3 grant-related activities. The teams comprise a total of 35 school of education faculty members, seven arts and sciences faculty, and 16 public school district specialists and teachers. One example of a design team product is a unit on using technology to identify and measure trees.
Learning to Crawl Before Learning to Walk
The faculty design team contracts were revised annually during the three-year term of the grant, and the uses of technology grew increasingly sophisticated each year, too. In year one, design teams were asked to use technology to change the way they teach, even if the onus of change was on the faculty member and not on the student. In year two, team members were required to involve their students in technology integration projects. In the upcoming year three, the focus will be on requiring changes in the public schools at which the preservice teachers do their internships.
Monthly meetings allowed design teams to share resources, successes and frustrations, and to plan collaborative efforts. When teams expressed doubt that their work would transfer to the classroom, veteran preK-12 teachers were brought in to the monthly meeting to speak firsthand. They left no doubt that the work was indeed relevant - and that faculty were far behind where they needed to be. Now, in the third year, each project team will take a turn during the meetings to showcase and discuss their project.
In an effort to enhance faculty development even more, participating faculty were encouraged to "take" the required undergraduate technology course. What better way to evaluate the quality of integration training than to experience the same training that their students experience_ While at least 10 participating faculty began the course, real-world time constraints precluded many of them from finishing.
Ensuring That Faculty Development is Relevant
All of the grant's workshops were designed as problem-based authentic learning experiences. The emphasis was on the pedagogy, not the technology. Rather than a workshop on learning how to use spreadsheets, for example, a session might focus on developing a spreadsheet solution to an existing element of the faculty members' course. The grant team provided sample solutions, and faculty members left the workshop having created learning objects that are instantly applicable to their own courses.
Wentworth is a true believer in the importance of focusing on the learning rather than the technology. "I have never believed that faculty need to learn technology skills in and of themselves," she says. "We need to show them WHAT can be achieved by integrating technology and THEN give them the skills they need to do it."
Wentworth has tried hard to reduce the intimidation that many faculty feel when faced with the task of "integrating technology" into their courses. "We told them, bring in a lesson that you've already asked your students to do. They don't have to start from scratch. We look at that lesson together and see how it can be modified to include a technology component. It's not a 'new huge thing;' it's an enhancement to something they're already comfortable with."
The fact that Wentworth has been a member of BYU's education faculty for ten years helped with the project's acceptance, she believes. She has heard of other projects where outsiders hired to manage the grant were met with resistance.
Timing and Leadership are Crucial Aids to Success
The timing of BYU's grant coincided with a major remodeling of the education building, so BYU faced none of the infrastructure issues that often challenge other schools. The building now features a technology learning center, classrooms with projection and video units, and more. As the project has progressed, Wentworth has seen a real change in equipment demand. "One way I can tell we're making progress is that projectors that used to always be available now need to be reserved two weeks in advance."
BYU's Dean of Education, Robert S. Patterson, has been a strong, supportive force behind the project. Without his encouragement of the project, Wentworth doesn't believe the project would have been as accepted or as successful.
Results
From the start, the BYU grant was designed to meet NCATE-oriented objectives. The grant tied its own objectives directly to key NCATE technology objectives, including those listed below. The grant has collected benchmark and progress data on faculty attitudes towards technology integration and faculty usage. The data shows steady improvements in most areas.
As the grant has progressed the project staff has made adjustments as necessary. Data collection and analysis have been the driving forces behind much of these adjustments.
Will progress continue once the grant funding is gone_ Wentworth believes it will. "Once the technology has been added to a course, it's there to stay," she says.
Appendix: BYU's Grant Objectives
- NCATE Objective: faculty will be knowledgeable about current practice related to the use of computers and technology
- Indicator: 90 percent of the faculty who work directly with education students (approximately 45 faculty) will participate in the grants workshops, brown bags and summer institutes
- BYU Progress: Substantial
- NCATE Objective: faculty will integrate technology into their teaching
- Indicators: 90 percent will integrate the use of technology in their curriculum integrating at least three software programs into their teaching, communicating with students electronically
- BYU Progress: Partially accomplished; progress expected in year three
- NCATE Objective: faculty will apply tools for enhancing their own professional growth and productivity and communicate collaboratively conducting research and solving problems
- 90 percent will participate in research on the value of technology in learning
- BYU Progress: Partially accomplished; progress expected in year three
- NCATE Objective: courses will require students to develop an understanding of the structure, skills, core concepts, ideas, values, facts, methods of inquiry, and uses of technology for the subject they plan to teach. Courses will support problem solving, data collection, information management, communications, presentations, and decisionmaking.
- BYU Progress: Partially accomplished; progress expected in year three
- NCATE Objective: Courses will require students to create multimedia presentations
- 90 percent of students in the preservice program will develop multimedia presentations
- BYU Progress: Partially accomplished; progress expected in year three
- Objective: Practical experiences will meet the NCATE standards by providing opportunities for students to teach with technology.
- Indicator: One thousand BYU students will implement at least one technology rich lesson plan in their practice experience.
- BYU Progress: Partially accomplished; progress expected in year three
July 2002
|
