Throw

New Technology at Teachers

and Create Dust Collectors

A surgeon enters the operating room
to find the entire table of tools has been
replaced with the latest and the greatest.
One might think this is good, because
newer means better. The problem is that
this surgeon has not received any training
on the new tools. The doctor looks at the
new tools, looks at the patient lying on the
table, back at the tools, then back to the
patient. Finally, he spots the old table of
tools, the tools he used yesterday and still
worked great. Knowing each passing
moment is a critical life or death moment,
the surgeon quickly decides to pull out
the faithful tools he feels comfortable
with. Once again surgery was successful
and the patient lived. Being in one of the
busiest hospitals in the local city, the
doctor does surgery after surgery until he
is so exhausted he goes home and sleeps.
The exhaustion at the end of the day
leaves no energy to checkout the new
tools in his/her operating room. Dust
collectors is what they become as they sit
in the corner.
Our students are in critical condition
and time is limited. As educators
approach each individual learner and his
or her needs, each passing moment could
be a moment spent learning. The
overworked surgeon with a table of new
tools is close to a teacher with a closet full
of brand new technology and zero
training.
At this point, you might ask if
purchasing technology into the classroom
is worth it and I would tell you yes. Based
on the way our world is progressing,
technology is becoming a vital necessity
in the work force. Students have
information at their fingertips and need
to know how to evaluate and analyze
information. Thinking back to the

surgeon analogy, most people do not

want the surgeon to use tools he is
uncomfortable with using. But they also
do not want him cutting with a sharp
rock; they want the latest and greatest.
Tools and times have progressed; using
new technology makes for safer and more
efficient surgeries. In the same way,
using new tools to teach can lead to more
efficient and effective learning (Yelland,
2005 & Clements, 1998).
Because technology is so important, it
is necessary to implement it in
meaningful ways. According to Jon Euting
and Anne Stephenson, who implemented
a technology one-to-one program
effectively, there are a few steps to
integrating technology in the best
possible way (2013). After working in a
district that has implemented technology,
I have seen both positive and negative
responses to the way technology was
integrated.
Having a purpose in the technology
purchased helps to foster an environment
where technology can be integrated
meaningfully. To create a purpose, a
district or school should form a
leadership team that can write a vision
and mission statement for the group
integrating technology (Euting &
Stephenson, 2013). The statements
should include what will be accomplished
with the technology, what will be
measured, and the end goal with
technology. Through these three
components, a school will be able to guide
their decisions for technology and
trainings.
Teachers are wise people and are the
ones in the classrooms working directly
with the children. They are also the ones
who know what technology they are
already comfortable with. Rosemary
Papa suggests training teachers on
technologies they are already comfortable

with and use in their personal life (2011).

Some of these familiar technologies
would include using Skype because they
contact family with it. Teachers could
then use it to contact people in other
United States regions to find out about
their geography. Teachers using a Word
Processing program to create tests and
worksheets could turn around and use it
with their class to have them present
information. As a district or school, a
survey should be sent out to teachers to
gain information about what technology
people are currently using. Besides a
survey, technology leaders can begin
having conversations with teachers about
the technologies they use. The
conversation will allow for technology
leaders to build relationships with
teachers, which is important according to
Deci and Ryan with Self-Determination
Theory (2000).
Knowing what technology the staff is
comfortable with, as well as the mission
and vision statement for the school,
allows the direction of technology
decisions. As schools are deciding what
technology to purchase, bandwidth and
budgets need to be considered. Being
intentional with the technology as well as
how it will be used is a great way to
ensure integration happens meaningfully.
The money for technology should not
be spent solely on technology. People
need to feel competent when
implementing something new (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). When overwhelmed with
large amounts of technology all at once,
teachers cannot process ways to use it
and most likely will shove it to the side.
The training needs to fit the specific set-
up of technology teachers have. Bringing
in someone who talks about a one-to-one
(a device for every student) setup for a
school that does not have a one-to-one set
up is frustrating for teachers. To make

integration meaningful, teachers need to

leave the trainings with the technology
and knowledge to implement something
immediately. The training and
technology device handout should be
done within a day or two of each other.
Having technology handout extremely
close to training allows teachers to
remember the strategies and ideas they
learned from the training (Kanaya, Light,
McMillan, 2005). Training should also
allow time for teachers to explore the
technology and work with a group to
come up with their own ideas of how they
might use the technology. Throughout
the training and teacher work time, the
mission and vision statement should be at
the forefront guiding discussions
(Kanaya, Light, McMillan, 2005).
Once the technology is integrated,
administration should model the
technology use through faculty meetings
and at other times. If the whole school or
district is fostering the mission and vision
it keeps people focused on the prize
rather than letting them stray away
(Papa, 2011). Some teachers will need to
practice using the technology; so using it
in other settings besides in the classroom
allows practice. Discussing and using it in
faculty meetings provides resources and
activities for teachers to try in their
classroom (Euting & Stephenson, 2013).
No two teachers are the same.
Because of the variety in teaching styles,
it is important to allow teachers to share
ideas but then twist and make them their
own. In each classroom, the teachers
should be able to add their spin and
implement at their level of competence.
As teachers are integrating technology,
they need to have a place where they can
share the ideas they have. Sometimes
they also need someone to build on their
idea to see the big picture or someone to
fill in the details because they already

have the big idea (Euting & Stephenson,

2013).
Integrating new technology in
meaningful ways is vital when it comes to
using technology. Throwing a bunch of
new technology at teachers is not a
successful way, rather be thoughtful in
what technology they are given and then
take the time to train the teachers on the
technology. Foster an environment for
learning among the teachers. They need
support.


References

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (1998).
Learning and teaching early math: The
learning trajectories approach.
Routledge.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000, January).
Self-Determination Theory and teh
Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation,
Social Development, and Well-
Being. American Psychologist , 68-
78.
Euting, J., & Stephenson, A. (2013). Going
One to One: Lessons Learned From
a True One to One iPad
Implementation. Outabox LLC.
Kanaya, T., Light, D., & McMillan Culp, K.
(2005). Factors influencing
outcomes from a technology-
focused professional development
program. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 37(3),
313-329.
Papa, R. (2011). Technology Leadership
for School Improvement. United
States: Sage Publications.
Yelland, N. (2005). The future is now: A
review of the literature on the use of
computers in early childhood
education (1994-2004). AACE Journal,
13(3), 201-232.