During the 2009/2010 school year, Fair Oaks Elementary in Cobb County was one of four pilot schools to receive interactive whiteboards for every classroom, as well as iRespond student response systems for grades second, fourth, and fifth. In addition, and to the delight and surprise of those of us involved, we received ongoing training from November, when we got the boards, until May. The training was provided by contract trainers from Kennesaw State University’s (KSU) instructional technology department and it was all done on site at Fair Oaks. As the media specialist for the school, I volunteered to be the contact person for the project. In addition to troubleshooting various installation issues, it was my responsibility to coordinate all of the training. This involved a lot of interaction with our trainer at KSU, Nisa Peek. KSU’s plan was to provide classes on the ActivBoard and iRespond that ranged from the basics to advanced concepts, and to even offer help to teachers in their classrooms. As long as we didn’t exceed the total number of training hours allowed to us, teachers could take as many classes as they chose. As the contact person, I determined which classes each teacher wanted, and coordinated the dates, times, facilities, and rosters for each class with Nisa.
Nisa did all of the ActivBoard training (which was the majority of the training provided), and visited our school approximately 15 times over the course of the school year. Some teachers who were already comfortable with the whiteboards only participated in one or two classes. But for those who were either complete novices with the whiteboards or somewhat intimidated by technology, Nisa coaxed and reassured them all the way through the year. She not only presented the information in a relaxed, nonthreatening way, she provided examples and resources, and helped teachers create whatever lesson-specific flipcharts they desired. I received nothing but glowing compliments from teachers regarding Nisa’s training, and I know the whiteboards wouldn’t have been the huge success they are without her expertise, patience, and empathy.
Due to time limitations on Nisa’s part, we were unable to speak face to face. However, I was able to ask Nisa a number of questions via email about her views on technology in education and specifically, on the integration of technology.
Background
Nisa’s official job title is Instructional Technology Specialist at Kennesaw State University’s Educational Technology Center (ETC). Prior to holding this position, she was a middle school computer teacher in Chesapeake, Virginia. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with a teaching certification in business (certified for grades 6-12), and she has a Master of Science degree with an emphasis in technology. She’s been employed at KSU for nine years.
Technology and Learning
Given Nisa’s prior teaching experience, she’s now seen technology from various viewpoints. When asked how technology is affecting the learning process, she responded that an obvious change is the increase in student motivation, which has resulted in a rise in test scores. In addition, learning has become more engaging. “A classroom becomes a class in motion”, said Nisa, “and the teacher is no longer the ‘sage on the stage’.” Nisa has had teachers make similar comments, especially in regard to interactive whiteboards. I’ve also witnessed greater involvement in a lesson when the reward is getting to use the whiteboard. But, Nisa pointed out that in order to use technology effectively, it must be seamless. Nisa continued, “Technology can be easily incorporated into every kind of lesson: whole group instruction, small group instruction, individual and cooperatively.”
Technological Literacy
To Nisa, the term “technological literacy” refers to “the ability to use computers and software to improve productivity, learning and performance.” To help foster this ability in our teachers, Nisa’s approach to training was to get their hands on as many resources as possible in order for them to have what they needed without having to reinvent the wheel. In one of the first levels of training, she introduced students to the Promethean Planet site, where they could find downloadable flipcharts and resource packs. She also encouraged grade level team members to work together by sharing flipcharts they had created and ways they’d incorporated them into the curriculum.
Technology Integration
When asked about her interpretation of technology integration, Nisa responded, “It means using the GPS content and inserting technology components, or using existing lessons that are aligned to the standards and tweaking them with technology.” In addition to the resources that Nisa has shown our teachers, our county has access to technology-based lessons via our intranet, under the Instructional Technology link. But, the principle that Nisa believes should guide the approach for integrating technology is very simple. Ask yourself, “Does the technology aid students in better understanding the standard?” Technology just for the sake of technology isn’t always the best plan.
A few of the obstacles Nisa has encountered when trying to integrate technology are loss of or slow Internet connectivity, technology that doesn’t work properly, and outdated computers with slow processor speeds. Consequently, she stressed the need for a backup plan. Even in her own training classes, I noticed that Nisa always had her files in multiple places, and we always had an extra computer on hand in case one had a breakdown. In fact, she believes the difference between a successful technology integration and a failed attempt is “testing, testing, testing.” But, according to Nisa, sometimes things can still go wrong. She went on to say, “I have prepared and have gone to a school to present and something didn’t work properly. Having a good attitude, a sense of humor, and flexibility can turn any lesson around.” The same can be said for a teacher in a classroom full of third graders!
On the other hand, Nisa stressed that certain factors can contribute to making a training session effective. First, adequate access to technology is crucial, and secondly, a teacher needs to feel comfortable with the whole idea of technology integration (even if he or she isn’t a techno-wizard). She also thinks that it’s best to integrate technology in small pieces, instead of trying to force-feed teachers more than they can handle at one time. We definitely saw that exhibited at Fair Oaks when we tried to train teachers on the iRespond systems too soon after introducing the ActivBoards. I also asked Nisa how she has handled situations where a teacher is convinced that he or she cannot use technology successfully in their instruction. Her response was to pair the teacher up with a more experienced teacher. According to Nisa, “It’s amazing the way teachers can get green with envy when students are excited about what they see others learning, and start asking their teacher when they are going to get to try it!”
Finally, because Nisa had been involved in training multiple schools, I asked her what the primary differences were between the schools, in terms of results. She replied that whether the teachers could volunteer for the classes or were forced to attend affected the end result. Nisa believes that, “Those that volunteer are much more ready and eager to learn.” In addition, whether training was held during the day or after school was different from school to school. Those trainings held after-school hours were tough since teachers were already tired after a day of teaching.
I enjoyed Nisa’s classes so much that I’ve signed up to take some additional ActivBoard training at KSU this summer. Of course, I made sure to check and see who the teacher was!
