Final Reflections
In working towards an understanding of effective technology professional development, I have gained a great deal of insight into my own practice and my role as a technology steward in my workplace. In undertaking the MALT program I sought to attain the educational credentials necessary to justify what was then my position of Lower School Technology Coordinator. At that time, I approached my role apologetically and did not feel confident in my abilities and vision for the position. Throughout the action research process, the reflection necessitated by its structure has allowed me to see the inaccuracy of my initial perceptions and a more accurate view of my role in the community.
Action research is a personal and self-reflective process in which I am the center of my research. Instead of simply acknowledging a problem and ending with a concrete solution, it tasks me with finding a solution with many forms and then putting those forms into action. Above all else, action research is messy, and the actions and outcomes rarely play out as anticipated. It is in these “failures” that the greatest insights can be found. These are the instances that taught me the most about the effectiveness of what I was attempting and then required that I try an even more innovative approach to move forward. Action research does not simply examine a problem, but is cyclical process centered on dynamic relationships and their impact on the problem in question. It was through these relationships that I have learned that people need encouragement, suggestions, support, demonstration, direction, and above all else to be heard.
Initially, I believed that a lack of skill, from an absence of adequate training, was largely to blame for the disinterest and apprehension many of my colleagues exhibited in regards to technology use and integration in the classroom. While conducting research to write my literature review, I found an additional reason that I have come to believe is also often responsible for these attitudes. Many of these teachers demonstrate low self-efficacy in their use of instructional technology devices. With two of my participants in this action research, I found that the emotional responses that stem from a lack of confidence were primarily to blame for their avoidance of technology and their apathetic reaction toward the idea of technology integration. This realization only became clear through our conversations made possible by the relationships and trust I had established with my participants. These relationships, while already in place as colleagues, continued to strengthen and develop into mentoring relationships. I have come to realize that while technology PD can occur without the establishment of a relationship between learner and expert, the capability of that training to overcome issues of teacher confidence is unlikely.
Based on my literature research, I believe that there are three educational strategies that need to be present in a plan for technology professional development. Instruction must be learner-centered, social and involve active participation by the learner. Traditionally, PD is about creating learning for teachers, but to be effective and lasting it should be constructed with teachers.
Through my action research, I sought ways to develop and sustain personalized participatory professional development. While this approach was attainable with three participants, I am cognizant of the potential difficulties that will most likely arise if this approach is attempted on a larger scale. The question of sustainability is one that I have pondered throughout this process, and I have determined that, as a one person technology integration team, it is not realistic to attempt to replicate this experience on a larger scale. I continue to reflect on my outcomes, however, and look for ways of using what I have learned to create a more sustainable professional development plan for our lower school teachers.