The question of what makes for effective teacher professional development in ICT is an enduring one. In a recent study in Queensland (Australia), we visited 19 rural and regional schools and interviewed teachers, administrators and ICT coordinators to find that a school-based practicum was effective in impacting the practice and beliefs of individual teachers. This article, through reference to our field study findings and briefly describing four of its case studies, concludes that the practicum's success is related to the situative nature of this professional development. The findings of the study have implications for professional development programs aimed at increasing the use and integration of ICT in classrooms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeaversD. (2001). Professional development: Outside the workshop box. Principal Leadership (High School Ed), 1(9), 43–46.
2.
BeckerH. J. (1993). Instructional computer use: Findings from a national survey of school and teacher practices. The Computing Teacher, 20(1), 6–7.
3.
BeckerH. J.RavitzJ. L., & WongY. T. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Retrieved February 22, 2004, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/computeruse.
4.
BullG.BellR., & KajderS. (2003). The role of “computers in the schools” revisited. Computers in the Schools, 20(1/2), 59–76.
5.
ChoiJ-I., & HannafinM. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 3–69.
6.
DownesT.FluckA.GibbonsP.LeonardR.MatthewsC.OliverR.VickersM., & WilliamsM. (2002). Making better connections: Teacher professional development for the integration of information and communication technology into classroom practice.Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST).
7.
DwyerD. C. (1994). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What we've learned. Educational Leadership, 51(7), 4–10.
GreenoJ. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.
11.
GuskeyT. R. (2000). Practical guidelines for evaluating professional development. In GuskeyT. R. (Ed.), Evaluating professional development (pp. 87–102). New York: Corwin Press.
12.
Jamieson-ProctorR. (2002, July). The schools online curriculum content initiative (SOCCI) market research project: An investigation into how Australian teachers are currently using online curriculum materials. Paper presented at Australian Computer Education Conference 2004, Hobart, Australia.
LloydM., & AlbionP. (2005, March). Mistaking the tool for the outcome: Using activity system theory to understand the complexity of teacher technophobia. Paper presented at SITE 2005 Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
15.
LloydM., & YellandN. (2003). Adaptation and avoidance: Observations of teachers' reactions to information and communications technology in the classroom. Change: Transformation in Education, 6(1), 81–96.
16.
MooreJ.LinX.SchwartzD.PetrosinoA.HickeyD.CampbellO., Hmelo, C., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). The relationship between situated learning and anchored instruction: A response to Tripp. Educational Technology, 34(8) 28–32.
17.
PutnamR. T., & BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
18.
RielM. (1994). Educational change in a technology-rich environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4), 452–474.
19.
SandholtzJ.RingstaffC., & DwyerD. (1992). The relationship between technological innovation and collegial interaction [ACOT Report 13]. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computers.
20.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
SwanK.HolmesA.VargasJ.JenningsS.MeierE., & RubenfeldL. (2002). Situated professional development and technology integration: The CATIE mentoring program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education10(2), 169–190. Retrieved August 27, 2004, from http://dl.aace.org/9225.
22.
ten HaveP. (1999). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage.
23.
YinR. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
