Index

1.

Strategies for Teaching & Learning using Computers
Anne Christodulou

Anne has recently joined the ECAWA Committee, and is a teacher and Learning Technologies Co-ordinator at Kinross Primary School.

This article is about a model, used to assist with planning Learning Technologies lessons and is based on the Key Strategies for Learning with New Technologies outlined by Anne McDougall (University of Melbourne) in her Keynote Address at the ECAWA Wired Conference, 1999

Introduction

The inspiration for this article was the ECAWA Wired Conference in 1999, where Anne McDougall (University of Melbourne) discussed the Key Strategies for Learning with New Technologies. During Anneâs address, I used the Key Strategies as headings and listed some software and hardware that could be used in any year level, across the curriculum. I found that most of the software and hardware could be placed in more than one group, hence the Venn Diagram.

Please note that I have only used a few examples of software packages available at Kinross Primary School. This article is not intended to advocate any one software package. Furthermore, I can appreciate that some of this software may be unfamiliar to the reader. However, the purpose of this article is not to provide a review of software packages; instead I will focus on the Key Strategies.

The Key Strategies

The Key Strategies include Information Sources, Scaffolding, Communication, Problem Solving and Drill and Practice. I have also referred to Communication as Collaboration, as this is one of the principles of Teaching and Learning from the Curriculum Framework (refer to page 36 of that document). The following sections provide an explanation of the table (see page 3) and Venn Diagram.

Venn Diagram

The Venn Diagram shows that some hardware and software can be simultaneously used to enhance collaboration, problem solving and scaffolding strategies, I believe an example of a software package that could be used to develop all three of these strategies is Inspiration. Similarly, Webquests and an Intranet could be a medium to enhance collaboration and problem solving strategies. Please refer to the Venn Diagram for further examples.

Table

* SBW- Story Book Weaver Deluxe

The headings in the table above may be thought of in the context of steps for teachers and learners. For example, learners may use technology to attain information from a variety of sources. This information then needs to be organised through the use of scaffolding software, as listed in the table. Alternatively, information may be used to solve problems. Information may also be shared with other learners; hence this is where software and or hardware may be used to enhance the learning experience. Knowledge or skills acquired throughout this process need to be maintained, therefore there is still a place for Drill and Practice software.

Conclusion

I found this process useful for planning my Learning Technologies lessons, as it ensures that I use a variety of software and hardware applications. You may find this approach useful with your planning. All you need to do is list the appropriate software and/ or hardware under the appropriate strategy. If you would like to develop a range of the Key strategies, you may place them on a Venn Diagram and group the software and/or hardware that could be used to enhance teaching and learning.

2.

Designing Tomorrow Today

Paul Newhouse, Ph.D

Lecturer, School of Education, Edith Cowan University

2 Bradford St, Mt Lawley, Western Australia, 6050.

Ph +61 8 9370 6469 Fax +61 8 9370 6281 (work)

Email p.newhouse@cowan.edu.au

An explanation for the Technology and Enterprise State Conference.

On Friday 17th November the 8th Annual Technology and Enterprise State Conference will commence at the Mount Lawley campus of Edith Cowan University.

I hope you are aware of the conference; all ECAWA members and schools have been sent brochures. Among the professional teacher associations, including ECAWA, there have often been misconceptions about the role and importance of the conference, since each professional association also runs its own state conference. Therefore I would like to try to set the record straight and in so doing ask you to encourage your colleagues to attend, particularly where they are starting to come to grips with the Technology & Enterprise learning area.

Over eight years ago, ECAWA was central to the creation of an NPDP (National Professional Development Project) project concerned with the professional development of teachers in the Technology & Enterprise learning area. That project, which ran for three years, allowed a number of professional teacher associations to work together to create support materials (booklets and CD-ROMs), run professional development seminars, conduct research, and run three conferences. In many ways this NPDP project "kick-started" the move towards an integrated Technology & Enterprise learning area with curriculum based on an outcomes approach.

Since the demise of NPDP the main professional teacher organisations concerned with the Technology & Enterprise learning area (ECAWA, BEWA, DATTA, HEIA, and PRITECH) have agreed to support the conference as shareholders and in the provision of presenters. These conferences have been successfully organised by MASTEC (Maths, Science and Technology Education Centre) of Edith Cowan University, with between 200 and 300 participants each year. In particular there has been an increase in the number of primary school teachers attending the conference. ECAWA has provided about eight or nine presenters each year.

So why is ECAWA involved in the Technology and Enterprise State Conference when it already has a state conference? Five years ago I addressed the ECAWA committee on this very question, convincing them then that it was important for ECAWA to be involved in the conference. There are two key issues to consider.

Firstly, ECAWA caters for a number of different categories of teachers: secondary computing teachers, primary general teachers, primary computing coordinators, and secondary general teachers. Fundamentally, since the late 1980s, ECAWA has had a mission to cater not only for teachers of computing but also teachers who want to use computers to support learning in any learning area. However, the two major groups of teachers have been secondary computing teachers and a range of primary school teachers. Both groups are represented on the committee.

The second key issue is that the development of computer-related skills is categorically the responsibility of the T&E learning area. In the WA Curriculum Framework there is a statement under the Technology Skills learning outcome:

"Students show competence and confidence with computers and acquire operational skills, knowledge and understanding of computer technologies in a systematic and structured way." That statement ensures that ECAWA has an important computer literacy role to play in the WA education system. This means that to fulfil part of its mission ECAWA must be involved in the T&E learning area, which in turn means collaborating with the other professional teacher associations who consider themselves as belonging to the T&E learning area. The T&E conference is an excellent means of demonstrating that collaboration and to ensure that ECAWA's position is well represented in the learning area. Therefore we can consider that ECAWA's state conference will cater for all teachers who want to use computers, whereas the ECAWA's input into the T&E conference will only cater for teachers who want to develop students' computer-related skills. That is, the T&E conference is intended to cater for secondary computing teachers and primary computing coordinators, although obviously a range of primary teachers may attend. ECAWA presents sessions concerned with students learning about computers, NOT learning with computers. The later is more a focus of ECAWA's own state conference.

This year's conference is specifically focussed on developing a deeper understanding for the T&E learning outcomes, and in particular concerns for the provision of progression of experience throughout the learning area. Also, as the conference title suggests, there will be an emphasis on the design component which is central to activity in the T&E learning area. This year each professional association is providing one major presenter as well as a range of workshop presenters. ECAWA is proud to have Jim Fuller representing the association. Jim was recently awarded National Educator of the Year by the Australian Council for Computers in Education (ACCE), with which ECAWA is affiliated. Please encourage your colleagues, particularly from primary schools, to consider attending the conference. It is not a repeat of the ECAWA conference; it is designed to consider the learning area as a whole with an emphasis on issues concerned with the T&E curriculum and student learning.

See you there in November.

3.

The "What should teachers know" Debate
More on learning technology competencies for teachers.

Michelle Williams

ACCE President

International representative, ISTE Board

ISTE, ACCE and the EdNA Schools Group have each released documents that point out that learning technology competencies priorities need broadening and that perhaps changes in attitude are needed from the top down, in terms of new policy directions and system priorities; and from bottom up, as schools implement professional development and resource budgets. All teachers need to contribute to this debate. ACCE and the CEG network can provide the mechanism for debate.

Introducing the Players

Recently, the International Society for Technology in Education, (ISTE) of which the Australian Council for Computers in Education (ACCE) is an affiliate, released its "National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers" (ISTE, 2000).Ê The project which produced this document with a budget with more zeros that ACCE could dream of, complements and contrasts the outcomes of a similar project by ACCE which resulted in a "Statement on Teacher Learning Technology Competencies" (ACCE 1999). Together with a new School Education Action Plan (EdNA 2000), these documents provide clear messages for Australian schools and school systems. In this article I will emphasise the urgency of the emerging issues and suggest the next debates that might inform the political lobbying that educators and Computer Education Groups (CEGs) need to do. I hope readers will note that although I am writing this article wearing the hats of ACCE president and International ISTE Board member, I am sharing personal reflections in this article.

ISTE releases their "National Educational Technology Standards for teachers"

It is important to read ISTE documents in context and to see past the differences in terminology. In the U.S., "Technology" is the term used when talking about computers and associated technology for "instruction" They have not become embroiled in "Technology Education" as a key learning area and do not use the term "learning technology" to refer to the processes of learning with technology, as we do. Further, US educational systems at all levels are clearly advocating for teaching students about technologies and how to use them, as part of educational programs. Although, their primary advocacy is for using computers during the teaching-learning process in all curriculums, it is useful to realise that the US educational system is far more focussed on content than Australian systems that favour a process-oriented curriculum.

The US Government-funded National Educational Technology Standards Project (NETs Project) has enabled ISTE to produce statements which include long lists of students" standards for using technology. Such statements need to be interpreted carefully. In general, I would advocate (as ACCE has), that specifying standards down to the long skills and knowledge sets reduces the processes of learning to a mechanical status and is thus dangerous in nature. However, I admire the ISTE intention of helping educational systems producing "technology-capable kids" (ISTE, 2000, p.1) and wonder if in Australia, we have been so concerned to adopt learning technology processes, that we have forgotten our responsibility to students to help them learn about computers and to use them effectively. I think the Australian National Office for the Information Economy, (NOIE) would prefer that education systems helped students develop Information Technology (IT) skills and this has been reinforced with the Commonwealth Schools Sector (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999, EdNA, 2000). Perhaps the ISTE goals can guide us:

Technology can enable students to become

-      capable information technology users

-      information seekers, analysers and evaluators

-      problem solvers and decision makers

-      creative and effective users of productivity tools

-      communicators, collaborators, publishers and producers

-      informed, responsible and contributing citizens.

(ISTE, 2000, p.1)

Thus, when ISTE developed standards for teachers, they were determined to help teachers develop the knowledge and skills to achieve these goals.

The ISTE Nets for Teachers document has defined precise skills in the four areas of General Teacher Preparation (first degree), Professional Preparation (post graduate teacher preparation), Student Teaching/internship (at practice teaching schools) and First-year Teaching and Experienced teachers. This detail and emphasis is a strength of the ISTE work.

They used the following schema to organise the knowledge and skills lists:

Technology operations and concepts

Planning and designing learning environments and experiences

Teaching, learning and the curriculum

Assessment and evaluation

Productivity and professional practice

Social, ethical and human issues.

Amongst the lists of skills are an important new set of ideas. ISTE encourages teachers to use technology to:

-      enhance their productivity and professional practice

-      engage in ongoing professional development and lifelong learning

-      increase productivity

-      communicate and collaborate with peers, parents and the larger community in order to nurture student learning

(ISTE, 2000, p.3).

Using computers outside of curriculum and for non-curriculum purposes is powerful and necessary and Australian systems could do well to consider this agenda. ACCE position statements on Teacher Learning Technology Competencies emphasise this issue (ACCE, 1999).

The ISTE document also provides some leadership positions statements about the essential conditions for helping teachers gain and demonstrate their standards. While mostly setting such statements in the context of pre-service education, ISTE developed position statements in the following areas.

Shared school/district vision
Access to Skilled Educators
Professional development

Technical assistance
Assessment

Student-centred teaching
Support policies

Content standards and curriculum resources

In their document, ISTE emphasises that pre-service education requires special attention. In reports from the Nets team to ISTE, it was revealed that no US teacher training institutions had yet met the ISTE standards (Nets Team, 2000). However, ISTE reminded the educational community that responsibility for training teachers was shared between schools and training institutions, saying that student teachers and first year teachers "cannot be expected to put into practice what they have learned about how to use technology without the presence of the above essential conditions in their new job environment" (ISTE, 2000, p.6). In presentations at the ACEC conference in Melbourne in July 2000, both Toni Downes from the University of Western Sydney and project leader in some ACCE projects, together with keynote Lynne Schrum from ISTE, emphasised that teacher training institutions who did include learning technology units in their course (and most do), needed the help of schools to provide environments for practice teaching students to use their skills, to overcome the negative stereotypical attitude about universities" lack of attention to learning technology.Ê The ISTE document suggests that schools in general are deficient in providing positive environments and role models for pre-service and in-service teachers.Ê The ISTE initiative of evaluating and then accrediting university programs for their capacity to produce learning technology competent graduates at all levels is interesting and one which perhaps ACCE and DETYA should explore as a partnership.

ACCE contextualises Teacher Learning Technology Competencies

Although the ISTE work is valuable for US purposes, the documentation does little to help reluctant IT-using teachers understand why helping students attain computer standards is important. It mandates rather than explains. Further, the skills lists suggest that training teachers to meet the standards will foster appropriate teacher attitudes and knowledge. This is unlikely. Skills lists published without an explanation of the contexts and agendas in which they were written are not helpful. If the ISTE documents and any Australian skills lists are used as a basis for professional development, teachers will follow the model meekly and the mechanical skills implementation cycle will never be broken. Training to standards is not enough or even not appropriate in Australia. ACCE developed a document in 1999, which provides clear direction of what else is significant.

ACCE's statement on learning technology competencies included a background paper and a number of positions about the learning technology competencies movement. ACCE deliberately did not develop a list of teacher's skills. In the background paper, ACCE reminded educators and educational systems that information technology saturation in personal, social, cultural and work practices means that it is not enough for teachers to enable students to use computers while learning. Teachers need to understand the globalising contexts in which information and communications technologies are reframing curriculum and teaching practice as well as work practices and how people participate in society. Teachers need to embed technology practice in curriculum and tell students about how the world works in contemporary contexts that teachers may not have experienced.

ACCE emphases much more strongly than ISTE that teachers are bereft of knowledge and experience in modern technological work practices and this is the biggest single factor in preventing teachers from believing that globalising influences of telecommunications networks are changing the circumstances in which curriculums need to be (re)interpreted. Teachers need to understand that e-business is changing the supply-demand rules, that financial and other markets sit outside of the nation state and that individuals lives as consumers, producers, family members and community participants, are changing drastically because of global connectivity. Helping Australia build a sense of national identity and global economic viability in this context is a responsibility school systems can share, but only if their teachers believe the changing circumstances mean schools can no longer isolate curriculum from global cultural, economic and political contexts. Teachers who do not use computers for their work will not understand and will tell their students simplistic accounts about the world. Those who do use computers for work other than teaching, need to have strategies and mechanisms to reflect on their experiences and to understand whether or not their work practices are a reflection of the technological practices in all industries outside of the school gate. Then they need to understand the impact of these aggregating changes to work and lives.

Information technology is explicitly or implicitly significant in all the processes which surround the roles teachers play as they live. They need strategies and opportunities to reflect on their lives and to understand the linkages between the technologies of their experiences and the technology and processes children know and need to know. Ideally teachers would understand the relationship of technology to how we live personally and how individuals contribute to the information technology prowess of the nation. The global context that increasingly impacts on most aspects of life in Australia adds an urgency to the need for this understanding.

(ACCE, 1999, p.8)

The ACCE document suggests that professional development programs which teach mouse click skills or which talk about using PowerPoint in the classroom won't develop a community of teachers who understand why connected computers are in schools. Nor will these teachers impact on their students" abilities to develop Australia's IT-dependent future. Their students will have more difficulty becoming leaders and building their own futures. An interesting support paper for these argument is November (NECC 2000), who says that the biggest impact on education will be when teachers learn about work in workplaces other than schools. "Helping teachers identify that curriculum interpretations are authentic reflections of human processes in the community" (ACCE, 1999, p.17) is a position taken by ACCE.

The ACCE document provides considerable advice about the nature and goals of a professional development program and of policy changes that are needed to sustain a learning technology competency program. It also suggests clearly that systems and employers must now widen the learning technology agenda to include groups other than the novice or reluctant computer-using teacher. ACCE calls for recognition for technical service personnel in schools, network managers, leaders in learning technology and professional development, and computer studies teachers, who are usually omitted from the policy and initiatives in learning technology. Although ACCE promotes a broadening of access to professional development for these groups, it is sad to note that commonwealth and state initiatives continue to focus only on the novices in learning technology (EdNA 2000).Ê

ACCE is currently engaged in a research project to provide the Commonwealth with advice on the effectiveness of systemic initiatives in professional development. The Commonwealth expects the research group to report on the effectiveness of initiatives to help novices to adopt learning technology ideas. It is imperative that ACCE draw attention to the broader agenda for all stakeholders whilst achieving contractual goals. It is time to recognise that learning technology initiatives are more likely to be led by school-based leaders in learning technology than by novices.Ê

Further, it needs to be recognised that professional associations and communities of grass-roots educators can offer considerable advice and policy support to systems now developing learning technology professional developmentÊ plans. The token attempt to include professional association advice on the Quality Teaching Project was a disgraceful shambles in most states.Ê Most association groups were cleverly cut out of decision-making processes, in spite of Commonwealth determination to include them.Ê Professional associations would draw greater attention to the professional development needs of all teachers, rather than a systemic inclination to be focussed on the needs of state school teachers. ACCE needs to continue developing position and information statements in conjunction with other national groups; to balance the debates about professional development needs in this country.

School education action plan adds to the debate

The EdNA process, though the Commonwealth Schools Group, developed a position statement (EdNA, 2000) in response to NOIE and DETYA demands to improve use of IT in education (NOIE, 2000, DETYA, 2000). This School Education Action Plan is a clear indication that educational groups have considered and need to actualise, the interaction between Australia's goals for an information economy, new social structures and school education.Ê "Education plays a fundamental enabling role in the growing information economy" (EdNA, 2000, p.2). This Action Plan articulates some new goals for modern education that now need to be adopted into the soul of educational initiatives. Some goals pave the way for new emphases in the use of IT in schools.

The first goal is that "All students will leave school as confident creative and capable users of new technologies including information and communication technologies. (p.3). This resonates well with the primary ISTE goal that "students should become capable IT users" (ISTE 2000, p.1). There seems to be agreement that it is okay to help students learn to use technology and to have learning about computers back on the school agenda along with learning technology agendas. This subtle shift is also enabling computer studies to be recognised as a valid discipline in Australian schools and hopefully points the way to seriously funding this significant contribution to Australian information economy goals. NOIE will celebrate this and so will the parents of the thousand of Australian students, who study IT in schools. However, recognition of IT studies and IT teachers must become more explicit in debates and discourse (and budget strategy).

The School Education Action Plan (EdNA 2000) also supports the "progressive transformation in schools to a culture and practice reflecting the evolving knowledge society" ( p.3). The document refers to the business efficiency gained through technological practice and suggest that teachers" work is part of this. Documents fromÊ ISTE and ACCE support this. Schools are not yet exemplars of modern technology practice and the work places of educators are not effective learning sites for teachers. It is important now for CEGs to help the community and the governments realise that evening out the computer budget for students, teachers and professional work is imperative. More computers in the classrooms of teachers who do not understand authentic technology practice is foolhardy. We need to help schools justify that public expenditure of computers for teachers and computers in staffrooms is an investment in student learning and effective teaching.

In claiming that people priorities and professional development are the key strategies to realising the goals for school education this document, like most developed from with systems and Governments, omits the needs of three out of the four groups of professionals in schools. It focuses on helping novice computer-using teachers become involved in learning technology and omits the needs of school learning technology leaders, computer studies teachers and network managers/computer coordinators. An advocacy role that ACCE and CEGs could now share, is the need to help systems and governments realise the role of the teachers who will lead the learning technology initiatives in schools.

In conclusion

The ISTE National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers document (ISTE, 2000), ACCE's Statement on Learning Technology Competencies (ACCE, 1999) and the School Education Action Plan for Information Economy (EdNA, 2000) have complementary messages for readers of this journal. They each draw attention to deficits in current Australian policy and practice. The practical and detailed view, developed by ISTE is useful and illuminating. However in Australia, we need to be careful that prescription of skills does not prevent professional progression and a determination to enable teachers to help their students contribute to Australia's innovative and creative future. We need a much more sophisticated description of professional practice and attitudes. The ACCE document begins to articulate this, indicating that the stumbling block is not the volume of professional development funded for teachers, but the type of professional development. Much more holistic professional development programs are needed to enable teachers to practice professional knowledge work in the context of connected communication networks. It is very clear that all three documents contain elements of a plea for teachers to be empowered to perform technology-saturated knowledge work in their professional practice.

The School Education Action Plan for the Information Economy is a welcome addition to the debate and illustrates willingness by Federal sectors to reinterpret information economy goals in the context of schooling. Now, ACCE and the CEG network in Australia should provide ideas to state systems and Commonwealth Government groups for strategies that will actualise a future for use of IT in education. Readers of this journal can debate the ideas in the online forums for teachers, remind their principals and systems of the deficiencies and work with unions and other lobby groups to balance the debates and refocus the initiatives.

References

ACCE (1999). Teacher Learning Technology Competencies. Special edition of Australian Education Computing, 14: 2

Downes, T., Williams, M. Fluck, A. (2000).Ê Teacher Development for the integration of ICTs into Classroom Practice. Australian Computers in Education Conference. July 7, 2000. Melbourne.

Commonwealth of Australia (1998).Ê A strategic framework for the information economy, identifying priorities for action. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

EdNA (2000). Learning in an online world. School Education Action Plan for the Information Economy. EdNA Schools Advisory Group.

ISTE (2000).Ê National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers.

Nets Team (2000). NETS Team Report to the ISTE Board June 2000. ISTE minutes.

November, A. (2000). Preparing Students for the Digital Economy. Presentation to the National Education Computing Conference. Atlanta Georgia. June 26-28.

Schrum, L. (2000). Learning Technologies in the 21^st Century: New Parameters, Partners and Philosophies.Ê Keynote to the Australian Computers in Education Conference. July 8, 2000. Melbourne.