This page from the UK http://www.teachers.tv/help/viewinglog possibly has an interesting attempt to address the issue. It states:

“The viewing log allows you to make videos you watch count towards your Continuing Professional Development. Watch videos, record your initial thoughts, return to update your notes when you’ve tried implementing ideas in the classroom, and download and print a record of how you have used videos as part of your CPD.

It’s a simple three step process:

1. Watch a video, make initial notes on how the good practice, resources, and tips featured can influence your own classroom practice, help you implement new education policies, or inspire you to address wider issues around your school.
2. Once you have tried using the information in your own work, you can return to your viewing log to enter reflective notes on your experiences.
3. Finally, download and print your initial and reflective notes to show how you have used Teachers TV videos as part of your Continuing Professional Development.”

The UK Education system has made many mistakes (I feel) but this appears to be a positive move to me.

Unfortunately many teachers will always be resistant to change but ultimately I think that all DET teachers should have a commitment to lifelong learning. Adaptation to technological change is necessary and I think it is futile to resist change. It’s a shame that the Institute of Teachers can’t ask “established” teachers to participate voluntarily in a scheme that will encourage them to keep up-to-date with professional learning.

I have introduced the concept of Twitter to my (now ex) staff by declaring that I was a Twit and pointing them to examples. They promptly agreed that yes I was a twit and as far as I know haven’t really explored it. As you point out they haven’t really seen the value yet and to be honest, neither have I, but I struggle on. In my experience, teachers will embrace something that they feel they can DO and will improve how they teach. We had a data projector at my school about 7 years ago (very expensive then) and it was virtually unused because nobody really knew how to use it. It remained unused until about 4 years ago when I started using it in the Library as part of my new role as librarian/tech person. When people saw it being used and could see the benefits, they all wanted one.

As you say, small steps at a time. Frustrating perhaps but necessary.

I believe that newly switched on teachers will also need to be shown that there is a value in “twittering”-as they are at present quite overloaded by just what is available!!

I have worked on the premise of supporting teachers “at the point of need” and so far I believe it has proven to be highly successful (for the teachers)-if not draining!!(for me)

I’m sorry that “all was undone”

Yes, I agree. In many ways I was critical of her and feel that she was appointed to a position above her ability (via “MERIT” selection but there’s another can of worms). However the point I was trying to make was that she was appointed to a position with a certain skill set and the skills required changed. I had some sympathy for her situation. This sympathy was reinforced by the way that much of the progress in ICT was implemented by the DET. The DET technology setup has always confused me and reminds me of a hydra with many heads (not always talking to each other). It is my supposition that this comes from the unhappy marriage of TAFE and the Dept. of Education.

Some examples:
With the introduction of Webservices and the secure internet (passworded) concept, we had the strange scenario of TWO portals to use. We also had TWO different email accounts.

TALE has some great stuff but it was a nightmare to explore (it’s a bit better now) but then there’s all the other bits and pieces from CLI etc that a) people were unaware of and b) had gaping holes

We have a CPC server in our school and from the number of comments I see in forums, many are unaware of its real function or utility. (It does have uses but finding out about them is not for the faint hearted)

School Based Student Reporting (SBSR) has stumbled onto the scene. We trialled it for some years and had great difficulties, to finally give it away in favour of Easy School Reports.

Our Basic Skills Results (I know the name has changed) were available online to download with fantastic analysis tools, using the SMART software but getting them to install properly (especially on a Mac) was not easy.

She did get assistance from staff, a great deal initially from a lowly paid clerical assistant. It was only when this assistant resigned that one saw just how much was done by her. In many ways though, training someone like her in ICT would be a bit like teaching calculus to a HSC student who hadn’t learned the rudimentary concepts previously.

I note also that yes there is professional development available. There are the My Training areas in the Portal. I have tried them (and also the Oasis Palm island tutorial) and found them difficult. She would have had no chance.

Agree 100%!

I think Craig did over-generalise in his comment on being “lazy”, but as an ICT leader at his school, you can see his frustration is borne from his experiences – so without him saying “IMHO”, you can read that it is “in his humble opinion”.

I’m not going to argue against anything you’ve said here. All I want to do is wish you a happy retirement and thank you for all the great work you did at NNPS. And remember to keep learning!

New Scheme Teachers are not in a position to agitate against the 50 hr Institute Recognised rule. Institute Recognised PD is costing the DET (and other systems) a lot of money, yet it’s often not “efficient, effective and relevant”. But, the only way to get my hours to stay a teacher is through sit-down training courses.

Young and new teachers that I’m talking to are very frustrated with the rigidity of the NSW Institute, it’s a distraction from the core job of teaching.

It seems to me that the obsession with certificates probably correlates with the never-ending PD requirements of the NSW Institute of Teachers – and as more young teachers ‘get on board’, you can expect the pressure to intensify.

I agree with you. It is both foolhardy and arrogant to measure teaching excellence and/or laziness against technological expertise or passion, especially in primary schools where teachers must be competent generalists. It is unproductive to argue which KLA is the most important in primary education (and all, of course, may be enhanced in some way with the use of ICT) because ALL are important. While I recognise the importance of sport to the physical and social development of children, for example, I am not passionate about teaching it. Does that make me a lazy teacher or simply part of a diverse professional group with varying strengths and weaknesses?

Lastly, I retiterate my remarks above; given the appropriate access to equipment and support, I have always found teachers (of all ages) will quickly find appropriate ways to use it.

You make some good points but all is undone by:
“My last Principal was completely left behind by the DET’s electronic communications etc (InPrincipal). She had no idea about much of what was happening because communications were simply bundled into an electronic message. She would forward me emails without the attachments that actually had the documents. The Annual School Report was a nightmare for her. Could I really be critical of her for not knowing all this stuff?”

Yes, we should all be very critical of anyone who cannot work ‘inPrincipal’ out in such a key position. It is unforgiveable and pathetic on a number of levels, especially considering what is asked of teachers and students. Professional people seek ‘development’ in the areas they are feeling need ‘development’. DET would have assisted her, as would many on the staff.

Stu continues to ‘stir’ with this post but unfortunately, the people who should read it will never find it!

Two of your generalisations upset me.

First, you generalise that teachers who are “‘having a go’ at technology and are willing to learn ways to integrate ICT into the curriculum are generally passionate teachers who became teachers because they want to make a difference to the lives of their students.
These teachers are also generally great primary teachers or great at teaching their 7-12 subject.” This is bunkum.

Not every teacher who “has a go” is a great teacher. In my experience, many of the “tech experts” are simply blowing their own trumpets and embracing the technology for their own benefit and not necessarily that of their students. Much of education today has become pure window dressing with ordinary or poor teaching being glossed up by “technology”. A school well known for its use of IWBs and technology near me sends us students in Year 3 who haven’t even been on the internet in school; they don’t even know their DET username or password. We have our kindergarten students using the internet by Term 3. I also love how the word “technology” has been hijacked. In my lexicon, chalk, blackboard, pencil, paper etc are also “technology”.

Second, and this is the one that got me responding, you state that: “Generally, teachers who are hiding from ICT are generally lazy teachers who are in the job as they can get away with the 9-3 hours and as we all know, you cannot become a life long learner in ICT working 9-3.” Wow, I am almost speechless at the arrogance of such a statement. Yes, some teachers are lazy, as for all sectors of the workforce. If we take Stu’s hypothesis about 5% or 10% being lit up that means that you are saying that around 90% of teachers are lazy.
Of course you’re not lazy because you’re passionate about ICT so that makes you OK. The fact that you’re not particularly knowledgeable doesn’t really matter (although you are in a position where one would have hoped that you would be knowledgeable).

Finally, I am uneasy about the constant attacks on teachers and their (supposed) unwillingness to embrace technology. Please note I am speaking for Primary schools as I haven’t had a lot of experience in Secondary and I know Stu feels that this is where the main issue is.

I have been teaching for 36 years. When I went to Teachers’ College, some of my technology training was learning how to make “jelly pads” for stencils (no photocopiers) and threading film through a projector. Since training I have stayed abreast of many of the new technologies coming in (although I have never owned or intend to own a mobile phone) and am probably the most knowledgeable in technology at my school (or old school as I am now retired). I have seen many good and not so good teachers (not so many lazy teachers) and rarely have I seen a correlation between passion about ICT and effective teaching.

Of course one of the greatest problems is people saying “it isn’t hard”. This is the classic mistake an expert in a field makes when teaching another. The mark of being a good teacher is seeing the pitfalls or blocks to learning a skill and teaching it. To many teachers, computers ARE hard, especially when we consider the DET’s ad hoc approach to inservicing and implementing procedures. My last Principal was completely left behind by the DET’s electronic communications etc (InPrincipal). She had no idea about much of what was happening because communications were simply bundled into an electronic message. She would forward me emails without the attachments that actually had the documents. The Annual School Report was a nightmare for her. Could I really be critical of her for not knowing all this stuff? Possibly, but I don’t know how much the DET trained her. She definitely didn’t have the skills when she was appointed to the position.

Which brings us to the point of the “real world”. My brother in law works with the RTA. If they gave him a new piece of machinery (like a chain saw or tractor) they would train him how to use it. If the RTA wants him to gain a new skill, they train him in a professionally run course, in work time and they then reward him by an increase in salary or allowance. Stu makes the point about the DET putting computers into school. Yes, but the training and support was negligible.

I was 3 years trained and then did a degree externally in my own time. When I graduated (and was considered more qualified) I moved up a scale to 4 year trained and gained an increase in salary. My salary has been stagnant for over 20 years no matter how much I have learned or been trained. Actually it isn’t stagnant, it has dropped. Every time we go to the DET for a new award, they say yes you’re wonderful and worth a million dollars but we’re going to offer less than inflation; so we have to strike and make a big fuss.

To sum up:
1. Not all teachers who are passionate about ICT are necessarily great teachers
2. Not all teachers who are confused or reluctant to use ICT are lazy.
3. The DET generally has not supported the use of ICT with training or a planned approach. The DER in some ways is better but what I am reading is still failing in the training and support field.