Monday, August 8, 2011

Module 5 - New Technologies


A few years ago my principal asked me to train fellow teachers on the use of a lesson plan software system purchased by our district.  This system had the ability to format lesson plans, attach state objectives to each plan, track the use of the state objectives, and automatically update administration for each plan.  It accomplished everything the district required of teachers for documentation of lesson plans.  My love of technology and desire to locate new tools to accomplish required tasks supported my desire to teach the class.  In my naïveté, I assumed everyone would see the value of the system and eagerly learn how to put it to proper use.   
            I certainly misunderstood my audience.  Even before the training session began I received abundant questions and complaints.  Many teachers felt the requirement for documentation infringed on their independence in the classroom.  They attended the training session because the district required them to do so.  Their apprehension about the intent behind the program’s use and how difficult it would be to use colored their willingness to learn.  The session began with many participants covertly hostile.  They grudgingly sat and listened and performed the activities set in front of them.  When they walked out of the training, I knew that 90% of them never intended to use the software again.  This response occurred across all the schools in my district.  A few people used the program sparingly for the next two years and then the program faded from the system.   
            Now I ask, what could be done to change the response to this failed implementation?  One of the first problems to address is the apprehension related to increased documentation.  The audience was not ready to learn how to use the program.  They were still too concerned about the heavier burden they perceived it represented.  Following Keller’s ARCS model, I would recommend the following steps for handling a similar situation: 

Keller’s ARCS model 
A:  Attention 
R:  Relevance 
C:  Confidence 
S:  Satisfaction 

1.    Attention – Before beginning the training, gain the attention of the audience.  The first time the teachers hear about this new program should not coincide with increased documenting responsibilities.  Advance notification of these requirements, along with a time frame for implementation, would help in this area.  There are valid reasons to provide documentation that pertain to each teacher.  There is increasing evidence of lawsuits by parents when teachers do not teach the established curriculum.  Having documentation that you cover all state objectives in your classroom provides insurance from these lawsuits.  The program should be offered as a time saving solution to this documentation problem.  As soon as the presenter convinces the group of the need, it will be easier to grasp their attention when providing an efficient solution to the problem.  Sustaining their attention is the next critical need.  The design of the training was hands on and could have accomplished this task.  There were several helpers walking around giving assistance as needed and helping to diffuse the diversity in the learner’s abilities.   
2.    Relevance – This ties into the method for gaining their attention.  The relevance perceived by each teacher connects to the understanding of the need for documentation.  They need assured that they must provide the documentation using some method.  The software would be a fast and easy method, and thus supplies the most logical choice. 
3.    Confidence – Several of the participants needed positive feedback and reassurance about the software usage.  Assuring enough trainers assist in the presentation is critical for individual feedback.  The trainers need to be proficient in the usage of the program, so they can instill confidence in the students. 
4.    Satisfaction – Emphasizing the natural consequences of using this program will be helpful for the participants.  Teachers show interest in tools that are easy to use, and provide a more efficient way to complete required duties.  This training needed to emphasize those features continuously through the demonstration. 

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.


3 comments:

  1. Jeriann
    I am lost on what to say at this time. I have been in this similar situation. I just went to training last week concerning some lesson plan software. The state of Georgia provides wonderful lesson plans for CTAE course. All I have to do is add a little seasoning and they work great. Now the county wants a writing team to put together lesson plans. You have some wonderful ideas on paper but I am not sure if you would get buy-in unless using the lesson plans are mandated.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jeriann,
    It is sad how sometimes we as educators don’t even give some technology software, applications or tools a chance. We start complaining before the trainers even have the opportunity to display its capabilities in the classroom or to the teacher. Then we expect our students to not ask questions and not complain when they are unsure of something. In other words we expect more from our students than what we are ourselves are displaying.
    Marion Bush

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would be right there with the teachers who don't want to use this software. I think that the reason it is being frowned upon is because it is more like a justification for the administration to verify proper lesson planning than to actually assist teachers. I think that you were set up for a bad response just by the nature of the task. However, when you elaborated on each plan from the ARCS model you brought out the best in the reasons for using the software. The final decision is left up to the teacher. You did a great analysis of the ARCS model on a challenging task.

    ReplyDelete