Haymore-Sandholtz and Reilly cite the following as a possible reason for the slow adoption of technology use by our nation�s schools: training that is provided to teachers typically �emphasizes computer literacy, with a focus on fundamental computer operation and standard applications rather than preparation on how to use technology as a tool� (Haymore-Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004, p. 488). Although the idea appears contradictory, fostering the abilities and inclination of teachers to integrate technology into their lessons may be accomplished by elimination of an emphasis on technical skills and a reduction in technical expectations.
Research was conducted to support this theory on a case study of a K-8 public schools district in southern California (Haymore-Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004). Data was collected over four years from five sources: documents, surveys, teacher journals, interviews, and observations. The findings suggested that �reducing technical expectations for teachers can enhance their instructional use of technology� (Haymore-Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004, p. 494). Five main factors were identified that facilitated a focus on instruction within this school district: inclusion of a district-owned network, existence of a centralized, server-based network, choice of hardware, technical support, and teacher development programs.
The first standard that a technology facilitator must be competent in focuses on teachers possessing the ability to exhibit a complete understanding of technology operations and concepts. Haymore-Sandholtz and Reilly contend that this should not be the priority of educators (2004). Instead, their focus ought to be on how to integrate these operations and concepts into the curriculum. In essence, these standards are viewed by Haymore-Sandholtz and Reilly as being backwards because they state that mastering technology skills should follow the mastering of its use in classrooms. They go on to state that �this focus on technical issues delays teachers� progress in using technology in meaningful ways� (Haymore-Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004, p. 507).
This article included a vast amount of research along with informative biographies on the authors. Such information tends to increase the credibility of statements posed. It was quite intriguing to read its content because it opposed the widely accepted International Society for Technology Education standards. I was skeptical of the idea which was being proposed, but as I read the rationale behind it, I began to feel that it made perfect sense. Many times, teachers participate in workshops focusing on learning a new technological program, and grow frustrated. Often, they abandon its use. Haymore-Sandholtz and Reilly�s idea is novel, but perhaps one which should be considered. The standards presented are all relevant, but if restructured in their levels of importance, might better serve the audience for whom they were initially designed.
Haymore-Sandholtz, J. & Reilly, B. (March 2004). Teachers, not
technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers.
Teachers College Record, 106, 3.
i
l
l
H
a
r
t
m
a
n
ISTE NETS
NJCCCS
About Me
Reflections/Artifacts:
Standard I
Standard II
Standard III
Standard IV
Standard V
Standard VI
Standard VII
Standard VIII
Critiques:
Standard I
Standard II
Standard III
Standard IV
Standard V
Standard VI
Standard VII
Standard VIII