My high school has money for what are called local technology grants. This is money set as specifically for teacher to ask for technology in their classroom. In a meeting with other biology teachers we discussed the many uses of a Class Performance System (CPS). A CPS basically is a handheld device that allows a teacher to know in real-time what the student knows. Verbal questions can be given at the present or the CPS units can be used with a paper test and the answers plugged in to the software prior to the test being given and the teacher can monitor progress of each individual student. Item analysis can be run according to any criteria. This technology really is a cool and very useful for the teacher for goals and data. Someone else was going to write the grant and the teachers would basically have to do no work and get free technology. Well some complained they needed a workshop to learn the technology (they already knew how it worked) and additional money set aside to get paid to create PowerPoint with integrated questions.
According to Keller’s ARCS model (Driscoll, 2005) in the presentation we needed to create a sense of curiosity for the teachers who would be using the new technology (gaining and sustaining attention). Also we needed to relate the technology’s purposes to personal goals of the teachers (enhancing relevance) (Driscoll, 2005). For instance the CPS units will save the school money by reducing the use of scantron sheets and also save the teacher time with real-time grading. There is some up-front time needed to set up the test, but it would take more time waiting for all the scantrons to run through the machine to be graded. If saving time is a goal then this can be played up to the teachers along with the CPS can generate many pieces of data that will be useful to show trends of learning or how each student did in mastering specific content areas (building confidence) (Driscoll, 2005). Lastly if the teachers will take the time and build the PowerPoint and test banks now this will save time for years to come and all the teachers can share with each other to reduce the workload (generating satisfaction) (Driscoll, 2005).
Here is website that lists the top 25 ways to motivate teachers
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin289.shtml
Here is another article about how to recognize teachers
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin308.shtml
This is a teacher’s perspective on how to motivate other teachers
http://www.newteacheruniversity.com/resources/teacher-articles/continued/how-to-motivate-a-negative-teacher/
Reference:
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
As I read your post about the possibilities of CPS, I was reminded of a similar system our school purchased some years ago. It, too, was an immediate feedback/response monitoring system that seemed to intimidate our staff more than interest them. Only one teacher garnered enough interest to integrate it into her lessons, yet within a couple of years, she also rejected it. Why? I truly don't know. Perhaps it was cumbersome; perhaps it was time consuming; or perhaps, it just didn't deliver the expected results. Regardless, Satisfaction was never realized and the technology was abandoned.
ReplyDeleteAfter perusing your recommended sites, I must say that I thought that the top 25 ways to motivate teachers was a little patronizing and condescending. I, personally, appreciate sincere compliments, but I am troubled by some of the gimmicks listed on this site. I did enjoy reading Joe Martin's comments in newteacheruniversity.com. I think he is right when he stated that outside agencies can light the fire, but it is up to the individual to warm up to it.
It is often difficult to implement new technologies when teachers are content with what they are using. It did not seem like the teachers were on board from the beginning. Maybe a few early adopters could have helped to get the teachers motivated.
ReplyDelete