Technology Reading #5 – Technology Specialist & Curriculum Work Study

Ausband, L.T. (2006). Instructional technology specialists and curriculum work. JRTE, 39(1), 1-21.

Abstract:

This case study investigated the job responsibilities of district-level instructional technology specialists that related to curriculum work and the perceptions the specialists had concerning their job responsibilities and their relationship to curriculum work. Data were collected through document analysis, shadowing, interviews, and a focus group. A framework of curriculum themes and categories was created, which was then used to define instructional technology work. Instructional technology specialists were found to be engaged in many aspects of curriculum work. The individual and focus group interviews revealed factors the participants considered to be barriers to getting their work done. Recommendations are provided for overcoming these barriers and a call is made to reconceptualize instructional technology specialists as curriculum workers.

o        RQs

1.      What professional duties do instructional technology specialists preceive they have that relate to curriculum work?

2.      What specific job responsibilities do instructional technology specialists have that relate to curriculum work?

3.      What are the barriers for instructional technology specialists and what possible changes can be made to overcome these barriers? 

This study is a very small study of 4 instructional technology specialists in a public school district in South Carolina.  The methods used in this study include: document collection (organization charts, job descriptions, syllabi, schedules, etc.), shadowing, individual interviews, focus group interviews, of which ONLY involved the instructional technology specialists.  The methods were used to provide information from different perspectives and allow for the triangulation of data.  Basically, the author examines the job responsibilities of the instructional technology specialists and explored their relationships with those of the curriculum workers.

The author of this study goes at length to compare the jobs of the instructional technology specialists to those of curriculum workers grounded in the work of Hamm, Pajak, and Sharp.  He determines that many of the responsibilites are the same, or at least very similar.  Based on research and instructional technology specialists perceptions, the author came up withe general responsibilites including:

• Developing curriculum and curriculum materials
• Collaborating with curriculum comittees and integrating technology into the curriculum
• Dealing with resources
• Visioning, strategic planning, and goal setting
• Collaborating with teachers, curriculum coordinators, and curriculm committees to integrate technology into instructional programs and meeting instructional needs
• Solving problems and researching and dispersing information
• Providing staff development and conducting teacher training
• Evaluating programs
• Instructional technology work
• Coordinating pedagogy and technology

Specifically, instructional technology specialists work with teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum through workshops and teaching courses, help teachers develop lesson plans that utilize technology, support teachers developing their portfolios, and attend meetings of Joint Department Leadership teams, content teams, School priority Teams, etc. acting in an instructional support role, along with other work.

The instructional technology specialists had many thoughts on barriers to their jobs.  They claimed to spend too much time on professional development and program evaluation activities than research, which they need to do to provide the right kinds of PD.  They noted frustration from inclusion in the actual decision-making processes, lack of time in schools, lack of communication, relationship and leadership issues between departments, accountability issues for integrating technology into schools, and a disconnect between technology and curriculum by teachers and district-level instructional support personnel.  “Teachers seem to think that if they have computer skills and are using those skills, they are integrating technology into their curriculm.”  “…Most of the curriculum specialists don’t have a clue about technology and don’t see it as part of the curriculum…”  They also believed that through helping teachers integrate technology into their curriculum that they also taught them how to use higher order thinking skills and  activities, manipulatives, etc.  It seems the major barrier for instructional technology specialists is in the organization of the schoool district.   Leadership, accountability, and communication issues mostly stem from different hierarchical management levels between constituents.  Curriculum workers have a different supervisor than instructional technology specialists whose supervisor is lower on the org chart than the curriculum workers.  When it comes time for getting goals and priorities, IT gets pushed to the back burner and/or faces more red tape.  Overall, the set up deams IT as much less important and are not included in many of the decision-making processes.

The author of this study makes some important points about technology and curriculum work.  He notes that “Technology integration is organizing the goals of curriculum and technology into a coordinated, harmonious whole.  True integration comes when students learn through computers, not about them” (Dockstader, 1999, p. 73).  Thus, we must understand how technology relates to curricular goals and how it supports the curriculum (needs study) and further research how technology work and curriculum work intersect.  At the very least, to be successful, these people need to work together on the same goals in close proximity to each other.  They may even need to background in both instructional technology and curriculum.  The author make the following recommendations:

• Instructional technology specialists need to be included in curriculum making and curriculum implementation decisions
• Instructional technology specialists should be located in the same building as curriculum workers.
• Curriculum workers should become more knowledgable about integrating technology into the curriculum, and about software and online resources that support the curriculum.
• Perhaps combine the two functions, insisiting that the employee be trained in both.
• Integrate documents used by teachers for planning, meaning combine both the technology and the curriculum planning documents that teachers use for their lessons.

Personal parting notes…  This is an interesting study because of my interest in a technology counselor.  Unfortunately, this study is so small, and the range in which districts are actually set up is so broad, but you have to start somewhere.  I agree with the intertwining of the functions of curriculum workers and instructional technology specialists.  If the IT person were to work hand in hand with the curricullum workers, it could potentially create a much better guide for teachers to integrate technology into the classroom without having to start from scratch.  It could also help develop a more uniform approach that could be tweaked based on the specific classroom environments and needs.  Additional help could be provided to those who need it and/or want it for other reasons (creative projects, etc.).  I wonder if the curriculum workers are actually teachers as well, as this could make it more difficult, especially considering time demands.  The down side of integrating IT and the curriculum worker as one position is the nature of specific educational subjects as well as great time demands.  You would have to have a whole additional set of people for day to day support (paraprofessionals?)