When the infrastructure was finally in place in our
district, meaning the Internet bandwidth was wide enough to allow a variety of
uses, we introduced video streaming to the teaching staff. In the presentation we
tried to show a variety of ways the videos could be used and how they could be
located. The faculty was all attentive and made the proper “noises” about
trying it. Then they left and went back to their classrooms. Over the next few
weeks we watched bandwidth usage rates and peaked into classrooms for evidence
of video streaming. We found very little usage. The faculty did not openly show
negative attitudes toward streaming they just avoided using it.
Keller’s ARCS model suggests four conditions for motivation
must be met for successful integration and implementation (Driscoll, 2005). Keller
states the instructor must get the attention of the audience; we had the
attention and were able to show examples during the presentation. For the
individual faculty members I think relevance was more difficult for them to
understand. Follow-up meetings with individual faculty would have provided opportunities
to discuss needs and where to find videos that would be appropriate for a
variety of lessons. Those informal meetings would have provided relevance and
increased confidence of faculty members about their ability to use videos in
their lessons. For some faculty a few meetings would be needed to increase
confidence and create movement toward satisfaction with using videos in the
classroom.
Driscoll, M.P.
(2005). Psychology of learning for
instruction (3rd edition). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Carol,
ReplyDeleteI think your example of low or no use of the innovation by the faculty is one too prevalent in many learning environments and perhaps suffers from change agent issues from the bottom-up approach. When technology is delivered as optional or as a secondary source, some stuggle to adopt it simply because of timing. I have found that most are comfortable with what has worked and requires less action. I attend at least 5 different tech classes each year; they all offer similar delivery methods, yet it is difficult to switch gears in the middle of a term. How many teachers will spend their own time to innovate, diffuse and evaluate a new product when they simply compete to understand what they already have?
Good luck with the next attempt.
David Miller
Hi Carol,
ReplyDeleteIn this case I agree that follow up session who have definitely benefited the staff and the responses to the technology might have been more favorable. I think educators need to feel a certain level of comfort before they use what was taught. In some cases you might have a few that despite the comfort level, they will try it anyway but not the case for the majority.