of 109 /109
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 338 012 EC 300 754 TITLF Trainer's Resource Guide: Program Planning Ideas and Trainer's Resource GUide: Training Materials Design Guidelines. INSTITUTION Council for Exceptional Children, Reston, VA. Center for Special Education Technology. SPONS AGENCY Special Education Programs (EVOSERS), Washington, DC. PUB DATE Sep 91 CONTRACT 300-87-0115 NOTE 109p. PUB TYPE Guides - Non-Classroom Use (055) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Agency Cooperation; College School Cooperation; Competency Based Teacher Education; *Disabilities; *Educational Media; Elementary Secondary Education; Higher Education; Inservice Teacher Education; *Instructional Design; *Material Development; Preservice Teacher Education; Program Development; *Special Education I:4chers ABSTRACT The first of the two guides presented in this docum ent is intended for preservice and inservice teacher trainers who want to include technology as an integral part of special education training. The guide is divided into five sections. The first summarizes planning issues for university-based programs. The second kxplores the planning of inservice training programs. The third section describes collaborative efforts among education agencies and institutions of higher education. The fourth section includes planning ideas tor individual training events, whether workshops, classes, or seminars. The final section discusses outcomes, including the competencies of training. Inserts throughout the guide provide the thoughts and ideas of experienced trainers. Appendixes include listings of technology competencies for special education teachers used by the University of Kentucky, State of Michigan, and Trenton State College (New Jersey) and forms allowing teachers to evaluate their own technology competence. The second guide offers guidelines for designing any of five types of training materials: authoring courses; desktop publishing; hypermedia; video; computer instruction; and interactive videodisc materials. References accompany each chapter. Also included are lists of trainer recommended software products and training resources in the areas of word processing, desktop publishing, authoring, presentation software, graphics, -iodicals, and professional associations. (DB) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ***********************************************************************

ED 338 012 EC 300 754 TITLF Trainer's Resource Guide ...DOCUMENT RESUME ED 338 012 EC 300 754 TITLF Trainer's Resource Guide: Program Planning Ideas and Trainer's Resource GUide: Training

  • Author

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of ED 338 012 EC 300 754 TITLF Trainer's Resource Guide ...DOCUMENT RESUME ED 338 012 EC 300 754 TITLF...


    ED 338 012 EC 300 754

    TITLF Trainer's Resource Guide: Program Planning Ideasand Trainer's Resource GUide: Training Materials

    Design Guidelines.INSTITUTION Council for Exceptional Children, Reston, VA. Center

    for Special Education Technology.SPONS AGENCY Special Education Programs (EVOSERS), Washington,

    DC.PUB DATE Sep 91CONTRACT 300-87-0115NOTE 109p.PUB TYPE Guides - Non-Classroom Use (055)

    EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Agency Cooperation; College School Cooperation;

    Competency Based Teacher Education; *Disabilities;*Educational Media; Elementary Secondary Education;Higher Education; Inservice Teacher Education;*Instructional Design; *Material Development;Preservice Teacher Education; Program Development;*Special Education I:4chers


    The first of the two guides presented in thisdocum ent is intended for preservice and inservice teacher trainerswho want to include technology as an integral part of specialeducation training. The guide is divided into five sections. Thefirst summarizes planning issues for university-based programs. Thesecond kxplores the planning of inservice training programs. Thethird section describes collaborative efforts among educationagencies and institutions of higher education. The fourth sectionincludes planning ideas tor individual training events, whetherworkshops, classes, or seminars. The final section discussesoutcomes, including the competencies of training. Inserts throughoutthe guide provide the thoughts and ideas of experienced trainers.Appendixes include listings of technology competencies for specialeducation teachers used by the University of Kentucky, State ofMichigan, and Trenton State College (New Jersey) and forms allowingteachers to evaluate their own technology competence. The secondguide offers guidelines for designing any of five types of trainingmaterials: authoring courses; desktop publishing; hypermedia; video;computer instruction; and interactive videodisc materials. Referencesaccompany each chapter. Also included are lists of trainerrecommended software products and training resources in the areas ofword processing, desktop publishing, authoring, presentationsoftware, graphics, -iodicals, and professional associations.(DB)

    ***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

    from the original document.***********************************************************************

  • Trainer's Resource GuideProgram Planning Ideas

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOther, ot Educational Research and improvement


    Xis document has been reproduceu isreceived from the person Or organizationoriginating it

    1' Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality

    Points Ol vie* or opinions Slated in this clock,merit 00 net necessarily represent ottiCill


    Rl position or policy


    Center forSpecial Education


    MIIFA Project ofThe Council for Exceptional Children

    Ftinded byOffice of Special Education ProgramsU. S. Department of Education

    Technology Training:A Thematic Focus of the Center


  • September 1991

    Center for Special Education TechnologyThe Council for Exceptional Children

    1920 Association DriveReston, VA 22091

    Center forSpecial Education.-.`1.3.-'-'4-- Itachnology

    The information in this document is in the public domain. Readers are encouraged to copyand share it, but please credit the Center for Special Education Technolog.

    This material was developed by i.he Center for Special Education Technolog under Con-tract No. 300-87-0115 with the Office of Special Education Programs. U.S. Department ofEducation. The content, however, does not reflect the position or policy of OSEP/ED, andno official endorsement of the materials should be inferred.






  • I



    Preface v

    Introduction 1

    infusion into University-Based Training 3A Starting PointTrenton State College 4Faculty Productivity: A Solid, No Frills Approach

    Western Michigan University 6

    A Blueprint for PlanningUniversity of Kentucky 7ExtensionsPeabody College, Van 4erbilt University 8

    State Perspectives on Inservice Training 11A Statewide NetworkFlorida 12A Centralized SystemMissouri 13A State PlanMichigan 16Strengthening Training Efforts: Empowerment of Teachers Oregon . 17Strengthening Training Efforts: incentivesMassachusetts 19

    Collaboration by Consortium 21Pennsylvania Consortium 21

    Michigan Consortium 21

    Planning Individual Training Events 23Audience 23

    Topics, Goals, Competencies, and Objectives 25

    Prerequisite Skills 26

    Length of Training 26

    Key Points and Activities 27

    Materials and Resources 28

    Adult Learner Characteristics 28

    Size of Training Groups 29

    Trainer Qualifications 29

    Outcomes and Competencies 31Development of Competencies 31

    Uses of Competencies 32

    Appendix 35


    Technology training is a theme forseveral information activities of CEC'sCenter for Special Education Technology,a federally funded information center.This document, Trainer's ResourceGuide: Program Planning Ideas and itscompanion document, Trainer's ResourceGuide: Training Materials DesignGuidelines, are part of a series ofproducts developed by the Center forSpecial Education Technology under itstechnology training theme.

    This guide was developed for trainers atboth preservice and inservice levels. It in-chides program planning ideas for use atcolleges and universities, as well as stateeducation departments, regional servicecenters, and local school districts. Theguide describes how to include technologyboth as an integral part of special educa-tion training and as a tool in the trainingprocess. However, the real value of thisdocument lies in the advice from experi-enced trainers. They share their thoughts,ideas, and successes or what we refer to

    as "pearls of wisdom" in the many boxesscattered throughout this guide.

    We thank our technology training ex-perts who contributed their ideas to thisguide. We thank the following people: A.Edward Blackhurst, University of Ken-tucky; Gayl Bowser, Oregon TechnologyAccess Project; Amy Dell, Trenton StateCollege; Dave Edyburn, Peabody College,Vanderbilt University; Betsy Knafo, BankStreet College of Education; ColleenHaney, Pennsylvania Assistive Device Cen-ter; Alonzo Hannaford, Western MichiganUniversity; Janice Light, PennsylvaniaState University; Valita Marshall, Univer-sity of Missouri-Kansas City; LucianParshall, Michigan State Education De-partrnent; Eileen Pracek, FDLRS/TECH;Penny Reed, Oregon Department of Educa-tion; Herb Reith, Peabody College,Vanderbilt University; Jennifer Taylor,Delaware Learning Resource System; andJoan Thormann, Lesley College.

    The Center would also like to thank thereview panel members, who providedvaluable suggestions throughout the devel-opment of both guides: Joan Basile,Georgia Learning Resource Systems; Mi-chael I3ehrmann, George MasonUniversity; Janis Bing, Texas EducationService Center, Region 6; Kathy Hurley,IBM; Jeffrey Messerer, NortheasternIllinois University; Lewis Polsgrove, Indi-ana University; Barbara Reeves, OhioUniversity: and Pamela Ross, INNOTEK.


    We live in the Information Ageand theinformation is constantly changing.Technology has brought an array ofnewinformation to the school door. Aseducators, we must be technologicallyliterate. As self-motivattd learners, wemust assume the respomibility to seeknew information and learn how to apply itto education. Trainers have an evengreater responsibility. Both preserviceand inservice trainers must ensure thatnot only are they niformed themselves,but also that they inform others. Trainersmust move educators at all levels from abasic awareness of technology to higherlevels of knowledge, including ways tosuccesrfully integrate and applytechnology in the classroom. Trainingmust be ongoing, with plenty of follow-upsupport. With well over 300,000 specialeducators currently teaching or about toenter the teaching force, it's a formidabletask.

    The principles for training in the area oftechnology are similar to those for anytraining event. However, technology isnew to many teachers, and this unfamiliar-ity often causes apprehension. Forexample, teachers report that it takes Ihreor six years to feel comfortable and be-come knowledgeable about usingcomputers for teaching (Sheingold & Had-ley, 1990). Even when teachers aretrained and feel comfortable with the tech-nology, the information changes and newlearning is required. In addition, technol-ogy training requires more time to

    implement, more sophisticated equip-ment, and more resources than otherinnovations in education.

    The expectations of administrators arehigh for technology. Administratois wantnew teachersfrom kindergarten throughgrade 12to be trained to operate micro-computers (Peyton, 1989). AlthoughPeyton's study found that K-12 teacher re-cruitment did not depend on teach irs'possessing microcomputer skills, it is ourbelief that when all other factors remainthe same, administrators hiring new spe-cial education staff will select teacherswho are competent in technology use.

    The guide was developed to assist train-ers in their planning efforts. It providesprogram planning ideas and concrt.te ex-amples of how to incorporate technologyin the training of special educators. Theguide is divided into five sections. Thefirst summarizes planning issues for tut-versity-based programs. The secondexplores the planning of inservice trainingprograms. The third section describes col-laborative efforts among educationagencies and institutions of higher educa-tion. The fourth section includes planningideas for individual training events,whether workshops, classes, or seminars.The final section discu&ses outcomes, in-cluding the competencies of training.

    Experienced trainers share theirthoughts, ideas, and successes in themany boxes scattered throughout thisguide. The ideas incorporated into thisguide are by no means exhaustive. Thepurpose of this guide is to stimulatethought and discussion among trainersboth at the preservice and inservice level.We hope that by sharing the lessonslearned from other experts. that the taskof training will be made easier. Most im-portantly, we hope to encourage trainersto infuse technology into their trainingprograms.



  • References

    Peyton, M. (1989). An identification ofthe microcomputer skills and under-standings needed by preserviceteachers. Dissertation Abstracts.

    Sbeingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Ac-complished teachers: Integratingcomputers into classroom practice.New York, NY: Bank Street College e fEducation.



    Many institutions of higher educationrecognize the need to address technologyin their special education programs.Including technology in the curriculum,however, is not always easy for severalreasons. First, state mandates often placepressure on special educationdepartments to develop curricula thatmeet the demands for initial certfication.Colleges and universities must determinehow to address technolov: should it be aseparate course, a sequence of courses,or integrated into existing core courses?Many special education programs arecrowded with required courses and

    content that leave little room for additionsof any sort. Second, some institutionshave a very stable (and sometimen older)faculty that may be resistant to change. Insome cases, faculty also require training.Most colleges and universities face thequestion of how to motivate faculty toincorporate technology into their courses.("Motivating the Faculty" and "ChangingFaculty Activities" below, provide severalinsightful answers.) Finally, almost allinstitutions face budget constraints.Funds are not always available fortraining, equipment, and resources.

    Planning a program that includes tech-nology can be divided into five stages.Fi) st is an analysis of the current pro-gram with an identification of itsstrengths and weaknesses. Second, plan-ners set goals and structure the overalldesign for technology inclusion. The devel-opment of the program can then proceed.Implementation of the plan is next, fol-lowed by ongoing evaluations andrevisions of the program.

    This section presents sevei al models of'technology training at the preservice level.Featured are innovative programs fromTrenton State College, Western MichiganUniversity, the Ure.versity of Kentucky.

    Motivating the Faculty

    How do we get faculty members to incorporate technology into theircourses? How do we overcome their fears, their ignorance, and insome casestheir hostility? I must admit that I continually deal withthose questions. I've found that you need to develop faculty consensuson the integration of technology. 'You won't be successful until you getfaculty members saying. "Yes, we want to do it." To obtain consensus,you need to develop techniques and procedures that will make it easy.For example. I ask students in my specialist training program enrolledin curriculum methods courses to focus their projects on technologyapplications for that course. Students are encouraged to design andpresent the Information in a modular format that is ezsy to use. So thenext time the course is offered, even if a technology major is not avail-able, the faculty member can implement the module with little effort.

    Mike BehrrnannGeorge Mason University



  • Changing Faculty Attitudes About Technology

    Changing the outlook of our colleagues isessential to the integration process. For themost part, we have not shown teachers andteacher educators the payoff, For many peo-ple, getting access to a computer, learninghow to use it, and finding the right softwareare tasks that require significant amountsof time with very little personal benefit. Weneed to find ways of streamlining the pro-cess of integration so busy faculty memberscan spend less time with technology issuesand more time on instructional concerns.We need to be aware of how technology ap-plications will fit in with what ourcolleagues are already doingand will helpthem do their jobs better. We need to be onthe lookout for interesting and new technol-ogy applications and say "Hey, does thatfit?" and "If so, where?"For example, if a colleague is teaching com-munication strategies, augmentativecommunication is a natural extension. Weneed to be on the look-out for those coursetopics in our curriculum that have a logicaltechnology connection. Then the inclusionof technology becomes easya natural ex-tension of the course content.

    Dave EdyburnPeabody College, Vanderbilt University

    What we really need to do is make it easierfor our colleagues. We are the ones whohave caught the "bug' and sit and play withall these "toys." When we come across

    things that would be really goodnotmaybe, not marginally, but idealfor acourse that's being taught, we need to passthem on to our colleagues.For example, some of the videotapes avail-able from the Pennsylvania Assistive DeviceCenter are outstanding, and they are basi-cally free. So, if one of those tapes isespecially relevant to a course that some-body else teaches, lend your colleague thattape, or maybe even give it away. Ask gradu-ate assistants, student assistants, or otherknowledgeable personnel to do a computerdemonstration. Then the faculty membercan present information while the assistanttakes care of booting up the software, bring-ing up menus, and demonstratingprograms. In this way, you've made it easierfor a resistant colleague to get involved.

    Amr DellTrenton State College

    Learning a computer application that ispersonally useful serves the dual purposeof reducing computer phobia and examin-ing one's own learning style. When teachersare asked to analyze their own learning pro-cesses as they learn to use a wordprocessor or database, the focus is re-moved from the technology and plazed onthe learning experience. Making such c:r.nections for themselves is necessar.teachers are to use technology tc,the learning process for their studecl,

    and Peabody College at Vanderbilt Univer-sity. These institutions have developedmany creative solutions to the problem ofincluding technology in an alreadycrowded curriculum; for brevity's sake,however, we have touched on only a few.

    A Starting PointTrenton State College

    How do you begin a technology trainingprogram at a small, publicly supportedcollege with limited resources and a strictstate mandate on the maximum number

    of credits (35) for the special educationprogram? In 1988, this college had a spe-cial education undergraduate enrollmentof 100 and a graduate enrollment of 200in special education. Unable to add a sepa-rate course, Trenton State applied for andreceived a grant from the U. S. Depart-ment of Education, Office of SpecialEducation and Rehabilitation Services, todevelop a systematic plan to infuse tech-nology into existing undergraduatecourses.


  • Trenton State Plan for Technology Infusion(as of June 1990)


    Freshman YearSED 101Survey

    Sophomore YearICD 240 Computer LiteracySED 205 Professional ExperienceSED 207 Growth & Development

    Junior YearSED 309 Language Arts

    SED 305 Curriculum

    SED 312 ReadingSED 320 Mental RetardationSED 324 Learning DisabilitiesSED 322 Multiple Disabilities

    Senior YearSED 415 Practicum

    SED 321 Education

    SED 435 Behavior ManagementSED 498 Advanced Writing

    SED 402 Assessment

    SED 490 Student Teaching

    Topic of Module

    Technology for PeopleWho Are Blind or Deaf

    Word Processing for ProductivityPrompted Writing ProgramsNone

    *Introduction to Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI)Reading and Language Arts*CAI: Subject SoftwareCreating Teaching MaterialsIntegrating CAI: Remedial ReadingMinlauthoring programsComputers as Tool for Writing*Adaptive Switcues*Access to Computers

    *Augmentative Communication


    1.2, 6.2


    2.1,, 2.2,,,, 6.2.2

    Determining Students' TechnologyNeeds 1.5, 2.4.2Software for Work & Play 3.4(Spreadsheets, Database, Music)Data Collection 7.6Using Telecommunications &CD-ROM for Research

    Assessing Students'Computer SkillsPlan for Classroom Use

    Note: SED = Special Education; ICD = Instructional Computing DevelopmentThese modules are developed and field tested.

    * See Appendix A for list of Trenton State College competencies




  • An analysis of Trenton State s specialeducation program indicated that technol-ogy-related topics were randomlyintroduced, with no sequential building ofskills. To systematize the department'splan, the faculty decided to identify tech-nology-related skills crucial for theirundergraduates and then infuse theseskills into existing courses.

    They modified and validated a list ofcompetencies from the University of Ken-tucky (Blackhurst, 1990) to meet theparticular New Jersey state requirementsand needs of their students. Next, the fac-ulty matched competencies with con.courses. They then assigned technologytopics and competencies to 15 of the 16special education core courses. (See"Trenton State Plan for Technology Infu-sion" below, for the distribution oftechnology modules among variouscourses.) Each year the infusion plan isreviewed and revised as needed.

    A series of training modules addressingtechnology topics and skills is plannedfor each course. By June 1990, 6 of the;18 modules were developed and fieldtested. Modules are designed with hands-on experiences. Portions of the contentfor modules were adapted from other suc-ces..,ful training programs. Each moduleincludes competencies, rationale, prereq-uisites, evaluation, class activities,suggestions for instructor preparation,readings, and student assignments. Mod-ule activities vary in length from 30 to 75minutes and take place over three to fourclass sessions.

    Faculty Productivity: A Solid, No-FrillsApproachWestern Michigan University

    When change is introduced slowly,there is often a high success rate. Hanna-ford (1990) describes this as the "snailmodel," a slow but sure way to bringabout change. That premise guided the de-velopment of a plan to infuse technologyuse in special education at Western Michi-gan University.

    Conditions for SuccessfulInfusion

    * Available equipment. Do whatyou can with what you have.

    Trained personnel. Train themwithout a great deal of addedburden; it's a sell job that takesmore than overnight.Time for development. Unlesstechnology is integrated into whatpeople believe, they won't use it.

    * Accessibility. Technology must beavailable when staff and studentsneed to use it.

    Efficiency. Technology shouldincrease the efficiency of what youare currently doing; if not, it won'tbe used.

    Effectiveness. Incorporatingtechnology into education shouldmake teachers and students moreeffective.

    Utility. Technology must be usedfor a purpose.

    Alonzo HannafordWestern Michigan University

    Faced with a stable and older faculty,somewhat resistant to change, WesternMichigan University focused efforts firston awareness of technology as a tool to in-crease the personal productivity of thefaculty. Relying solely on internal funding,the university developed a practical planto do "what they could with what theyhad." Faculty members were encouragedto take computers home over weekendsto become familiar with the equipment..The university found inexpensive ways torelease the faculty for training, such ashaving other staff members cover theirclasses. Graduate students and part-timeaids were available to assist the faculty,

    1 1


  • Critical Look at How to Incorporate Technology Into the Curriculum

    Six Premises for Technology Infusion

    Bend the technoloV to fit the objective(s), not the objective(s) to fit the technology.Reasons for using the technology must outweigh the reasons for not using thetechnologybe a critical consumer.If you have to "strain" to use the technology to attain a particular objective don't useitit's probably not appropriate.Focus the use of technologyuse it for a specific purpose.Scratch the learner's itch, not your ownuse should be matched to learner's needs.Don't duplicate, don't make extra work. If what you are doing works, dun'tsubstitute technologyit's nice, but not necessary.

    Alonzo HannafordWestern Michigan University

    troubleshoot, and offer assistance in mate-rials production. Several factors thatfacilitate the infusion of technology wereidentified. (See "Conditions for SuccessfulInfusion" above.)

    Because of these efforts, faculty produc-tivity has increased: staff members usetechnology in telecommunications, CALspreadsheets, word processing, grading,student records, and databases. Both stu-dents and faculty now routinely usetechnology to assist in the preparation ofmaterials for classroom use. The univer-sity also took a hard-nosed approach todetermine what role technology play inthe curriculum without forcing technol-ogy use (see "Six Premises for TechnologyInfusion" above). One course in technol-ogy is currently offered, with technology-related information infused into other se-lected courses. More technology contentmay be added to other courses, but onlyin a slow, measured way.

    A Blueprint for PlanningUniversity ofKentucky

    The faculty the Department of Spe-cial Education at the University ofKentucky fully embrace technology. They

    have systematically infused technologyinto many aspects of the special educa-tion program. Nine core courses, pluspracticu:n txperlence, address the appli-cations :'.f technology in special education.The university offers three graduate pro-grams (M.S., Ed.S., and Ed.D.) as well asa postdoctoral program for leadership per-sonnel who are interested in developingor improving their technology skills.

    The comprehen..iive model for plannaigthat has been successfully used by theUniversity of Kentucky for more than noyears to guide special education deve:op-ment was used to design the infusion oftechnology into the special education pro-grams. This master plan has nine steps(see also "Importance of a PhilosophyStatement," below):1. Develop a mission and philosophy

    statement.2. Define the roles and function of future

    program graduates.3. Identify competencies associated with

    each role.4. Develop objectives and criteria for

    each competency.5. Identify, select, or develop content.


  • Importance of a Philosophy Statement

    The first step, developing a statement of philosophy, is important.You need to begin with a well-articulated mission; it provides a oon-ceptual underpinning, if you will, for everything that follows. It shouldinclude values and beliefs of the faculty or trainers involved in the de-sign of the inservice program or courses. A mission statement defineswhat we do, why we do it, and how we do it. In my experience, mostcurriculum development efforts do not pay enough attention to devel-oping a mission statement. If you don't do this earlyparticularlywith a big curriculum development effortpeople working in teamsbegin to have disagreements and even reach stalematesand all be-cause not enough attention was paid up front to the philosophicalaspects of the design.

    Many curriculum development efforts often begin in the middle, bydesigning the structure of the program (step 6 of the University of Ken-tucky model). Staff often say, "Well, we need a course in this area" or"We need to redesign this course." But that is an inappropriate placeto start. Rather, the information gleaned from the first five stepsshould precede discussions about what kinds of courses or inservicetraining you need. Invariably, if you start at Step 6. two years lateryou're going to say, "Wow, we left a lot of stuff out" or "We've pack-aged it inappropriately."

    A. E. BlackhurstUniversity of Kentucky

    6. Design structure of program andinstructional alternatives.

    7. Implement training program.8. Evaluate training program.9. Refine and revise program.10. Maintain management system and

    conduct formative evaluationg

    This model demonstrates how system-atic planning can yield a responsive,dynamic. and fully integrated program. Ex-tensive effort went into the developmentand validation of specific competenciesfor each program. The faculty developedcompetencies to meet student needs andto respond to a state mandate for technol-ogy competence. Student skills relating tothese competencies are assessed with per-formance-based assessment instruments.These competencies are discussed laterin this guide.


    ExtensionsPeabody College, VanderbiltUniversity

    When technology can enhance effectiveand appropriate instruction, It is infusedinto both undergraduate and graduate spe-cial education courses at Peabody College.The faculty, the dean, the provost, andthe chancellor all strongly support infu-sion. At the undergraduate level,instruction on principles of effective in-struction includes the appropriate use oftechnology. Graduate-level training em-phasizes research on the use oftechnology as well as using technolo& toconduct research. Administrators providesupport to the faculty by providing re-sources and by modeling technolo& use(see "Change as a Process," below).

    At Peabody, a contextual framework in-corporates the philosophy of all facultymembers. Resources funded partlythrough grant programs provide assis-tance to instructors who use technology

    1 3


  • Change as a ProcessChange must occur as part of a process; technology must serve as a tool to helpstair and faculty.

    Personal involvement If the change agent is helpful. As chair, I work with Lcultyto individually examine coumes that can be infused with technology.Change must be presented in such a way that faculty have the opportunity tochange the model if they choose.

    Change is a continuous process of participation and evaluation. Collect data tosee how the program is working and share information whenever possible.Strong administrative support is necessary Provide a supportive environment.Resources supporting change are needed. Provide systematic instruction to staffand provide equipment resources.

    Herb RiethPeabody College, Vanderbilt University

    as a part of their instructional approach.Other staff, consultants, and graduate stu-dents assist the faculty in the infusion oftechnology into course content. Other re-sources allow faculty members to modelthe use of technology through instruc-tional applications (see "An Example ofSupport Materials," below).

    An Example of SupportMaterials

    Peabody College has found sev-eral creative ways for facultymembers to model technology useand deliver content at the sametime. For example, many facultymembers indicated that students atall levels need instruction and prac-tice in writing behavioral objectives.A self-contained unit on this topic isavailable as an interactive computer-based instructional program. Whenstudents need to brush up on writ-ing behavioral objectives, they canwork with this program until theyreach proficiency.

    Herb RiethPeabody College, Vanderbilt

    Peabody takes a proactive stance whenit comes to technology infusion. Facultymembers constantly look for ways tech-nology can serve as a tool to upgrade andupdate their program. The search is ongo-ing at faculty meetings, presentations, andworkshops. Every semester, a fewcourses are targeted for infusion. Facultymembers are offered a menu of options,which allows them to tailor courses tomeet specific individual needs. Optionsrange from low technology support, suchas transparency development, to high sup-port, such as videodisc production. Noone set of guideiines is presented to thefaculty. This approach allows instructorsto merge technology use into theircourses without the pressure of man-dates. When appropriate, they sharesuccessful approaches with other faculty.


    Blackhurst, A. E. (1990). Planning spe-cial education technology pre-serviceand in-service training (A presentationhandout). Lvangton, KY: University ofKentucky, Department of Special Edu-cation.


  • Hannaford, A. (1990). Infusing technol-ogy into special education.Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan Uni-versity, Department of SpecialEducation, INSTEP? Center.


    I 5





    Many people believe that a good trainingdesign will accommodate both preserviceand inservice audiences. Although this

    may be true, experienced trainers suggestdesigning training at the inservice leveldifferently because the 'reeds of thisaudience are distinct. Teachers at theinservice level have good teaching skills,good grounding in education, andmotivation to improve their skills.Teachers who are either not usingtechnology or using it inappropriatelyusually lack skills and knowledge. Onceproperly trained and equipped with thenecessary resources, most teachers willdo their best. However, there wil! alwaysbe a few teachers who are reluctant to usetechnology. (See "Enticing the ReluctantLearner below).

    When planning an inservice program, atrainer should conduct a needs analysis

    Enticing the Reluctant Learner

    There are always a few reluctant learners who are not quite ready for technol-ogy. We have found several ways to "hook" these teachers. First, we attendeducational conferences that typically do not offer sessions on technology. In-stead of making formal presentation we set up a table in the hall. The tablesare equipped with computers and printers with colored ribbons. We usesome type print program such as Print Shop. Garfield. or CertificateMaker. Our b.aff wear blinking buttons to attract teachers. As teachers movefrom session to session we encourage them to stop and make a card, certifi-cate, banner, or whatever they want. In ju short amount of time they havea finished product to take home, and they ia.ive found that technology is notthat difficult to use. We give each teacher a bright fluorescent sticker thatsays, "I did it at the Make-n-Take." We have "hooked" more teachers on tech-nology by this approach than any other single activity. We call this the"Electronic Make-and-Take Strategy."

    Because it is impossible to reach everyone at these conferences, we use a sim-ilar strategy at the local level. FDLRS Centers may set up a table for a day ina media center or teacher's lounge located within a school. This gives teach-ers an opportunity to stop by during a break or after school. We try to showteachers how technology can assist them as a teaching tool or how it can beincorporated into content areas and give them an opportunity to copy publicdomain software. For example, with the recent move toward whole languagewe have teachers making their own big books.

    Some FDLRS Centers also work with schools to provide a substitute teacheron the day they visit their media center. This provides release time for teach-ers so they can spend more time with the technology opportunities offered inthe media center.

    Pracek. FDLRSITECH

    I t)


  • il

    Training the Trainers

    Network training should model best practices.Training and resources for training should concentrate on technologytopics that are critical to exceptional education.When building skills, training should always be hands- on.Specific resources needed for duplicating training should be provided toFDLRS centers.When resources are provided, FDLRS centers should make a commitmentto use them by implementing training, establishing demonstrationclassrooms, alid/or by developing products to be used by all centers.

    Whenever possible, network training sessions should coincide with otheractivities to make maximum t. se of resources.Target groups for network trfuning should include core trainers and,depending on the topic, other related personnel.Successful practices from district training sessions should be identifiedacid shared.Successful practices from other state and national projects should beidentified and shared.Summer institutes should be held each year to deliver intense training inidentified areas of special need.

    Eileen Pracek, FDLRSffECH

    of the audience. Training programsshould address the various levels of tech-nologv skills and knowledge ofparticipants. Frequently, inservice is aone-shot deal. However, if long-term gainsare to be made, teachers must be offeredongoing training, with ample hands-on cx-pe and follow-up support.

    Inservice training usually takes placewithin the context of an education agencyat the state, regional, or local level. Thevariables for each setting are different andaffect the final desigi for training: thenumber of requests for training, stafmembers available to provide training,the time to present and learn new technol-ogy, money to purchase resources, andthe waingness of staff to learn new prac-tices. Moreover, some training programsshoyld be individualized to provide directtrailltng in certain adaptive devices thatbecome available to a school or an individ-ual m.udent. For more discussion on this

    topic, see the section, "Planning for Indi-vidual Training Events" on page 23.

    This section presents five inservicemodels from Florida, Missouri, Michigan,Oregon, and Massachusetts. Like pre-service efforts, these models vary in theirdesign. Although this section focuses onstate-level inservice models, parts of themodels are appropriate for local efforts.

    A Statewide NetworkFlorida

    In Florida, training personnel who workwith exceptional students is one of thefunctions of the Florida Diagnostic andLearning Resource System (FDLRS), astatewide network of 18 associate and 10specialized centers. Since 1974, FDLRShas served as a support service to excep-tional student education; it has receivedfederal and state funding to provide train-ing and other resources since 1983.



  • Operating out of the Brevard CountySchool District, FDLRS/TECH is desig-nated as an Instructional TechnologyTraining Resource Center to assist theFDLRS centers in delivering technologyservices to all school districts in the state.Specifically, the Tech Center assists per-sonnel in acquiring and maintainingrequired skills and provides resources fcrtraining. The Center designs training pro-grams for teachers, administrators,parents, and other related personnel.

    Since statewide training opportunitiesare limited, it is critical that training be ef-fective and delivered in a manner thatoptimizes available resources. The "train-ing the trainers" model best meets theneed for a statewide delivery system inFlorida. Instructional technology contactsin each of the FDLRS centers serve as theinitial core of trainers.

    Elective use of technology in the curric-ulum requires the expertise of contentpersonnel as well as experience in usingthe technology. Engaging experiencedteachers as trainers of other teachers ex-pands both the resource and theknowledge base. In order to assist train-ers in delivering quality training todistricts, those providing "training for thetrainers" established criteria for statewidetraining. (See "TrainilAg Trainers" above.)

    Training content and skills for teachersand other personnel at the district levelare grouped into eight broad categories:* Computer literacy for the special

    education teacher.* Selecting software for the special

    education student.* Integrating software into the special

    education curriculum.* Computer awareness for the special

    education parent.

    Adaptive/assistive devices.Tools for the special educationteacher.

    * Tools for the special educationstudent.

    * Policies, issues, and trends.

    In a concentrated FDRS network ef-fort, replicable workshops weredeveloped in each of these categories bytrainers who are experienced in meetingthe needs of exceptional students andwho know the technology. Workshops aredocumented in an easy-to-duplicate for-mat. All the required information isavailable or easily accessible. These mate-rials offer a viable alternative fordelivering effective training to individualschool districts.

    The FDLRS system also developed amodule that introduces parents to the po-tential of technology in aiding theirchildren. Parent training is offeredthrough FDLRS associate centers and asan option at meetings and conferencesthat parents attend. Parents preview soft-ware at each FDLRS center and may copypublic domain software for use at home.

    A Centralized SystemMissouri

    With a large rural population, Missouriestablished a centralized, collaborativenetwork to provide technology training.The Missouri Technology Center for Spe-cial Education is funded through theDepartment of Elementary and SecondaryEducation, the Division of Special Educa-tion in cooperation with the University ofMissouri at Kansas City, School of Educa-tion. This center serves not only thestate's school districts, but also it's insti-tutions of higher education and stateschools.

    The Missouri Technology Center offersseveral types of training activitieswhichare in-depth, hands-on experiencestoadministrators, teachers, and universityfaculty members:* Regional workshops are all-day

    training experiences presentedthroughout the state. Although laborintensive, these workshops are worth

    I S


  • Planning Workshops

    We have developed several prepackaged workshops, from basic gen-eral awareness overview training to highly specific, hands-onstraining such as programming augmentative communication systems.We target at least six different sites in the state every academic year.

    Each workshop is approximately one day in length. We have designeerather extensive workbooks to accompany the training, since we havefound that the participants can retain only so much information dur-ing information-packed workshops. Print materials are criticalbecause after the workshop is over, participants have them for refer-ence. They do not have to rely just on their notes or on what theyremember.

    In the past, our training opportunities were free of charge. But Mis-souri faced a budgetary crisis two years ago, and we decided tocharge for our services. We kept fees nominal so many rural districtscould afford to send someone for training. For regional training wecharge $25 per participant for an all-day program. For district train-ing, we charge the district $75 for the whole day regardless of howmany participants attend. Our objective is not to make a profit, but tohave partial cost recovery. It is interesting to note, however, that par-ticipation has increased in the past two years. People seem to valuethose things they pay for.

    Another change that has made our training more effective is to movethe sessions out of the schools. Schools are Just not an effective placeto train teachers. There are too many bells going off, teachel and stu-dents moving around, and other distractions. The teachers can'tconcentrate. We use the conference rooms of a hotel near the school.Our sessions run from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., with an hour for lunch.Teachers consider the lunch break a real benefit, because they're notused to that hour in their regular school day.

    We bring all our own equipment to the hotel. It was a bigger night-mare trying to use equipment from the schoolstheir computersdidn't have enough memory, and printers wouldn't print. When weschedule for the year, we try to give ourselves at least a month be-tween regioral training sessions to allow for staff recovery frommoving everything-12 computers, extension cords, surge protectors,printers, and other equipment.

    We allow only two to three participants per computer if we're doinghands-on training. We've gotten very fast at dismantling and reassem-bling. We know exactly how we want the room set up and the hotelshave always been extremely helpful.

    Valita MarshallMissouri Technology Centerfor Special Education



  • Effective Training Procedures

    The Missouri Technology Center has several suggestions to increase the suc-cess of training activities. They discovered that methodical planning andpreparation pay off with motivated participants who receive the informationand skills they need:

    Begin each training session with an advanced organizer that includesa promise of the material that will be covered. Then fulfill the prom-ise. Supply bibliographic information for advanced learning shouldthe participants desire.At the beginning of a session, ask each member of the audience tothink of a particular student with whom to use the training informa-tion.Identify the needs of your audience. Then ask them what their level ofexperience or knowledge is related to the topic. Be aware that the au-dience does have knowledge and experience that can enhance yourpresentation, so encourage active participation.Address each question posed from the audience with respect. If youcannot answer a question, then follow up through additional corre-spondence.Create an environment in which participants can express themselvesand share personal experiences in a nonthreateningmanner.Share your failures as well as your successes.Limit the size of your audience whenever possible (25-35 is a goodsize for group participation).Know your topic inside and out. Then, should the need arise, you canmodify to meet the audience's needs.Invert the learning pyramidstart with a narrow focus, then add tothis to develop a broader application of the inf-mation provided.Arrive early for your presentation, and always be prepared for equip-ment failure. Bring backups whenever possible, and have analternative presentation plan should equipment fail. Audiences be-come restless if forced to wait while presenters "futz" with equipment.

    Valita MarshallMissouri Technology Centerfor Special Education

    the effort as they provide in-depthtraining to special educators, as wellas training materials for the district'scontinued use.At district inservice progyams, topicsare normally more specific to theneeds of a particular district.At statewide conferences, Center staffoffer direct training to a large numberof special educators; and theconference schedule includes both

    exhibits ard demonstration ofdifferent !s of technologicaldevices.

    Tne Missot fechnology Center haslearned from experience how to plan foreffective workshops. (See "Planning Work-shops" above, for a good look at theirplanning; also see "Effective Training Pro-cedures" above, for some specific traininghints.


  • Training and Change

    Change is a process, not a single event. As such, it must be facilitatedby a multidimensional effort.As teachers move through the change process, they will go throughpredictable stages of adoption.Support must come from locally based resources, where they arereadily accessible to the educators using the technology.As an agency moves from simple awareness to,actual integration of anew technology or practice, ongoing support is vital.

    Lucian Parshall, Special Education Services,Michigan Departinent of Education

    A State PlanMichigan

    Knowing that change is more successfulwhen those affected are involved in plan-ning, innovators in Michigan formed atask force that included key special educa-tion organizations, universities, vendors,and rehabilitation services. Representa-tives of these groups developed along-range technology plan for Michigan'sDepartment of Special Education. Theyidentified the steps needed to ensure fulluse of technology in special education,and using state discretionary and somePart D funds implemented the 5-yearplan.

    Long-range goals encompassed fourareas: computer-aided instruction, com-puter-assisted management, adaptivedevices, and emerging technology. A list ofteacher and administrator competenciesalso evolved. The task force addressedeach goal in the plan through personnelpreparation; software development; mini-grants to purchase hardware and/oradaptive devices; and two statewide clear-inghouses: the LLRC and ACCESS.

    Perhaps the most impressive result ofthis planning process was the functionthe task force performed after completingthe state plan. Having discovered com-mon interests and concerns relating to

    technology in special education, the taskforce remained together. The members,who represented over 15 organizations,realized that they had a responsibility be-yclid the plan to promote a moresystematic use of technologies. The taskforce organized and developed a set of bylaws and, in 1985, formed, the Coalitionof Organizations in Michigan to Promotethe Use of Technology in Special Educa-tion (COMPUTE).

    This coalition then continued to refinethe competencies included in the stateplan and developed several training mod-ules. One of these is an introductory,2-hour workshop. Other programs in-clude 5 comprehensive training moduleson general technological literacy, instruc-tional software, evaluation, adaptivedevices, and directed experience.

    7ach module includes all elements nec-essary for effective training: an overview,prerequisite skills, competencies, trainingobjectives, learner outcomes, required ma-terials, teaching outline, handouts,transparencies, a self-evaluation form,study guides, resources, and an overallevaluation form. Modules initially werenot available for reneral disseminationwithout appropriate training. Later, COM-PUTE used a train-the- trainer approachfor both preservice and inservice partici-

    2 1



  • pants. A total of 800 to 900 teachers aretrained each year using this approach (see"Training and Change," above).

    COMPUTE also supports its member or-ganizations within the coalition throughsuch activities as computer laboratoriesat annual conferences, software demon-strations, equipment loans, and generalassistance in planning and conductingtraining workshops using the modules.

    Strengthening Training Efforts:Empowerment of Teachers Oregon

    Once a state has a plan for technologytraining, how do planners entice teachersand other school staff with limited fundsto attend training? How do they ensurelong range commitment? Two states, Ore-gon and Massachusetts, have similarsolutions.

    Oregon's Technology Access Programconducts resource development and in-service training for teachers, therapists,administrators, and parents throughoutthe state. The program has three goals:* Infuse technology into existing


    * Develop technology competencies foreducators and parents.

    * Provide resources and trainingmaterials for teachers.

    Rather than using technology as a sepa-rate goal area, the program tries to infusetechnology use into areas such as transi-tion, supported education, low-incidencepopulations, or family support. These ef-forts are focused at local, regional, andstate levels. Training goals are based onseveral premises; the most important isthat of empowering a targeted group ofeducators and parents. This means thatthese individuals must acquire the tools,knowledge, and resources to continuetheir efforts (see "Empowerment of Tech-nology Users," below).

    By including technology into all stateplan goal areas, the access to various pop-ulations has increased. Coordinatingtraining activities with other state agen-cies such as the Vocational RehabilitationDivision is one successful way to sharelimited resources and personnel. Oregonfinds that collaboration has occurredmore frequently since they established aTechnology Center under the State TechGrant (P. L. 100-407) program. Although

    Empowerment of Technology Users

    Give technolngy users the tools for empowerment training, resources,time, support.Recognize that technology users are competent in many areas.

    Remember that poor functioning in the use of technology is usually due tolack of information and resources.Acknowledge that if technology users are not doing a good job, it is notbecause they can't but because they need additional resources or support.

    Expect that technology competencies can be acquired when needed.

    Ensure that technology users play an active role in planning and acquiringthe competencies they need.

    Gayl Bowser,Oregon Technology Access Program


  • still at the awareness level, the OregonTechnology Access Program works closAywith their state Crippled Children's Pro-grams, State Schools, DisabilitiesCommission, Early Intervention Program,and Developmental Disabilities Councilfor some training activities. Not only doesthis approach share resources, but also al-lows others to see the potential oftechnology and increases the likelihoodthat technology will be infused in theseprograms.

    A regional train-the-trainer model isused to train teams, which may consist ofteachers, physical therapists, occupa-tional therapists, vision and hearingteachers, and speech/language patholo-gists. Regional teams are empowered withresources, such as short-term loan equip-ment for evaluation purposes, a lendinglibrary of commercial software, public do-main software, training kits of hardware(e.g., kits equipped with 10 of everythingadaptive firmware cards, echo speechsynthesizers, etc.) and training materials.This strategy develops a network of em-

    A Follow-Up Strategy

    The Oregon Technology Access Program offers several special summer insti-tutes that are highly effective. Last summer, a third-party evaluator found thatover 90% of the participants reported that the training resulted in significantchanges in their practice. Several strategies help make these institutes a suc-cess.

    Before acceptance to the training, educators must obtain theirsupervisor's permission to attend.The supervisor must agree to allow time for the educator to imple-ment conte it learned during the institute and provide the necessarysupport to do so.Participants, trainers, and supervisors agree on a follow-up plan.

    All participants attending a summer institute must complete a goal statementbefore they leave the training. The trainer reviews the plan with each partici-pant to ensure that it is a realistic goal. Participants may write goals thatinvolve working with a particular student, training someone else in theirbuilding, or contributing to their own growth and development.

    Some will put more emphasis on one area than another, but they are ex-pected to write between two and five goals. They are asked to indicate theresources neededwhat's available as well as what they will need to acquire.Goals that involve purchasing additional equipment, are not accepted unlessthe district has already committed to the purchase, because equipment pur-chase is a problem in many school districts.

    Completed plans arc sent to the supervisor who must approve the plan inwriting. There is a place where supervisors can change the plan if there issomething written that they feel cannot be implemented. The signed plan issent to the trainers by the end of September. During the school year, partici-pants are periodically contacted to check the progress of their plans.

    Penny Reed, Oregon Technology Access Program,Oregon Department of Education

    0 .3


  • Successfur Strategies to Strengthen TrainingEfforts

    Though all our efforts were strictly low budget, several strategiesseemed to increase our success. Entrance into the special seminarswas a competitive process. To attend the seminar, teachers had tocomplete an application form and obtain their supervisors' support.There were a limited number of slots for training-20 in each region.

    When the seminars were completed, teachers received a stipend of$250. This was basically to pay them for attending the sessions andfor writing an article and a lesson plan. Although this was not a largesum of money, it did provide recognition to the teachers for their ef-forts. Teachers and their schools received additional recognition whenthe articles were published in the newsletter. We had a subscription ofabout 2,000. I selected teacher's articles that were very practicalones that include what teachers could do in their classroom.

    The newsletter articles proved to be effective public relations. Not onlydid the teachers feel good allot- zing published, but they receivedlocal recognition. We sent mult...1.; complimentary copies to the super-intendent, special education director, and other individuals for themto distribute, making them aware of the participating teachers' accom-plishments. The seminars opened the door to leadershipopportunities for these teachers farther down the line.

    Joan ThormannLesley College, Mo.ssachusetts

    powered trainers who can infuse technol-ogy from their particular discipline intotheir geographic location.

    At the local level, the major goal of train-ing is to infuse technology into existingcurricula. Inservice training emphasizesapplication of technology and specificskill development. Competencies for thistraining are identified by local learnersand are developed speciflcally for thegroup receiving the inservice. The localgroup plans all insen :ce programs at thislevel. All materials and resources devel-oped focus on the use of technology as atool (see "A Follow-up Strategy," above).

    Strengthening Training Efforts:IncentivesMassachusetts

    Massachusetts focused its technologytraining into three areas: seminars on the

    use of computers in special education, asummer institute that was a federallyfunded project, and a statewide newslet-ter. Although these projects no longerexist due to lack of funding, they werehighly successful.

    The purpose of the regional seminarswas to increase the use of computers withstudents with disabilities. Trainers of-fered programs for both regular andspecial educators in each of Six regionalareas. Twenty experienced teachers at-tended each regional training program.Training was conducted every other weekfor a total of six sessions, 2 1/2 hourseach. When these teachers completed theprogram. a ripple effect was created. Par-ticipants were asked to disseminate andshare information with other people ir.their district or area. They did this by con-ducting at least one inservice program in


  • their home district, developing lessonplans that were shared with the teachersin their region, and writing an article forthe state newsletter (see "Successful Strat-egies to Strengthen Training Efforts."above.)

    The two-week summer institutes fol-lowed a similar format, except that 20experts and 20 novices were invited to at-tend. As with the seminar, participants

    agreed to conauct an inservice workshopin their districts and write an article forthe state newsletter. The summer insti-tute was different in that some trainersoutside the state department were used.In addition, a close collegial atmospherewas fostered by the intensive residentialformat, and teachers learned a great dealfrom each other, as well as, faculty.

    0 :---(.... t)



    Perhaps one of the most excitingdevelopments in technology training is themovement of state education agencies(SEAs) and institutions of highereducation (IHEs) toward collaborativetraining efforts. Both groups realize thevalue of working together for a smoothtransition of skills from one level to thenext. They also recognize the benefits ofsharing knowledge, expertise, andresources. Collaborative efforts inPennsylvania and Michigan highlight howthis can be done.

    Pennsylvania Consortium

    Pennsylvania has Just begun a consor-tium of SEA and IHE members, thougheducators from this state long ago recog-nized the need for collaborative efforts.Early collaborative attempts of the Penn-sylvania Assistive Device Center were metwith some interest, but there was no sus-tained commitment. In 1990, however,the Pennsylvania Assistive Device Center,Pennsylvania State University, and Tem-ple University established a formal,successful collaborative effort to addresstraining needs.

    These three groups identified a numberof common problems and concerns: a pau-city of trained professionals in the areasof augmentative communication and assis-tive technology, a lack of appropriateinservice and preservice trainers, and anabsence of communication among groups.

    There was little coordination between theSEA and IHEs in their effortu to addressthese problems.

    A survey was mailed to all the universi-ties in Pennsylvania to determine the levelof interest in the area of assistive technol-ogy and the current status of efforts inthis area, including the instruction offeredand research and clinical services pro-vided. Results of the survey weredisseminated to the SEA and IHEs. Anaudio conference in October 1990 formal-ized the collaborative network,established goals, identified tasks androles, and established a communicationlink.

    The consortium established four sub-committees to address research,competencies for professionals, curricu-him, and state reform. Additionalconference calls and in-person meetingswill continue to foster the consortium. Allgroups are excited at this new prospectand stress two key points: the involve-ment of key players with links to the SEAand the IHEs and the philosophical beliefthat two-way communication is beneficialto all. Long- range goals include an in-crease in the number of trainers andtrained professionals in the areas of aug-mentative communication and assistivetechnology, increased research efforts,state reform, and development of profes-sional competencies and relatedcurriculum. Additional information andsurvey results are available from the Penn-sylvania Assistive Device Center.

    Michigan Consortium

    The Special Education Services (SES)area within the Michigan Department ofEducation continually collaborates withits 13 universities and colleges that pro-vide preservke programs in specialeducation. This step was needed becausein 1987, the state revised its certificationrules to require university graduates todmonstrate competence in ale area ofadaptive devices. Furthermore, a state-


  • ment waz added to its rules addressingthe use of adaptive devices in the individu-alized education plan. Theserequirements underscored the need fortechnology training for both undergradu-ate and graduate students in specialeducation.

    More recently, Michigan began develop-ing 12 guides that identify the outcomesthat students with disabilities should at-tain when they exit special education.Each guide is developed for a specific dis-ability group (visually impaired,emotionally disturbed, etc.) Although not

    technology specific, the guides also con-tain information pertaining to the needand use of technology. A half-day work-shop was held with 13 state college anduniversity trainers to explain the outcomeguides. Many faculty members haveadopted the outcome guides as textbooks.The SES has found that by providing itsIHEs with prepared materials and assist-ing in training efforts, it encourageschange at the institutions and ultimatelyproduces more knowledgeable teachersfor the field.




    Research is sparse in the area ofdesigning inservice training events thatare specific to computer education

    (Moursund, 1989). No one yet pretends tohave discovered all the elements thatmake staff development programs com-pletely successful (Gall & Renchler ascited by Moursund). This section will dis-cuss those factors that seem to benecessary for conducting successful train-ing events.


    The first step in the effective design oftraining is to define the audience and iden-tify its needs. Trainers should besensitive to what participants alreadyknow, as well as to their current concerns(Hall and Loucks, 1980).

    Tips to Guide Training

    FDLRSPFECH uses the following premises to guide training efforts and develop-ment:

    Teachers generally prefer hands-on instruction; use it whenever possible.Use simulated experiences to help people understand the need for accessto technology.

    When delivering training, maintain a balance between emphasizing the ef-fective use of older available technology as well as they newstate-of-the-art technology. This avoids frustration.Remain on the cutting edge so people know what to reach forthey needa vision.

    Link technology not only to curriculum content, but to curriculum trends;for example, model the use of technology with a whole language ap-proach.Use the research results in developing training which will appeal to alltypes of learning styles and intelligences.

    Take what you know from content research and use it to set up a modeltraining program.Make sure you are involved in other planning efforts (e.g., state, districtor local level); invite yourself; be brave.Go where the money is. Look at future state and local priorities. Focusyour efforts on those priorities.Educators learn best from other educators who have demonstrated suc-cess with the training content. Use peers to train whenever possible.Research shows that gains are made when you have a mover and shakerin every building. Train to that end.

    Eileen Pracelc. FDLIRSITECH


  • integrating Technological Competencies

    Several questions need to be consideredwhen you try to fit competencies into exist-ing courses. Sometimes the answers areclear. For example, at Trenton State, thecourse on multiple disabilities is a second-

    emester, junior-level course. Before wewere involved in technoloa, that coursealready covered augmentative communica-tion as a topieintroducing manualcomtnii ication boards, eye gaze tech-niques, and scanning devices, as well asissues tnat relate to how an augmentativesystem is chosen for a student. It was nat-ural to add computerized augmentativecommunication systems. The new technol-ogies are certainly more sophisticated andinvolved, but they still are augrnentativecommunication. It made sense to take thecompetencies related to technology in aug-mentative communication and insert theminto a course on multiple disabilities.

    In the same course, another major topicwas adapting materials and environmentsso that students with multiple disabilitiescan participate in daily activities. It wasnot a big stretch to add adaptations thatare needed to provide access to comput-ers. These are two examples of wheretechnology competencies fit smoothly al-though it is difficult to flt all needed skillsinto just one course.

    Another question is the sequence for intro-ducing the competencies. One of thestrange things you'll notice in our plan forinfusion (see `Trenton State Plan for Tech-nology Infusion", in the first section ofthis guide), is that the student's first intro-duction to computer-assisted instruction(CAI) is in a reading and language artscourse, because that is one of the first spe-cial education courses the students take.This infusion actually has worked outwell. We introduce drill-and-practice andgame software that relates to reading: andthe following semester we introduce other

    subject-matter software. That, in a nut-shell, is how we infuse competencies intocore courses.

    Amy DellTrenton State College

    When asked how to integrate technologycompetencies into an undergraduatecourse, I invariably answer that it de-pends on the course and the particularinstructional objective. The goal of inte-grating technology into a course dependson using technology well, not to computer-ize the whole course. For example, if I'mteaching a behavior management course, Imay consider looking for software thatwill enable me to monitor students' aca-demic performance or enable students tomonitor their own performance, buildstudents' skills in conflict resolution, orengage student's in cooperative problemsolving. I select the most important objec-tives and look for appropriate software.

    When it comes time to use th e. programwithin the course I could make it a classactivity (demonstrating the program orsimulating its use), make it available in acomputer lab for an out-of-class assign-ment, or have a group of students use itand report back to the rest of the class aspart of a special project. The choice oftechnology depends on the matchwhereit fits and how much time you can allow,based on how good the match is. The ulti-mate criterion of success is focused onwhether or not technology has enhancedteaching and learning.


    Dave Edyburn,Peabody College,

    Vanderbilt University



  • Because teachers play a critical role inthe use of technology, they should have anopportunity to identify their trainingneeds (Glenn & Carrier, 1987). By con-ducting a needs assessment, trainers caneasily determine the needs and levels ofexpertise of participants. This simple pro-cess provides teachers with the feeling ofownershipwhich Moursund (1989) de-fines as a deep interest and involvementwith a situation that often contributes todeep and lasting learning and intellectualgrowth. (See "Tips to Guide Training,"above.)

    Topics, Goals, Competencies andObjectives

    The next several steps in designingtraining sessions include identifying thetopics, goals, competencies, and objec-tives. Each step needs to be given carefulthought. Every session or course needs tohave a getieral topic and specific goals,competencies, and objectives. In addition,the long-range goals of the training institu-tion are of primary importance. Theyshape all training events. At the pre-service level, this is a crucial process. If

    Structured Lab Time

    In a graduate special educationprogram like ours, most stu-dents are professionals alreadyworking in schools. These stu-dents, unlike undergraduates,have a limited amount of time tospend on technological lab as-signments. I found that I have tobuild structured lab assignmentsinto my class time. In one case,I've turned a 3-hour course intoa 4-hour course. I schedule itfrom 4:30 to 8:30 p.m. so thatall students have time to partici-pate. Half of that course ishands-on technology trainii.g.You may need to make differentarrangements, but whatever youdo, structure the lab assign-ments.

    Mike BehrrnannGeorge Mason University

    tecluugy is to be infused into all specialeducation core courses, educators mustdevelop a systematic process to ensure

    A Continuum of Training

    I operate two state-funded technical assistance centers that reachabout 1,500 teachers a year in northern and northwestern Vir-ginia. About half the training is technology related. We've foundthat we need to provide a complete continuum of technical assis-tance trainingeverything from one-hour and full-dayworkshops to individual and small-group training sessions. Wehold most workshops and individual training sessions at the uni-versity site, but we also provide many small-group sessions, andindividual consultations in teachers' classrooms, as they workwith their kids.

    We originally thought that we would teach some basic computerliteracy, and then we could move on to more advanced skills, butthat's not always possible. It's important to provide ongoing assis-tance.

    Mike BehrmannGeorge Mason University


  • that all competencies are addressed. Aswe discussed previously, Trenton Statefirst listed all the core courses, then as-signed each course a topic and relatedcompetencies (see "Trenton State Plan forTechnology Infusion", in the first sectionof this guide, "Infusion into University-Based Training", see also "IntegratingTechnological Competencies," above).

    Prerequisite Skills

    Identifying the prerequisite skills for aparticular training session helps to deter-mine the order and sequence of trainingevents. For example, the prerequisiteskills for the workshop on DevelopingCustomized Scans with the Adaptive Firm-ware Card are (a) to know how to install,format, and use the Adaptive FirmwareCard and (b) to know how to use theEcho Speech Synthesizer. These skillsmust be taught to participants who do notdemonstrate competence before this ses-sion can be offered. The same process isused for college courses.

    Length of Training

    Learning how to use technology takestime, often more than a university or edu-cation agency has. As we have statedpreviously, successful technology trainingneeds to be more than a one-shot experi-

    Color Coding for Ease of Use

    The trick is to develop systemsthat make it easy for theteacher. For instance, we'vecolor coded the software. Stu-dents and teachers match theyellow dot from the software tothe yellow dot on the powerpad and to the yellow dot onthe computer that's set up forthe power pad. Developingtechniques that make lIfe eas-ier for teachers is reallyimportant.

    Mike BehrmannGeorge Mason University

    ence (Glenn & Carrier. 1987) (see "A Con-tinuum of Training," above).

    Technology training should be an ongo-ing process that is addressed throughoutthe school year or semester. The length ofeach session also needs to be determined.Will it be 1 hour, 90 minutes, one after-noon, or all day? For sessions long x thanan hour, trainers should pay careful atten-tion to methodology.

    Trainers should also consider how to fitin the time necessary for participants to

    Multi-day, Follow-up Training

    We promote multi-day training. In the past we've held a variety ofinservice workshops, from half-day to whole-day, including re-treats. We've found that our participants have the best successwhen we schedule multi-day t:aining with follow-up sessions orvisits by ADC staff to their classrooms: we go back in 6 weeks,then after 2 more months, and then after another 6 weeks. Wemeet with teachers continually, upgrading their skills, checkingwith them, and helping them out. That's how we're going to targetour training in the next year.

    Colleen HaneyPennsylvania Assistive Device Center


  • Locating Resources

    Don't worry about the "platform" or com-puters that you're using. Use what youhave access to. Use the platforms that pro-vide generic 4 pea of experiences with thetechnology. Technology is changing so fastthat even if you have access to the mostmodern, up-to-date computer, it's out ofdate next week. You need to teach peoplehow to integrate and use the technology,not how to use a specific piece of softwareor a specific type of computer.

    Manufacturers often have developed vid-eos that they will lend. I've been creatingmy own library by collecting a number ofdifferent videotapes on assistive technol-ogy and other technology. ThePennsylvania Assistive Device Center has

    also provided us with many trainingtapes.

    Mike Behrmann, George MasonUniversity

    When asked how to begin a programwith little or no equipment. I reply that webegan with one computer. One computerthese days is really not that expensive.Sometimes you can get anotherdepartment's castoff computer and startwith that. Later you can write for grantsto supply a few software programs or acouple of assistive devices. You just don'tget a $100.000 grant and order everythingall at once. It Just growsvery, veryslowly.

    Amy Dell, Trenton State College

    learn a skill (see "Structured Lab Time"above, and "Multi-day, Follow-up Train-ing", above).

    Key Points and Activities

    Outlining key points and activities putsthe content of the training session onpaper. It need not be a verbatim accountof what will be said, but merely an outlineof major points to jog the trainer's mem-ory. Identifying necessary materials and

    equipment required for training is essen-tial. First, it helps to organize the trainingbefore the event. Second, it identifies thebasic equipment a trainer must have be-fore training can occur.

    For example, if 10 multiswitch boxesare necessary and are unavailable, then ei-ther the training session must bemodified or postponed, or equipmentmust be purchased or borrowed. If train-ing is not conducted at the home site,

    Low-budget Materials

    Our goal is to acquire a complete collection of public domain software for the student withdisabilities and for the classroom teachers of students with disabilities. We want the teach-ers to come and have a hands-on training workshop in public domain software.Unfortunately, due to budget and time constraints, this is not always possible.

    A practical alternative is an awareness slide show, which was funded by a grant of $1,000.This grant enabled us to create a professional slide show of relevant photographs. So ifteachers can't come to us, we go to them. We'd love to have a video show, but we make dowith slides. We also take some of the critical equipment for a hands-on demonstration.

    Jennifer TaylorDelaware Learning Resource System

    Or ) ( )I ) L..


  • such a checklist ensures that you bring ev-erything or the people at the host sitehave acquired the necessary materialsand equipment.

    Materials and Resources

    Trainers at both preservice and in-service levels should take great care inthe design of handouts, transparencies,CAI programs, videotapes, andvideodiscs. Steps critical to the effectivedesign of these materials are discussed inthe companion document, Trainer'sResource Guide: Training Materials De-sign Guidelines. Above all, the finaldesign needs to be in a format that encour-ages use. Sometimes you need additionalstrategies (see "Color Coding for Ease of

    Training the Adult Learner

    Here are some important issues in teach-ing adult learners:

    Adults learn by doing. Involvethemdemonstration alone is notenough. Add practice and guidedpractice, and provide many oppor-tunities.Probiems and examples must berealistic and relevant.Relate their learning strongly towhat they already know.Adults tend to prefer informallearning environments, which areless likely to produce tension andanxiety.Change the pace and instructionalmethods to keep the interest high.Unless absolutely necessary,avoid a grading system; usechecklists of criteria.The instructor should frame hisor her role as that of a facilitatorof learning.

    Moursund (1989)Knowles (1978)

    Use" above).

    Many times the lack of equipment or re-sources inhibits the training plan.However, many vendors are willing tolend equipment at little or no cost (exceptfor mailing costs). Software vendors areoften generous at providing software on a30-day preview basis. But the lack of re-sources should not thwart your efforts.You have to start somewhere (see "Locat-ing Resources," above).

    Although everyone wants equipmentand resources that are well designed, bud-gets often impose limitations. Solutions tothis dilemma are often surprisingly sim-ple (see "State Perspectives on InserviceTrainincr and "Low-Budget Materials."

    Adult Learner Characteristics

    When designing programs for adults atboth preservice and inservice levels, train-ers must pay attention to the particularlearning styles of adults. Moursund(1989) has consolidated Knowles (1978)work on guidelines for training adultlearners (see "Training the AdultLearner," above).

    In addition to considering particulartraining needs of adult learners, trainersshould determine the skill levels of theparticipants. Not only have Glenn and Car-rier (1987) identified different content forthe novice and expert learner, but theyhave identified different teaching svate-gies for both, as follows:

    * Strategies for the novice includehighly structured sessions with cyclesof preinstructional, instructional, andpostinstructional activities; anemphasis on teamwork, supervisedindividual exploration time; andfollow-up activities. (For othersuccessful instructional strategies,see Instruction for the Novice."below. Although preservice strategiesare discussed, they are appropriatefor any level of instruction.)

    3 3


  • Instruction for the Novice

    Our technology modules for undergradu-ate training have two majorcharacteristics. The first is that they mustinvolve practical. hands-on experiences.Depending on the topic, the hands-on ac-tivity might be an in-class workshop or anout-of-class assignment. Stuents mightwork in small groups or indivictually. Insome cases, they have access ta comput-ers in round-robin fashion. The guidingprinciple is that the hands-on experiencesmust engage and captivate the learners.Students are not allowed to hide behindpassive notetaking. Instead of just listen-ing to information about the differentadaptations that are available, studentsare actively involved.

    A second characteristic of the modules isthat they must emphasize decision-mak-

    ing activities. It's both easy and temptingto focus training on the razzle-dazzle ornew assistive devices, bu we need to en-sure that the end use of technology isnever lost. There must be a match be-tween what a person with disabilitiesneeds and what is available. Many assign.ments in our modules begin with thephrase, "Select a person." The studentthen progresses through a decision-mak-ing process, analyzing the needs of thisperson, what he or she needs to be taught.and which teaching methods materi-als should be used. The uccision to use aparticular mlniauthoring program or tocustomize a piece of software is part ofthe decision-making process.

    Amy DellTrenton State College

    Strategies for the expert include p :erteaching, practice in training otherteachers, projects that demonstratethe application of effective instructionprinciples, assigned readings in thearea of effective teacher behavioi,instructional design, computer-basedinstruction, and follow-up activities.

    Size of Training Group

    The size of the training group is crucialto the effectiveness of the training. Tradi-tional training usually involves largegroups; but, it is very difficult to provideinformal, "hands-on" experiences to alarge group. Training sessions should re-main as small as possible. Ideally, forexample, there should be no more thanthree participants per computer. Instruc-tors should try to limit the class size, usegrouping techniques, or require lab assign-ments with individualized instruction.

    Moursund (1989) believes that the mosteffective inservice program is on a one-to-one basis, teacher to teacher. This couldbe easily accomplished by training acadre of technology experts, who thentrain more teachers, and so on. Unfcrtu-nately, he concludes, this situation doesnot exist in very many schools; and themore traditional, large-group inservice in-struction will likely continue for manyyears to come.

    Trainer Qualifications

    People who design training coursesoften do not give a second thought to whowill conduct the training. In many cases.there is no choice. However, research indi-cates that, whenever possible, the trainershould be a colleague (Glenn & Carrier,1987). Sometimes, however, a colleaguedoes not possess the necessary skills andcompetencies to conduct training. Severalalternatives are available, (see "FindingOutside Trainers," below). All trainers


  • Finding Outside Trainers

    When neither you nor your staff have theexpertise to provide training, considerusing outside presenters. We've been ableto extensively use several manufacturersto provide training on absistive technol-ogy. They conduct half-day or all-dayworkshrps. Although they focus on theirproducts, it's actually a much broader ap-plication. Vendo.-s talk about thephilosophy and e.he general approaches tousing technology. a's been a very goodtraining approach for both it service andr-eservice programs

    Mi e Beh.rrnannGeorge Mason University

    I don't usually have guest speakers in mycnurses, but for the techr agy modules, Ioften invite one. If you're .$..arting out oreven if you've been gains aw one, considerexperts in the state or locai Echool dis-tricts. I have found them tc. be extremelygenerous. They are excited when I calland ask them to speak. That's becausetheyre out there, pretty much alone.They're getting new teachers and new ther-apists who know nothing aboutte 21mology. They are Just so happy thatone of the colleges in the state is finallydoing something, that it is actually a plea-sure for them to come and speak.

    Amy DellTrenton State College

    trainers need to be competent at instruct-ing adults and in the area of technologycovered by the course or workshop.(Glenn & Carrier, 1987; Mistrett,Raimondi, & Barnett, 1990).

    Perhaps one of the best resources forplanning training is Effective Inservice

    for Integrating Computer-as-Tool intothe. rr!rriculum (Moursund, 1989). Thisbook provides comprehensive informa-tion for inservice trainers and is wellworth the investment. Another resource isPreparing for and Conducting Work-shops and Presentations (Reed, 1990).


    Glenn, A. D., & Carrier, C. A. (1987). A re-view qj the status of technologytraining for teachers. Washington, DC:U.S. Office of Techn -logy Assessment.

    Knowles, M. (1978). The adult learner: Aneglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf.

    Nall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. 1980). Pro-gram definition and adopti9n:Implications for inservice. Austin: Re-search and Development Center forTeacher Education, University ofTexas.

    Mistrett, S. G., Raimorldi, S. L., & Bar-nett, M. P. (1990). Preschoolintegration through technology sys-terrs. Buffalo: United Cerebral PalsyAss)ciation of Western New York.

    Mourstind, D. (1989). Effective inservicefor iitegrating computer-as-tool intothe curriculum. Eugene, OR: Interna-tioaal Society for Technology inEducation.

    Reed, P. (1990). Preparing for andconducting workshops and presenta-tions. Eugene: Oregon TechnologyAccess Project, Department of Educa-tion: Division of Special Education.

    3 5



    Most of the models described in theprevious sections identified competenciesfor their students and objectives for theirtraining model. The process for develop-ing competencies varies acrossinstitutions. Competencies .ire the knowl-edge, skills, and attitudes that peopleneed to perform their role (Blackhurst,1990). Training competencies may comefrom many sources, but are usually devel-opt to expand and define the goalstatements for training. Some institutionsuse formal research methoch to developrompetencies. Others use committees tobninstorm and develop competencies.This section discusses how some groupsdeveloped competencies and how theyuse them. We also give examples of vari-ous competencies.

    Development of Competencies

    The Universtly of Kentucky has perhapsthe most comprehensive set of competen-cies. Blackt.urst (1990) ideltified 87technology competencies for special edu-cation teachers. They are divided into 11broad categories (see Appendix for a com-plete list).* Acquin a body of knowledge about

    the use of microcomputers andrelated technology.Evaluate software and other relatedmaterials.Deveiop a plan for technology use.

    Use technology in assessment andplanning.Use technology to facilitateinstruction.Use technolog to compensate forstudents' learning barriers.Use microcomputer to generateteaching aids.Use the microcomputer as an aid topersonal productivity.Disseminate information aboutapplications of technology.

    Assemble, operate, and maintain thecomponents of technology.Use microcomputer operating systemcommands.

    Before planners in Kentucky developedthese competencies, they identified theroles and functions of program graduates.Roles included graduates who would be-come special education teachers,administrators, speech/language patholo-gists, occupational therapists, physicaltherapists, and technology specialists.

    Competency validation is an evolution-ary process, which proceeds in fourphases: a task analysis phase; a social val-idation pinse, which includes solicitingexpert opinion, and documenting effectivepractices; a direct observation phase;and a learner-referenced evaluationnhase. Most efforts to validate competen-zies, including those at the University ofKentucky. have focused on phases 1 and2. Eflbrt: are being initiated to implementvalidaticn studies in phases 3 and 4.

    The sate department of education inMichigan initiated a task force (latercalled COMPUTE) to identify and refinethe competencies needed by teachers grad-uating from institutes of nigher educationin their state. The competencies in theuse of technology were developed for spe-cial education administration,instructiorill staff, and ancillary servicesin five comprehensive areas:


  • General technology literacy.

    Instructional software.

    * Evaluation of hardware and software.

    * Adaptive devices.Directed experience.

    Each list of competencies is dividedinto three skill levels: awareness (knowl-edge), utilization (skill development), andproficiency (skill application) (see Appen-dix for complete listing).

    The Northwest Council for Compu':erEducation (NCCE) and Oregon State Uni-versity also used a committee approach togenerate competencies. This coalitionfunded a project to cirvelop competenciesfor use as guidelines in reevaluating bothinservice an