Fuller (1969) and Hall & Loucks (1979) proposed a three stage model for teacher development, which related to starting teachers. Sandholtz et al (1990), as part of the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) research, applied this model to experienced teachers who were starting to teach in high-technology-access classrooms for the first time. They found that the model did apply in this new context.

The three stages of the model are:

• Survival - teachers are preoccupied with their own adequacy. Their concerns center on their ability to control the class and they spend considerable time reacting to problems instead of anticipating and avoiding them.
• Mastery - teachers begin to anticipate problems and develop strategies for solving them.
• Impact - teachers focus on the effects of their teaching on students' achievement and attitudes, and begin to use the technology to their advantage.
                                     (adapted from Sanholtz et al 1990 p2)

The framework as a whole
Sandholtz et al (1990) were concerned with "the evolution of classroom management in ACOT's high-tech classrooms." (p2). They concluded that Fuller (1969) and Hall & Loucks (1979) three stage model of teacher development could be applied in the context of experienced teachers as they started to work in high-technlogy-access classrooms. This was based on the analysis of 13,000 learning 'episides' from the ACOT schools. These learning episides were constructed as self contained events with a beginning, middle and end, on the basis of analysis of data from weekly written reports, correspondence between sites and bi-monthly audio journals of teachers' reflections.

In thinking about, or applying this model, it is important to bear in mind that the stages are not clear cut or strictly sequential - in that teachers may 'regress' temporarily when new equipment or students are introduced.

Stage One: Survival
The main concern within this stage was teachers' inability to anticipate problems. Sandholtz et al (1990) identified four main types of problem:

• Student misbehaviour and attitudes, which include: new types of misbehaviours relating to hardware and software (eg copying software, sabotage); new ways to 'cheat' (eg plagerism and hacking into CMA systems); new excuses for not doing work (eg homework not completed because the computer crashed at home); students resisting the teacher's directions (eg wanting to use the computers when the teacher wanted them to do something else).
• Physical environment issues, which can be related to: facets of 'traditional' classroom design (eg classrooms becoming more crowded and more cluttered; problems relating to lighting and glare; chalk dust damaging computers); and 'external' environmental issues (eg power outrages, overheating, 'floods').
• Technical problems, which included: equipment not arriving on time; breakdowns; bottlenecks (eg at printers or accessing networks); as well as issues of software 'maintenance' and management. Technical problems were the most commonly reported type of difficulty and "upset both their [teachers'] daily and long-range plans." (Sandholtz et al 1990 p5 Text in [] inserted).
• Classroom dynamics, which related to changes in aspects of classroom practice such as: an increase in noise level; increased pupil movement around the classrooms; children knowing more than teachers about how to operate the technology (and hence changes in roles).

Stage Two: Mastery
The main feature of this stage was that "teachers began not only to anticipate problems but also to develop strategies for solving them." (Sandholtz et al 1990 p6)

A key feature of this, according to Sandholtz et al (1990), was the way in which teachers, as they increased their technical competence, started to share their skills with other teachers to a greater degree. Their increasing technical knowledge also:

"strengthened their instruction as well as their classroom management. Teachers began to envision long-term instructional goals that focused on successful problem solving and conceptual understanding rather than specific content."

"had a noticeable impact on student engagement,"
                                               (Sandholtz et al 1990 p6)

It would appear that teachers within this stage of the model were changing their views about their role. They seemed to move towards a more problem based/learner centred model with the teacher as facilitator and the educational goals being to do with process more than product (developing skills rather than remembering facts). As part of this re-orientation teachers became less concerned about issues relating to things such as the free movement of children around the class and the noise level.

Stage Three: Impact
The main characteristic of this stage is that "teachers used technology to their advantage in managing the classroom. ... teachers discovered the technology could save time rather than create additional demands." (Sandholtz et al 1990 p7)

Initially this seemed to develop in terms of efficiency gains in the teachers preperation, marking and adminstration (eg record keeping, preparation of materials, automating marking). It then moved into instructional areas. For example, some maths teachers reported that they "could reduce class time spent on practicing arithmetic skills by relying on computer homework; this freed class time for developing problem solving skills." (Sandholtz et al 1990 p7).

Within this stage teachers clearly rethought their role, and in so doing started to make use of the children's expertise, both as peer tutors and to do work that the teacher would otherwise have needed to do (eg solving technical problems the teacher couldn't solve). By drawing on the children's expertise in these ways the teachers freed up their own time which "made it possible to provide more individual help to those who were experiencing difficulties." (Sandholtz et al 1990 p7). The management strategies moved towards a learner centred model. These changes in the teachers were accompanied by increasing levels of pupil interest and attention.

One of the indicators of teachers having reached this stage was that they stopped worrying about having the technology and started to worry about how they would cope if they did not have the technology, as illustrated by this quote from the research data:

"It would be hard to live without a computer ... It has become a way of life."
                                               (Sandholtz et al 1990 p7)

This model is not about computer use per se - but about staff development in contexts where there is high access to technology. Sandholtz et al (1990) explicitly distinguish between what they refer to as classroom management and instruction, whilst acknowledging at the same time that these are intimately linked. The most obvious effect of this is that the level at which the model focuses is often not on classroom practice - much of the time it deals with teachers' views and perceptions rather than their overt behaviours in the classroom. This reduces its value as a tool for thinking about or describing classroom practice.

Sandholtz et al (1990) point to two other ACOT reports which look at the issue of classroom instruction - ACOT reports 8 & 9 (Dwyer et al 1990a; Dwyer et al 1990b). They go on to indicate that within the ACOT studies classroom management changed much more rapidly than instruction.

ACOT has implicit within it a view of 'high quality teaching' - the underlying assumption is that this involves fundamentally chainging teaching and learning within schools (Dwyer et al 1990a). This underlying assumption inevitably frames the perspectives of the ACOT researchers, and in so doing will have impacted on all aspects of the project, including the 'teachers' concerns model'.

Home Frameworks Index Teachers' concerns Teachers' concerns details
Investment Literature Impact Reasons Solution Limitations The CPF Discussion

This page is maintained by Peter Twining (PeterT@meD8.info)
Last updated 7th January 2002