![](\"http:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/02\/macedonia-computers.jpg\")
<\/a><\/center><\/br>.<\/p>\nIn 2009, I traveled to Macedonia to carry out a monitoring and evaluation study of a nation-wide computers-in-the-schools project that had already been in place for three years. The project was a USAID-funded and AED-led program, Macedonia Connects<\/a>, originally initiated by request of the president of Macedonia, which provided one computer lab per school.<\/p>\n At the same time, was a public-private-partnership that laid the backbone for competitive broadband wireless Internet service provision to the entire country, by leveraging all primary and secondary schools throughout Macedonia as anchor tenants. That project in itself is a fascinating case, and I have written about it elsewhere<\/p>\n Now I was on-site, three years later, to follow up and see what was happening in the classroom. A major aim of this project was to modernize the Macedonian educational experience so that the children would be able to use technology proficiently, with the goal that eventually Macedonia could become a technology hub for the region. <\/p>\n Teacher Training<\/b><\/p>\n The training of the teachers, which was spearheaded by USAID\/AED, began prior to the computers arriving in the schools. Training was comprehensive: all primary and secondary-level teachers received training in basic computer use, and then in how to effectively and creatively utilize the technology in their classrooms and pedagogy. <\/p>\n Internationally-recognized experts were brought in to develop and carry out the initial training. All of the trainings aimed to build local capacities by involving teachers as trainers and contributors to the creation of learning materials as well as equipment operators. For many of the trainings, master trainers and teacher trainers were selected from among the teachers by either self-identification or nomination by school directors. <\/p>\n The capacity building also involved advisors from the Ministry of Educational Development as master trainers and active members in the development of materials teams. <\/p>\n During the wave of trainings, a number of progressively advancing skills-development courses were offered, ranging from basic ICT skills classes aimed at enabling teachers with basic technical computer skills, to trainings aimed at integration of the technology into the curriculum. <\/p>\n They were organized over a period of four years, during which time 14,000 teachers from all 360 primary schools and 100 secondary schools received training. The trainings were comprehensive and directed at empowering teachers and school administrations to use technology to improve the teaching process and to enable students to develop the skills and knowledge necessary in a modern society. <\/p>\n We had the impression that the teacher training was state-of-the-art, and of a very high quality. It was additionally impressive for having been carried out on such a large scale, in so short a time-frame.<\/p>\n Data Collection<\/b><\/p>\n Data collection and interviews informing this study were carried out from February\u2013December, 2009. The methodology was based on a combination of field methods, such as individual interviews, surveys, and focus group discussions. Quantitative data collection was carried out primarily by a team of 12 local final-year university students or recent graduates with previous experience in carrying out surveys and leading focus group interviews. <\/p>\n The sample was designed as a combination of stratified and convenience sample: all eight regions in the country are represented by two schools (one city and one village school), including schools with both dominantly Macedonian and Albanian language of instruction (represented accordingly). The actual schools were randomly selected from the list of all schools.<\/p>\n Surveys were carried out at each school, while focus group discussions took place in randomly selected schools. In addition, there were individual interviews with the school director or some representative of the administration in each school. All of the surveys, interviews, and focus groups were carried out in the local language, either Macedonian or Albanian, and subsequently translated into English.<\/p>\n Findings<\/b><\/p>\n As we published in Technology, Teachers, and Training: Combining Theory with Macedonia\u2019s Experience<\/a>, in terms of assessing the training they received, three years after the trainings, 51% of the teachers surveyed believed it was sufficient or more than sufficient, while 49% of the total assessed the training as being less than sufficient. A large percentage of teachers expressed the need for further training: <\/p>\n Also, many teachers expressed uncertainty regarding the use of computers vis-\u00e0-vis their students: they consider their students to be far more skilled and knowledgeable then they are and do not want to compromise their authority as teachers by putting themselves into situations where they might encounter a problem that they cannot handle.<\/p>\n When asked how often they have used computers in class during the previous two months, 65% of teachers responded that they had not used them at all,<\/i> while an additional 25% had used them only a few times. <\/p>\n Given the statistics above then, it was surprising to us that a rather large percentage (75%) of teachers reported using ICT in their personal lives, either occasionally or very often. A similarly high percentage of teachers reported using ICT in preparing teaching materials and tests (72%), and for lesson-planning (63%). <\/p>\n These could be seen as very positive results, if the goal of the project had been to increase teachers\u2019 use of ICT in their own lives. Yet less than a third of the surveyed teachers use ICT for activities with students, including activities such as: projects (30%); research (34%); working with data (26%); and student assessment (23%). This meant that the goal of actually having the students using the computers in the classroom was far from being realized.<\/p>\n Another remarkable finding for us was that the teachers as a whole were very positive about the idea of ICT in the schools. An overwhelming majority (86%) indicated that they believe that the school is the right place for students to learn basic computer skills. <\/p>\n The Disconnect<\/b><\/p>\n What we discovered, therefore, was a marked disconnect between the positive attitude about ICT in the schools and the high level of teachers\u2019 ICT use in everyday life and to prepare lesson plans, and the flip side of the coin, where nearly 60% of the teachers indicated that have never used ICT in their instruction.<\/p>\n This apparent contradiction may be attributable to a number of factors. We believed that one of these factors was an overriding concern, expressed by the teachers themselves during the focus groups discussions, that they lose control over the class when students each have a computer that they can pay attention to instead of the teacher, and that for successful realization of ICT in the instruction, it is necessary that the teacher retains control and knows when to turn off the computer, as one cannot learn solely using the computer. Another factor was the higher degree of technological expertise teachers attribute to their students vis-\u00e0-vis themselves, which leads to a feeling of insecurity and loss of authority.<\/p>\n Yet, we felt that this only explained part of the puzzle, since the teachers were using ICT a great deal in their daily lives, and even to plan lessons. Thus, we began to take another look at the training the teachers had received, for clues to help us understand this disconnect. We also looked to theory – one that would take into consideration the teachers\u2019 concerns about adopting technology.<\/p>\n The Theory<\/b><\/p>\n We came upon the Concerns Based Adoption Model<\/a> (CBAM), which (in a nutshell) argues that change is not a one-time event, and that teachers are the key to educational improvement; their willingness to adopt innovations will determine whether those innovations succeed or fail. <\/p>\n The CBAM model views change as a process experienced by individuals seeking to – or asked to – change their behavior in particular ways. Thus, instead of focusing on improvement of student test scores or other final stage outcomes resulting from a technological intervention – the metric(s) of many policymakers and development and\/or aid-organizations – this theory focuses on the process itself and on the individuals crucial to innovation adoption – the teachers. <\/p>\n Several additional points regarding the concept of change underpin the CBAM model: change is accomplished by individuals, and it is a highly personal experience. It involves developmental growth in feelings and skills, and it can be facilitated by interventions directed toward the individuals, innovations, and contexts involved.<\/p>\n CBAM comprises two major dimensions. The first – Stages of Concern (SoC) – describes the feelings and concerns experienced by individuals with regard to an innovation. The second – Levels of Use (LoU) – involves the individuals\u2019 behaviors as they experience the process of change. Both of these are progressive and predictable. Concerns will progress along a continuum as users\u2019 needs and concerns are addressed, to the point where they begin thinking about higher-level concerns (focused on others and impact, instead of on one\u2019s-self), such as the impact of technology on students\u2019 educational experience, from lower-level concerns, such as the fear of how much time it will take them to learn how to use the technology in the first place. <\/p>\n The Levels of Use correspond to and mirror the Stages of Concern – Use of technology will progress to higher-order undertakings, such as working with colleagues to design better ICT-enabled curriculum or even redesigning related software, from lower level usage, which includes basic mastery of how to use the technology.<\/p>\n The bigger point is that concerns and use will not progress unless the concerns evidenced at each stage are effectively addressed, over time, as the individuals\/teachers are experiencing them. Since we can predict these stages, we can plan for interventions and trainings that will address the concerns as competence progresses, and concerns and use evolve to higher levels.<\/p>\n This means that the one-and-done format of training, which had been employed in Macedonia, was not going to be effective. We realized that training needed to be ongoing, addressing the teachers\u2019 concerns and needs as they arose, and that they needed support throughout the years-long process of change (which they weren\u2019t getting). Principals and other key school administrators had not expressly received relevant training, and did not understand their key role in supporting the teachers through the change process – and therefore, were not performing this role.<\/p>\n Our recommendations included: <\/p>\n\n
![](\"http:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/02\/teacher-tech-usage.jpg\")
<\/a><\/center><\/br>.<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/edutechdebate.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/02\/cbam-levels.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n\n