Analysis Interview

One of RM’s first projects was to work very closely with two particular schools, providing each school with ‘a lot o f support ’ and ‘spending a lot o f time on site \ Despite attempting to set her own agenda, she was constantly responding to the demands of the schools. Eventually, a model evolved based on the development of her working relationship with the school. Her role within the schools as a facilitator, working closely with the teachers and pupils, has now been taken over by a member of the school staff.

This particular model places a high demand on expertise and directs the high level of resourcing to a limited area. The success of this model depends on the expertise being transferred to the school and developed further. In this case the outcome at one of the schools proved to be successful. The outcome at the second school was less successful.

A second model that RM worked with involved drawing staff from a number of schools to take part in Local Education Authority-based training programmes. Having completed the training programme the member of staff was then responsible for further dissemination within their own school. This model allowed the external development officer to spread her expertise across a larger number of schools. Common issues associated with the two different approaches emerged during the interview.

Both models supported an in-service training programme, providing members of staff identified as key people responsible for the project within the school with training at an introductory and advanced level. The awareness-raising element of the training process was repeated with other members of the teaching staff as they were introduced to the material. Training was also provided in the area of technical support.

The first model placed the responsibility for all levels of training on the external expert. The second model transferred that responsibility to an identified member of the school staff at an early stage in the process. RM emphasised the

importance of an active member of the school staff continuing with the training process and the commitment and support of a senior member of staff to ensure

further resourcing and development. RM felt that the commitment and

understanding of the senior manager to the funding and resourcing implications was vital.

Within the first model where RM had worked very closely with the schools she had provided a wide range of support including:

• writing software files to adapt material for specific curriculum needs • adapting old material for use on new hardware platforms

• advising on the transition of the technology onto new hardware platforms • supporting extra curricular clubs for example, an interactive video club • extra training sessions to introduce new developments and new skills. In addition RM identified the following common issues which affected the success rate of both models:

• reliability of the technology

• costs in relation to hardware and material

• the continuous development of appropriate material • support documentation

• access to the equipment

• a flexible approach to teaching and learning and to group work.

RM indicated that ‘most o f the technology ends up in the library ’ and that most schools seemed to be comfortable with people moving around the school. In the earlier projects RM felt that the flexibility of interactive video had been the key ‘selling point’. On reflection she felt that the most important factor was how far the material related directly to the curriculum.

The project that RM is currently working on is funded by the Scottish Office. The material has been designed to meet a specific need (staff development), and the implementation programme, based on the second model, schools taking ownership at an early stage, will be carried out on a large scale across all schools in the Authority. The majority of the funding for this project is being channelled towards the development of the material and to support the training programme. An interesting change in the delivery of training is to introduce interactive video as an element within a much bigger training programme, in contrast to the way it

has been introduced in the past through a discrete ‘one off session. RM emphasised that the outcome of the most carefully designed training

programmes ultimately depends on the enthusiasm of the people who have been trained.

The large scale approach to training is reflected in the technician training programme which has been designed by the Authority and is now delivered to groups of technicians on specifically designed technician training days. The aim is to guarantee that each school in the Authority has a trained technician.

Despite the high degree of organised training RM felt it was important that the teaching staff and technical staff could contact the Authority for help at any time.

As well as the Authority training days each school is encouraged to use in- service days and personal development time for training and preparation. Within the school the staff development coordinator was identified as the key member of staff to implement in-service training.

RM’s view is that interactive video is being used effectively in Grampian, and that schools value it as a resource.

4.3.4 Summary of analysis

Although RM and JD had the same aim, to introduce teachers to the potential of interactive video programmes and to support the integration of the material into the curriculum, it is clear from their interviews that quite different approaches were taken by the two external consultants.

In her role as a development officer RM adopted two different models. The first model, which can be described as the ‘external expert’ model, placed the

responsibility for all levels of training on the external expert. The second model, which can be described as the ‘mentoring model’, transferred that responsibility to an identified member of the school staff at an early stage in the process. The second model also reflects the approach JD adopted.

Training, management and infrastructure

Both JD and RM thought that it was important to provide training at an

introductory stage to the members of staff identified as key people responsible for the project in the school and that it was important to hold the training sessions in congenial surroundings outside the school environment.

The ‘awareness-raising’ process and follow up training sessions were repeated with other members of the teaching staff, on the school premises, as part of an

in-service programme. The in-service sessions could be led by the external expert or the trained member of the school staff. They also thought that it was very important to provide a training programme in the area of technical support. The initial difference between the approach of the two consultants was the follow up to the first senior management training session. When the staff returned to their schools RM’s approach was to remain involved in the training process, working with both staff and pupils, while JD placed the responsibility for further training with the school. However, RM’s current implementation programme involves all Authority-based schools and therefore raises serious questions about the amount of expert time available. The Authority has, therefore, adopted the model of intensive training with limited school contact. The Authority still provides the schools with support but the support is focused and used effectively.

RM and JD felt that a high level of commitment and support was required to adopt, exploit and develop interactive video. Although initially the support was provided to the schools as an additional resource, the schools were expected to take full ownership and responsibility for future developments and for

resourcing implications. An important variable that affected the successful transition was the enthusiasm and commitment of the member of staff identified to take over the responsibility in the school.

Both JD and RM thought that although the training programme and the identification of a member of the school staff to take responsibility within the school is essential, other factors affected the implementation process.

The two issues RM and JD identified as crucial to the acceptance and adoption of interactive video were:

• appropriate material

• teaching and learning styles.

Appropriate material

RM made the following statement,

‘the way we would go into the schools is not looking at the flexibility o f IV - it’s looking at how it would directly relate to something in the curriculum. I think that has to be the way forward’.

This is a significant statement as it reflects a change of emphasis from a

technology led approach to a curriculum led approach and is based on a number of projects and of years of experience.

JD’s concern was the amount of time each topic took to complete. In most cases the content of the material was appropriate. The problem in terms of

implementation was that the material was divided into discrete topics. Each

topic was designed to be completed. JD’s concern from the point of view of the teacher was,

'how do you get through all the topics in the time before you need to go on to your next topic? ’

The two statements imply that ‘appropriate material’ relates to relevant content and time constraints. The content needs to be appropriate to the curriculum and the programming of the material needs to allow flexibility of usage in relation to time. Teachers are usually restricted by time limits built into the syllabus. Teachers usually have a limited amount of time to complete a syllabus. JD is suggesting that a resource which requires a fixed amount of time to complete may not fit into a teacher’s time allocation.

Additional factors which affect the content and time constraints are: • the interface; is it well designed and appropriate ?

• access to the material; are there enough systems available at open access points for pupils to use at different times of the day ?

JD and RM had not identified any difficulties with screen design but they both thought that the limited availability of the workstations had a direct effect on managing the use of the resource and particularly affected teaching and learning styles.

Teaching and learning styles

They both identified that interactive video is a resource best suited to a flexible learning or resource-based learning environment as opposed to a teacher-led whole class approach. They agreed that limited resourcing requires thoughtful management. Most of the schools involved in the projects had access to a limited number of interactive video systems, one or two at the most. It was important that the teaching style should accommodate the management of the resource in an effective way.

RM indicated that the teachers involved in her projects were familiar with flexible teaching styles and had found it relatively easy to incorporate interactive video into the learning environment:

It would normally be used by a teacher with a small group ’

'We encourage people to move around the school with the library as the base site ’

However, JD found the learning environments in a number of her project schools did not support a flexible or resource based approach to learning.

‘they will go with it if they are comfortable with group work and flexible learning styles; if they ’re not they won’t. ’

Summary

The analysis of the interviews identified and confirmed accordance on many of the variables which affect the introduction and implementation of interactive video. The important outcome of the analysis was the identification of what both JD and RM considered to be the key issues to address. These can be identified under the following three headings:

• management and training • teaching and learning styles • appropriate material.

Each of these headings supports a set of variables which reflect evidence drawn from the questionnaires and case studies. The relationship of the evidence drawn from the questionnaires, case studies and interviews is explored in section 4.4.