ACF Banner
[NCCIC header image][NCCIC Header Image]

A Meeting Summary;
A Long-Awaited Conversation: Dialogue to Bridge the High-Tech/High-Touch Gap In Early Childhood Workforce Preparation and Professional Development

Leadership Connections Conference
Chicago, Illinois
May 6-7, 2004

Hosted by The Center for Early Childhood Leadership of National-Louis University

Prepared by Douglas Clark
for:
The Child Care Bureau
Administration on Children, Youth and Families,
Administration for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Table of Contents

  • Introduction
  • The Chicago Meeting
  • Definitions and Themes
  • Next Steps
  • A Final Word
  • Appendices
    • APPENDIX A Meeting Brief and Meeting Agenda
    • APPENDIX B Participant List
    • APPENDIX C Distance Learning in Early Childhood Education (2004), National Child Care Information Center
    • APPENDIX D (HTML | PDF 89K) States with Distance Learning Options (2004), National Child Care Information Center
    • APPENDIX E (PDF) Technology and Early Childhood Professional Development: A Policy Discussion (2002), by Jessica McMaken, Education Commission of the States

Acknowledgements

The Child Care Bureau would like to thank the Center for Early Childhood Leadership at National-Louis University for hosting the meeting, "A Long-Awaited Conversation: Dialogue to Bridge the High-Tech/High-Touch Gap in Early Childhood Workforce Preparation and Professional Development," in conjunction with their 2004 Leadership Connections conference held in Chicago in May 2004. The participants in the meeting enjoyed a warm and intellectually stimulating environment that supported a culture of collaboration and learning. In particular, we would like to thank our partners from the National College of Education at National-Louis University: Elizabeth Hawthorne, Dean of the National College of Education; Paula Jorde Bloom, Director of the Center for Early Childhood Leadership; and Jill Bella and Eileen Eisenberg, conference coordinators.

The meeting was conceptualized and organized by a team comprised of Shannon Rudisill and Valerie Krajec at the Child Care Bureau, Susan Rohrbough of the National Child Care Information Center, and Douglas Clark, an online early childhood degree program director at National-Louis University and second year doctoral student in the educational technology program at Pepperdine University. Doug conceived the idea for this meeting and prepared this report. Logistical support was provided by Kimberly Prue of the Child Care Bureaus Conference Management Center.

The Bureau would also like to thank the participants in the Chicago Meeting, who are listed in Appendix B. Each one made a significant contribution to the lively discussion. The group is indebted to Sarah Click, Vernon Mason, Meghan Ortiz, and Allison Walker, who graciously shared their personal experiences as early childhood practitioners utilizing various modes of technology to support their professional development. As of the release of this publication in October 2004, many of those who attended the Chicago Meeting have acted on the recommendations and ideas that emerged from the long-awaited conversation.

INTRODUCTION

A Long-Awaited Conversation: Dialogue to Bridge the High-Tech/High-Touch Gap in Early Childhood Workforce Preparation and Professional Development was sponsored by the Child Care Bureau (CCB), Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Child Care Bureau supports low-income working families through child care financial assistance and promotes children's learning by improving the quality of early care and education and after-school programs. The Child Care Bureau administers the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which in recent years, has provided $4.8 billion annually to States and Tribes. Quality spending in FY 2003 was $881 million, or 9 percent of total State and Federal CCDF expenditures.1 Using a survey on FY 2000 expenditures, the U.S. General Accounting Office (now the U.S. General Accountability Office) reported that 82 percent of States spent CCDF quality funds on training and professional development for child care providers. Taken together, training and related caregiver compensation initiatives comprised 25 percent of spending.2

The Child Care Bureau has a longstanding interest in professional development for child care providers across all child care settings. States and Tribes make significant investments in professional development from the Child Care and Development Fund. CCB's research and technical assistance activities attempt to answer critical questions about early childhood training and help States identify and replicate promising practices. State CCDF administrators are seeking effective methods to improve quality, achieve improved child outcomes, and adequately support child care providers. The use of technology to reach and train early childhood staff has been one area of keen interest to State Child Care Administrators and agencies providing quality improvement activities.

Although needs vary by State depending on demographic and geographic circumstances, some needs cut across States: the need to provide current training to large numbers of early care and education practitioners, the need to improve the educational levels of the current and prospective early care and education workforce, the need to reach large numbers of isolated family child care providers, and the need to provide training and resources to those family, friends, and neighbors who are caring for approximately one-half of low income children across the country.

For States considering or implementing some form of technology-supported training or coursework, there are questions about legitimacy of the sponsor institution, quality assurance, and articulation of course credit. In addition, States weigh cost-effectiveness, potential outreach, and the number of participants. Many States are working to establish program and management infrastructure related to technology, instruction, and to record and track participant achievement. While technology allows near global access to training and coursework, such access forces State Administrators to address scholarship and reimbursement issues related to training that crosses State lines.

1 This figure includes the minimum quality spending requirement and the earmarks for quality, infant and toddler care, and school-age and resource and referral services.

2 Source: U.S. General Accounting Office. States have Undertaken a Variety of Quality Improvement Initiatives, but More Evaluations of Effectiveness are Needed, GAO-02-897. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 2002. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02897.pdf (accessed October 22, 2004).

THE CHICAGO MEETING

To build on earlier work by the Educational Commission of the States and KnowledgeWorks Foundation in July 2002 (a summary report is available in Appendix E) and from a Distance Training & Early Childhood Professional Development discussion held in January 2002 (agenda and meeting notes available at http://www.nhsa.org), a two-day invitational forum was organized to convene more than thirty individuals, representing an array of expertise and technology-based program models associated with training the early childhood workforce (Appendix B includes a participant list). In preparing for this meeting, the Child Care Bureau and its National Child Care Information Center (NCCIC) worked with Pepperdine University doctoral student Douglas Clark to address State's information and technical assistance needs related to technology-mediated distance learning for early childhood practitioners. The planning team consisted of Shannon Rudisill and Valerie Krajec of the Child Care Bureau, Susan Rohrbough from NCCIC, and Douglas Clark. As part of a technical assistance strategy to partner with regional and national venues, the forum was held in Chicago on May 6-7, 2004, concurrent with the Leadership Connections conference hosted by the Center for Early Childhood Leadership at National-Louis University. For brevity, the forum is referred to as the Chicago Meeting throughout this report.

The agenda for the Chicago Meeting emerged from multiple planning sessions and consultations with several members of the early childhood professional development community (Appendix A includes a meeting brief and the meeting agenda). Built around the theme "A Long-Awaited Conversation: Dialogue to Bridge the High-Tech/High-Touch Gap in Early Childhood Workforce Preparation and Professional Development," four discussion topics were identified as areas of focus:

  • Topic 1: Promising practices and models using technology as a mediator for the training and professional development of early care and education practitioners
  • Topic 2: Perspectives of learners
  • Topic 3: Lessons learned from pioneering experiences
  • Topic 4: Content, competencies, credentials, accountability, and results

Facilitated by Susan Rohrbough, the Chicago Meeting was designed as a dialogue with subgroups of participants serving as lead discussants throughout the two-day session. In addition, a panel of adult learners was interviewed to share experiences and recommendations regarding the uses of technology in education and training. To culminate the dialogue, each participant was asked to share his/her thoughts about areas of consensus that had emerged from the discussions regarding key themes and next steps. The meeting proceedings and subsequent outcomes are summarized in the pages that follow.

DEFINITIONS AND THEMES

Operational Definitions

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Because the community of early childhood practitioners and the many forms of their practice are so diverse, the planning team invited early childhood professionals representing a wide array of provider/learner, educator/trainer, institutional/ organizational, and geographical constituencies. Accordingly, the working definition of professional development for meeting agenda purposes is very broad and includes activities of two-and four-year colleges and universities, child care resource and referral agencies, cooperative extension programs, and public television. It also includes activities that apply toward credentials such as the Child Development Associate (CDA) and early childhood certification. Professional development activities considered include self-study, workshops and training series, credit and non-credit coursework, and ultimately focused on training and coursework that would count toward a degree or could be translated into credit toward a degree or credential.

TECHNOLOGY. It is an ambitious undertaking to identify a common taxonomy to describe the many ways technology supports teaching, learning, and professional development among early childhood practitioners. The definition of technology for the meeting was very broad, but the basis for most discussion was distance delivery models and parts of the conversation focused mostly on online or Internet-based coursework. During the two-day dialogue, several terms were used to describe the new instructional technologies. These included: distance learning, online learning, Web-based learning, Internet learning, and e-learning.

TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED LEARNING. Since many of the learning opportunities currently available to early childhood practitioners involve contact with the instructor and content via the Internet, the meeting discussions often related specifically to online coursework. However, in addition to Internet-based learning, several participants in the Chicago Meeting were engaged in a continuum of technologies, such as broadcast television, Web-casts, video conferencing, satellite downlinks, and training modules on videotape and CD-ROM.

They also used blended approaches that combined technology with face-to-face classroom experiences, mentoring, or technical assistance.

The planning team aimed to consider a broad array of approaches and promising practices currently used in early childhood training, and not to focus on or recommend a particular form of technology for use in professional development. To that end, the broad term technology-mediated learning is used in this report to indicate the applicability of the groups findings to virtually all delivery modes and instructional practices that involve digital media, broadcasts via satellite or the World Wide Web, electronic networking, or other related formats.

"This is not just information dissemination, but career development and learners acquiring knowledge they can use in their practices. Making the process interactive is vital. The network would be designed to serve diverse needs of a vast audience of multiple language-speakers in disparate locations, particularly rural ones. It must serve a diversity of learning styles."

CAROL BRUNSON DAY, COUNCIL FOR PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION

Five Cross-Cutting Themes

Outcomes from the Chicago Meeting are summarized as five cross-cutting themes.

Theme 1: What We Already Know about Learning and Effective Teaching also Applies to Training Models that are Delivered via Media and Technology.

It's all about relationships. Learning takes place within a social context, so the effective use of instructional technology provides such a context for learning. Successful models are relationship-based, even if the instructor and the student never meet in person. An appreciable aspect of the instructional experience relies upon meaningful interaction among all participants. Even where there is less opportunity for person-to-person contact, a connection to fellow participants, to the instructor, the training entity, or to the educational institution leads to positive feelings about the learning experience and learning success.

Technology-mediated learning forces a paradigm shift, by transferring control of the learning experiences away from instructors and toward learners. Meeting participants gravitated to the phrase "guide on the side, not the sage on the stage" to describe the instructor's role evident in the most promising technology-mediated learning endeavors. There was solid consensus that this attribute is a benchmark for best practice, and agreement that it is a hallmark of quality for all successful adult learning scenarios—though not implemented as frequently in face-to-face classroom experiences where the teacher tends to remain in the spotlight.

In technology-mediated coursework and training experiences provided for adult learners, the instructor is no longer the person with all of the information. Sharing among peers is commonplace, and is often the centerpiece of the curricular design. In addition, access to the wealth of information and Internet search tools, which can be made immediately available through technology-mediated instruction, gives students tremendous resources. By providing individuals more control over what they learn through increased access to information and information sources, the technology-mediated learning process is inherently democratic in nature.

"Online learning was a better use of my time. For me, the biggest advantage was the flexibility of when to 'attend' class. A.m., p. m., midnight—it didn't matter. In the time I would have spent driving to the nearest university and parking my car twice per week, I was normally able to get my course work done. The same is true for getting your resource materials online. When in the real world we are pushed for time, through online courses, we learn how to get information in minutes."

VERNON MASON JR., DIRECTOR, WEE SCHOOL CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER

"My cohort was able to decide on what time class will be held and we can answer the Bulletin Board questions at our own pace. This allows time for thought-provoking questions and answers. The Bulletin Board feature is a very effective support for my professional development as I can communicate all week long with my fellow cohort members as opposed to the time constraints in a face-to-face classroom."

SARAH CLICK, HEADSUP! READING COORDINATOR AND STUDENT AT CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY IN MINNESOTA

For instructional technology to be effective, the tools and strategies used must do more than merely deliver content. Technology offers the opportunity to present information in a variety of ways and builds the capacity of the learner to work toward higher levels of learning. To meet this potential, the technology tools and teaching practices must do more than just provide information (the equivalent of didactic lecture). To be effective, the technology must be used by instructors and participants alike to mediate multidimensional relationships among learners, teacher/facilitators, and the training content (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Effective instructional technology mediates relationships among learners, teachers and training content.

Effective instructional approaches are learner-centered. Successful uses of technology account for differences among the participants: differing learning styles and preferences, widely varied computer skills, and differing levels of access to technology and media. The promising practices identified during the Chicago Meeting were specifically designed for working adults, building on theories about the social construction of knowledge and employing problem-based methodologies such as case study analysis or reflection on authentic experiences. These practices often included some form of journaling and direct application of training content to the work environment.

"The Early Childhood Self-Study Course on Inclusion is designed for child care providers and other early childhood professionals who want to complete learning activities without leaving their home. Providers learn to assess and evaluate their philosophies and programs to meet the individual needs of children with disabilities. This is a correspondence course where providers can earn two units of college credit through the local community college."

JOCELYN TUCKER, CAREER ADVOCATE, CONTRA COSTA CHILD CARE COUNCIL

"HeadsUp! Reading is an example of using live satellite TV for professional development. This 30-hour college level course is available in English and Spanish. For the past four years it gave practitioners direct access to primary researchers and experts in language and early literacy through engaging instructional segments and opportunities for live call-ins. It uses video to bring concepts and teaching strategies to life, taking practitioners into homes and classrooms in various contexts. A trained on-site facilitator mediates the learning experience and a Web site allows for review, expanded application activities, and additional questions."

CATHIE HARVEY, RISE LEARNING SOLUTIONS AND DEBBIE WINDHAM, NATIONAL HEAD START ASSOCIATION

Theme 2: Now is the Time to Get International About Capacity Building.

Substantial evidence exists and continues to mount to validate the use of technology as a mediator of effective distance learning experiences. Now, the focus can shift from questioning the viability of technology as an appropriate educational delivery channel, toward a purposeful emphasis on building institutional capacity to plan, prepare for, and deliver technology-mediated instruction. Participants agreed that intentionality is vital and implementation with faithfulness to the original design is critical to success.

Institutional expectations should be clear and realistic. Building capacity must be deliberate in nature, comprehensive in scope, and emanate from a systems perspective. All stakeholders at the institutional level must discuss their expectations for making their educational offerings available over the Internet or via some other technology. Stakeholders need to understand each others expectations and check whether the assumptions and goals are realistic. Mutually understood expectations ought to be explicit at the outset of the strategizing process. For instance, is it expected that learning outcomes will improve compared with face-to-face delivery? Is it expected to be more convenient for students or teachers? Is it expected to be less expensive? Is it expected that more people will be trained? Stakeholders need to work together throughout planning and execution. Otherwise, the juxtaposition of different stakeholders embracing different planning assumptions places undue tension on the design and ultimate effectiveness of the training endeavor.

Participants in the dialogue pointed out the importance of careful adherence to original plan designs. For example, if the design required certain conditions such as mentoring, on-site facilitation, or a particular kind of technical support that were not implemented due to emergent resource constraints, the overall effectiveness of the model might be compromised. Many discussants spoke from personal experience that in cases such as these, a common tendency is to blame the overall delivery approach despite the reality that the envisioned model was never truly tested as intended. Compromises to plans before their faithful implementation greatly diminish critical opportunities for systematic review and comprehensive assessment of program designs and delivery strategies. Sufficient funding to underwrite the full development of technology-mediated training and coursework is an essential ingredient for increasing institutions' capacity to serve the field of early childhood education.

Technical support is a factor in the ultimate success or failure of a venture. Several people indicated that both instructors and students need time, as much as one or two weeks before being thrust into the rigors of technology-mediated study, to obtain technical support for getting started. Learners expressed the need for a "survival guide" at the outset of their learning experience. Many participants reported that technical support provisions focus narrowly on matters such as how to access or navigate a course Web site, and generally do not address other crucial concerns such as how to use the technologies or grasp the nuances of full participation as an instructor or student in the course.

Chicago Meeting participants also pointed to the importance of reliable and effective technical support for instructors and students. It was suggested that the most accommodating technical support person is not necessarily a person with the best technical knowledge, but rather one who understands the clients (instructors or students) perspective and possesses interpersonal skills needed to convey technical assistance in common, non-technical terms.

A continuum of technology-mediated options is crucial for addressing a wide range of professional development needs demanded by the early childhood workforce. As considered during the Chicago Meeting, capacity building is broad and underscores the importance of a continuum of technology-mediated options. Both the content and the audience of learners should influence the choice of technology and delivery method. For example, broadcast television is effective for reaching large populations with simple, straightforward messages. The use of television was also cited as a confidence booster among learners who afterward participated in online training or academic courses.

"One challenging aspect of online learning is technological problems. If your computer shuts down, or online service shuts down, you are not able to complete assignments. In my experience, there have been wonderful people in the college's tech support department—and my professors have all been very understanding!"

MEGHAN ORTIZ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MCLEAN COUNTY YWCA CHILD CARE

This progression demonstrates how one instructional approach along the continuum of technologies complements another.

Recruitment and development of instructors. Instructors need preparation in how to become comfortable with the technology for the design and delivery of their courses. They need to master the technology itself and also understand the differences in course dynamics as opposed to face-to-face course delivery. For instance, several meeting participants who were online instructors pointed out that they had to learn to be careful in designing and scheduling student assignments to avoid an avalanche of electronically submitted written materials to which they could not effectively respond. The workload and expectation for interaction is so high in Web-based courses that many faculty refuse to attempt teaching online.

Similarly, younger instructors on tenure track, who may be less intimidated by the technology, may shy away from teaching with technology because of time pressures associated with obligatory scholarship, publication, and service to their institutions.

In many cases, especially for adjunct faculty, instructor salaries are generally low, so the proposition of greater requisite personal investment for no more remuneration has kept the talent pool small. On a hopeful note, some participants suggested that the pool of potential instructors might be expanded to include those who live far from campuses in rural areas or parents with young children who wish to work from home.

Recruitment and development of students. Recruiters and admissions personnel should be equipped to assist prospective students in determining their readiness for technology-mediated learning. One instructor in the group said that with some potential students "you only get one shot." If their educational history was challenging, another failed academic experience may turn them off for years.

Institutions and instructors should consider closely each student's skill level and need for support at the beginning and throughout the span of the student's technology-mediated learning experience. This comprehensive approach would begin with readiness screening and provide orientation prior to the student's first course. The orientation process should serve as a "survival guide" that covers the use of the required technologies, such as e-mail, "netiquette," and how to conduct an Internet search. It should also provide a means of determining learning style preferences and assess the learner's likelihood of success with the particular instructional media or platform. Discussants also pointed out the importance of devising exit strategies for students who initially choose technology-mediated learning and then find that they are better suited for face-to-face classes.

Toward an early childhood professional development infrastructure. Throughout the two days of dialogue, discussants cited several items associated with the concept of professional development systems for early childhood practitioners as essential for consideration in future capacity building activities. Among the items linked to the professional development system concept were: a) an assurance mechanism to validate the quality of the technology-mediated initiative; b) course content standards that are linked to defined competencies within the professional development system; and c) a career lattice and career counseling for students engaged in technology-mediated professional development.

The group also acknowledged the importance of credibility for courses, training, and degrees delivered via technology. Participants suggested that established entities such as accredited institutions of higher learning, child care resource and referral agencies, and respected professional organizations are readily trusted within the early childhood field and by the public at large. Thus, the training and courses offered by or associated with these entities are also trusted. This point underscored the importance of identifying an objective means of evaluating technology-mediated professional development experiences to ensure their adherence to a high standard of quality.

Theme 3: Collaboration is Key.

Many efforts related to the design and implementation of technology-mediated instruction have taken place and continue to occur across disciplines throughout the United States and around the globe. In most instances, these activities are happening in isolation, which has led to duplication of effort and expense. Participants agreed that future efforts to conduct research, refine methodologies, enhance practices, and improve learner outcomes could be better leveraged through collaboration that would capitalize on the collective expertise of educational technologists, early childhood education faculty, training providers, and the learners themselves.

"I have found two major challenges to online learning as opposed to a regular classroom setting. The first is simply educating my colleagues about the legitimacy and effectiveness of online learning. The second challenge is that of self-discipline. I have to condition myself to keep on task with the reading (and there is a lot of it), answer the Bulletin Board questions thoroughly, and complete all the assignments. But in the end—it will all be worth it!"

SARAH CLICK, HEADSUP! READING PROGRAM COORDINATOR AND STUDENT AT CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY IN MINNESOTA

On the point of collaboration, meeting participants agreed to continue to communicate, think, and learn together; and to exchange ideas, helpful tools, and successful strategies with one another. They acknowledged the benefits of developing course content that could be accessed via a central Web portal and exchanged across organizations within the early childhood community. For example, a common commitment to make use of the Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM)3 could help to standardize the delivery of training and education and support deeper levels of sharing and cross-fertilization.

3 SCORM is a series of e-learning standards that specify ways to catalog, launch, and track course content.

Theme 4: Behind the Hype, the Hope, and the Hearsay: The Practical Realities of Technology-Mediated Distance Learning.

Participants identified areas of practical reality that contradict widely held beliefs about technology-mediated learning.

The Hype: Technology-mediated distance learning is a "can't-miss" way to deliver high-volume/low-cost coursework and training.

Practical reality. While there are distinctions among the various approaches to course facilitation, instructors reported that they spend more time per class teaching a technology-mediated course than they would need for a traditional face-to-face course. In many cases, enrollment levels in technology-mediated courses are relatively low so the instructor:student ratio can be kept lower for accommodating increased amounts of participant interaction via discussion groups, journal entries, e-mail exchanges, and written assignments.

In relatively few cases where the programs are highly systemized and the study content need not be modified to maintain its relevance to a large population of learners, technology-mediated training and coursework has been shown to be a cost-efficient alternative. However, these successes typically involve scenarios where the scale of the professional development involves multiple sites, multiple instructors, and a heavy front-end investment to develop the infrastructure and mass-produce training materials (for example, thousands of videotapes). In contrast, commitments at this level typically extend beyond the capacity of a single online course, training program, or educational institution.

The Hope: All modes of technology-mediated distance learning are appropriate for all learners and all course content.

Practical reality. Technology-mediated distance learning is a viable alternative for preparing and training early childhood practitioners but it is not and will not be for everyone; nor is it viable for all training content relevant to early care and learning. Many participants cited the high degree of self-discipline required to consistently participate in distance learning, as well as the huge time commitment required to actively participate in technology-mediated coursework. Technology-mediated learning seems best-suited for people with a high degree of personal and professional motivation.

Not all learners will be comfortable enough with the technology to experience immediate success. Because of the prevailing need to communicate in writing, learners' English fluency, literacy, and writing skills also influence the success students can experience through distance learning. On the other hand, some technology-mediated experiences, such as online courses, entail activities that foster improved writing and reflection skills.

Participants also agreed that not all content is appropriate for conversion to 100 percent distance delivery. They cited activities like classroom observations or mentor consultations as crucial to certain training experiences. In cases like these, the group saw no apparent way for substituting a virtual or simulated activity that could retain the same level of effectiveness as a counterpart experience in a face-to-face arrangement.

While there was consensus among the discussants that technology-mediated learning is not a one-size-fits-all solution, there was also strong support that it could have at least a nominal role, such as in a format where online and face-to-face experiences were both utilized, in virtually any training situation. Participants suggested that various approaches should be attempted for different learner populations based on their stages of professional and personal readiness for technology-mediated learning. As an example, distributing video tapes to training participants has been proven effective as a suitable alternative in cases where students' computers lack the capacity to access live video streaming or high-resolution graphics.

The Hearsay: Technology-mediated distance learning lacks the capacity to facilitate meaningful interaction and nurture a sense of community among participants.

Practical reality. Effective technology-mediated learning models can support and even deepen relationships among peer learners and course facilitators. One participant cited the power of online course delivery as a formidable means for cultivating a "sense of community" among learners. To further this claim, many discussants reported anecdotally that online coursework had actually increased the participation of some students: instructors and students alike indicated that technology-mediated delivery increased the participation of some who were reluctant to speak in a classroom environment or who might prefer time to reflect before contributing to the class discussion. Many believed that a technology-mediated format was less biased compared to classroom settings because students were less likely to receive "credit" for particular personality traits, appearance, or other similar factors.

The positive effect of technology on building a sense of community among groups of learners is not limited to online course experiences. For example, one discussant spoke about the importance of mentoring encounters among family child care home providers scattered thinly across the rural areas of her State. Though separated geographically, the use of Listservs and e-mail allow these providers to take part in the telementoring of newcomers to their community as well as to each other. These providers also exchanged lesson plans and digital photos of their learning environments electronically.

Theme 5: Important Questions Remain.

The dialogue remained lively and enthusiastic throughout the Chicago Meeting and several key issues were addressed pertaining to the role of technology as a mediator for improving quality among the early care and education workforce. Nevertheless, at the culmination of the dialogue many unanswered questions lingered. Three broad-sweeping questions were identified for further attention.

Question: How can innovations in instructional technology be used to accommodate the widely disparate nature of the early care and education workforce? As one participant stated, "We need to take a closer look at who the potential learner is." What innovative ways are appropriate for the various groups? Can the technologies be adapted to effectively reach out not only to licensed early childhood staff, but also family, friend, or neighbor providers?

There are many technologies, from televisions to computers, which can be used for early childhood professional development and quality improvement. Since some of the concerns about learners' technology skills may diminish as students and instructors mature into a more tech-savvy generation, future plans should accommodate this potential change in user needs.

Question: How can we assess the effectiveness of technology-mediated distance learning for the professional development of early care and education practitioners? With the proliferation of technology-based training resources, quality assurance is a concern for State or local professional development systems and for organizations that grant credentials. Matters of quality are also of concern for institutions. In some settings, instructors generally characterized as "not riveting" in the classroom may prove to be very effective in the delivery of technology-mediated distance learning formats. Conversely, an organization's best "classroom" instructors may not be able to adapt for equally effective course delivery via the technology.

In the absence of complete knowledge about the training source or the quality of the content and delivery, how should systems decide whether and how much credit or recognition to award for technology-mediated learning activities? Related questions include how to evaluate technology-mediated training for inclusion in a State training approval system or how to include "test out" options that gauge and validate learner competencies which are the result of technology-mediated learning.

Question: How do we address the question of credibility? Despite the heavy investment of time and intellectual resources required to succeed in a technology-mediated course or training experience, both students and participating faculty expressed concerns about the credibility of technology-mediated distance learning with their employers or with peers in academia. How can quality assurances and training approval systems be used to validate the credibility of technology-mediated learning? Participants mentioned current research efforts as well as the possibility of conducting new research to identify learner outcomes and the effectiveness of the various technologies with specific populations. These efforts support the effectiveness of such training and document student success.

"The Better Kid Care Program successfully reaches all types of child care providers (home-based caregivers, family, relative/neighbor caregivers, center staff, CDA candidates, certified teachers, program directors), especially those in rural populations. This is effectively accomplished through: satellite workshops, distance education lessons (Web-based and mail-based), as well as direct training by Cooperative Extension educators throughout the State."

PATTY WELLS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DISTANCE EDUCATION, PENN STATE BETTER KID CARE PROGRAM

Question: How do we resolve policy and funding issues related to courses that "cross" State lines? Students, faculty, and policy-makers in attendance raised concerns about reciprocity for courses and training that cross State lines, especially with regard to scholarships and incentives for taking coursework. While technology fosters virtual classrooms with no borders, State Child Care Administrators typically face restrictions on the use of State and Federal pass-through dollars. The use of technology to resolve issues of access must be accompanied by mechanisms to provide financial incentives and scholarships to assist individuals in paying for coursework and training.

NEXT STEPS

Participants concurred that much work is needed to address the key issues that were raised throughout their discussions. Further, they agreed that a coordinated and collaborative approach to addressing these issues would likely result in timelier and more effective outcomes. To that end, the discussants agreed to remain in contact and continue sharing with one another after the meeting had adjourned. To initiate this follow-through, a Listserv dedicated to early childhood distance learning was established (DLEC@ecqnet.org), hosted by the Ohio State University Quality Network in conjunction with the National Head Start Association.

Some participants indicated their willingness to share their expertise in the varied aspects of capacity building. These people's interests spanned the gamut from quality assessment systems to faculty development to student support mechanisms. Others offered to work on identifying new ways to increase access to technology-mediated training opportunities for early childhood staff from informal provider settings; to seek information from other business sectors about lessons learned from their training experiences to explore the potential for more strategic alliances among professional development organizations; and to investigate the prospects for E-rate assistance (discounted access to telecommunications services for libraries and schools) in all early childhood locations.

The group also saw the need for more research and information about the use of technology in early childhood education. In particular, discussants identified the need to better understand how the use of technology could be tailored to the unique learning needs of distinct provider populations comprising the early childhood workforce. They agreed that much of the focus of future research should address topics related to assessment of technology-mediated programs, instructor competence and the readiness, and expectations of the training participants. To inform strategic capacity building processes across the field, the early childhood professional development community is anxiously awaiting breakthrough information that can arise from these kinds of studies.

In addition to the exchange of ideas that occurred during the Chicago Meeting, the Child Care Bureau is committed to using the results of the meeting and this report to support the work of States in addressing the training needs of early care and education practitioners across the country. NCCIC has revised and updated two technology-related documents (Appendix C, Distance Learning in Early Education; and Appendix D, States with Distance Learning Options); Highlights of the Chicago Meeting were shared informally at the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Professional Development Institute in Baltimore in June 2004, and a roundtable discussion was convened at the annual State Child Care Administrators Meeting (SAM) in Washington, DC in July 2004. Looking ahead, a working session to develop a fundable strategic plan has been set for the NAEYC Annual Conference in Anaheim, CA in November 2004.

A FINAL WORD

The shift from traditional face-to-face delivery of educational content to technology-mediated formats is the new reality of learning experiences available to early childhood practitioners. To be certain, this change of paradigm presents formidable challenges to teachers, learners, educational institutions, and professional development systems. In many ways, however, this shift also presents a fresh start that can be leveraged as an opportunity for shaping best training practices, improving learning outcomes, and most importantly providing for better experiences in child care and early learning settings that previously have been too difficult to reach by traditional means. The May 2004 meeting, "A Long-Awaited Conversation: Dialogue to Bridge the High-Tech/High-Touch Gap in Early Childhood Workforce Preparation and Professional Development," was another step toward re-examining the way early childhood practitioner training can be delivered.

APPENDIX A

Meeting Brief

The opening session was convened by Shannon Rudisill, Director of Technical Assistance for the Child Care Bureau (CCB). After welcoming the participants and providing some introductory remarks, Shannon introduced Douglas Clark, a doctoral student in educational technology at Pepperdine University and convener of the Chicago Meeting. Doug greeted the participants and introduced Dr. Elizabeth Hawthorne, Dean of the National College of Education at National-Louis University (NLU). After formally welcoming the group to Chicago and National-Louis University, Liz provided a brief presentation about the NLU's historical ties to early childhood teacher preparation. Afterward, the meeting was turned over to Susan Rohrbough, Technical Assistance Specialist with the National Child Care Information Center (NCCIC). For the remainder of the two-day session, Susan served as the meeting facilitator.

Four topics were identified for meeting agenda:

  • Topic 1: Promising practices and models using technology as a mediator for the training and professional development of early care and education practitioners
  • Topic 2: Perspectives of learners
  • Topic 3: Lessons learned from pioneering experiences
  • Topic 4: Content, competencies, credentials, accountability, and results

The two-day summit was designed as a dialogue, with subgroups of participants serving as lead discussants throughout the meeting. After each of these four main sections, other meeting participants were designated to facilitate a brief full-group reflection to summarize the dialogue and identify key concepts and major themes that had emerged from the discussions.

PROMISING PRACTICES. The dialogue around Topic 1 was initiated by a group comprised by Lead Discussants Charlotte Brantley from PBS Ready to Learn; Jocelyn Tucker from the National Association for Family Child Care; Petra Luck from Liverpool Hope University College; and Patty Wells from the Better Kid Care initiative at Penn State University. The summarizing discussion for this session was facilitated by Shannon Rudisill of the Child Care Bureau.

LEARNER PERSPECTIVES. The dialogue around Topic 2 was initiated by a panel of four student-practitioners. The group was comprised by Allison Walker, Head Start Educational Coordinator from the Ounce of Prevention (Chicago) who had recently completed a Master's degree program that was a blend of online and on-campus coursework; Vernon Mason, a preschool owner from North Carolina and current participant in an online cohort Master's degree program in early childhood administration; Meghan Ortiz, Assistant Director of a YWCA child care program; and Sarah Click, Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. The summarizing discussion for this session was facilitated by Valerie Krajec of the Child Care Bureau.

LESSONS LEARNED. The dialogue around Topic 3 was initiated by a group comprised by Lead Discussants Cathie Harvey of RISE Learning Solutions; Susan Dion of Concordia University-St. Paul (MN); Chuck Lynd from The Early Childhood Quality Network at Ohio State University; and Jane Humphries from Center for Early Childhood Professional Development at University of Oklahoma. The summarizing discussion for this session was facilitated by Linda Saterfield from the Illinois Department of Human Services, Child Care Bureau.

CONTENT, COMPETENCIES, AND CREDENTIALS. The dialogue around Topic 4 was initiated by a group comprised by Lead Discussants Chip Donohue from the Early Childhood Professional Development Program at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; Maril Olson from the National Association for the Education of Young Children; Mary Beth Van Why from The Council for Professional Recognition; and Debra Torrence from Project CONTACT at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. The summarizing discussion for this session was facilitated by Kay Henderson from the Illinois State Board of Education, Early Childhood Division.

NEXT STEPS. To culminate the two days of dialogue, each participant was asked to share his/her thoughts about areas of consensus that had emerged from the discussions regarding key themes and next steps. The final thoughts of the participants were used to close the meeting, to identify next steps and individual commitments, and to compile the findings of the two-day dialogue.

Meeting Agenda

Day I—Thursday, May 6, 2004
Chicago Ballroom A/B

11:30 AM: OPENING CONFERENCE LUNCHEON
1:30 PM: HOTEL CHECK-IN & NETWORKING BREAK
2:15 PM: FORUM WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS

  • OVERVIEW of MEETING
    • BACKGROUND and PURPOSE
    • EXPECTED OUTCOMES
      • Convene leaders/pioneers that are using technology in preservice preparation and/or in-service training;
      • Create/Strengthen a community of learners focused on the use of technology in Early Childhood Workforce Preparation and Professional Development;
      • Gain a more in-depth knowledge of the various technological approaches to early childhood training—both pre-service and in-service, of the techniques and processes used, and of the implications for training/education delivery systems;
      • Identify resources and approaches that may impact State and national policy related to Early Childhood Professional Development.
    • ROLE of INVITEES
      • To discuss, share and examine pioneering approaches to training early care and education practitioners.
      • To discuss challenging questions, shared learning and innovative training approaches.
      • To identify strategies and lessons learned and share ideas.
2:40 PM: FRAMING OUR DIALOGUE: WHAT DO I BRING to THIS DISCUSSION FORUM?
3:30 PM: PROMISING PRACTICES & MODELS
4:30 PM: REFLECTIONS & CONSIDERATIONS
5:15 PM: SUMMARIZING DAY I
5:30 PM- 7:00 pm: NETWORKING RECEPTION— LEADERSHIP CONNECTIONS CONFERENCE

Day II—Friday, May 7, 2004
Chicago Ballroom E

7:30 AM: CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST
8:30 AM: FORUM RECONVENES
8:45 AM: PANEL FROM the FIELD: LEARNERS SHARE THEIR PERSPECTIVES & KEY LEARNINGS
9:45 AM: REFLECTIONS & CONSIDERATIONS
10:15 AM: BREAK
10:30 AM: DELIVERY METHODS, PRACTICES & LESSONS LEARNED
11:30 AM: REFLECTIONS & CONSIDERATIONS, ILLINOIS REGISTRY DEMONSTRATION—SHOWCASE UPDATE
12:30 PM: LUNCH
1:30 PM: CONTENT, COMPETENCIES, CREDENTIALS, ACCOUNTABILITY & RESULTS
2:30 PM: REFLECTIONS & CONSIDERATIONS
3:00 PM: BREAK
3:15 PM: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
4:45 PM: WRAP-UP & NEXT STEPS
5:30 PM: FORUM CONCLUDES

OPTIONAL DINNER: Forum participants are invited to have dinner with National-Louis University Graduate Students in Early Childhood Administration.

APPENDIX B

Participant List

Patricia Anderson
Assistant Professor
National-Louis University
200 South Naperville Road,
Room 112 Wheaton, Illinois 60187
Telephone: 630-983-9901
Fax: 630-579-9910
E-mail: panderson@nl.edu 		Paula Jorde Bloom
Director The Center for Early Childhood Leadership
National-Louis University
6310 Capitol Drive
Wheeling, Illinois 60090
Telephone: 800-443-5522, ext. 7701
E-mail: pbloom@nl.edu
Charlotte Brantley
Senior Director
PBS Ready to Learn
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Telephone: 703-739-5445
Fax: 703-739-7506
E-mail: cbrantley@pbs.org 		Michael Butler
Project Officer
Administration for Children and Families
Office of Family and Child Development,
Head Start U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services
233 North Michigan Avenue,
Suite 400 Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: 312-886-5359
Fax: 312-886-5373
E-mail: mibutler@acf.hhs.gov
Douglas Clark
Assistant Professor
Early Childhood Education National
College of Education
National-Louis University
1000 Capitol Drive
Wheeling, Illinois 60090
Telephone: 847-947-5062
Fax: 847-465-5910
E-mail: dclark@nl.edu		 Susan Dion
Grants Faculty
PDI Director Concordia University
275 Syndicate Avenue N
St. Paul, Minnesota 55105
Telephone: 651-603-6155
E-mail: dion@csp.edu
Chip Donohue
Program Director
Early Childhood Professional Development Program
University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee
161 West Wisconsin Avenue,
Suite 600 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
Telephone: 414-227-3334
Fax: 414-227-3330
E-mail: cdonohue@uwm.edu 		Catherine Helgoe Fett
Senior Project Manager/Developer
LEGO Educational Division
Research and Development
21 Dearborn Street East
Longmeadow, Massachusetts 01028
Telephone: 860-763-6936
Fax: 860-763-7741
E-mail: cathy.fett@america.lego.com
Irmgard Gruber
Chair Early Childhood Education
Kendall College
2408 Orrington Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60201
Telephone: 847-448-2342
Fax: 847-448-2403
E-mail: igruber@kendall.edu		 Twila Hardaway
Educational Technology Doctoral Student
Pepperdine University HC 75,
P.O. Box 1337-7
Fort Davis, Texas 79734
Telephone: 432-426-3648
E-mail: twilahardaway@overland.net
Cathie Harvey
Vice President Programs
RISE Learning Solutions
10490 Taconic Terrace
Cincinnati, Ohio 45215-1154
Telephone: 610-896-9060
Fax: 610-896-3126
E-mail: harvey@risetraining.org		 Elizabeth Hawthorne
Dean
National College of Education
National-Louis University
122 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: 312-261-3380
E-mail: ehawthorne@nl.edu
Kay Henderson
Division Administrator
Early Childhood Education
Illinois State Board of Education
100 North First Street, E225
Springfield, Illinois 62777-0001
Telephone: 217-524-4835
Fax: 217-785-7849
E-mail: hhenders@isbe.net		 Jane Humphries
Program Administrator II
Center for Early Childhood
Professional Development
The University of Oklahoma
1801 North Moore Avenue
Moore, Oklahoma 73160
Telephone: 405-799-6383
Fax: 405-799-7634
E-mail: jhumphries@ou.edu
Holly Knicker
Quality Program Manager
Illinois Department of Human Services,
Child Care and Development
401 South Clinton Street, 3rd Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60607
Telephone: 312-793-3610
Fax: 312-793-4881
E-mail: dhsd6015@dhs.state.il.us		 Valerie Krajec
Child Care Program Specialist
Child Care Bureau
Administration for Children and Families
Administration on Children, Youth and Families U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services
Switzer Building, Room 2315
330 C Street SW
Washington, DC 20447
Telephone: 202-401-5067
Fax: 202-690-5600
E-mail: vkrajec@acf.hhs.gov
Marjorie Lee
Professor and Department Chair
Early Childhood Education National
College of Education National-Louis University
122 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: 312-261-3523
E-mail: mwlee@nl.edu 		Petra Luck
Liverpool Hope
University College Hope Park
Liverpool, United Kingdom L16 9JD
Telephone: ++4 41512913744
E-mail: luckp@hope.ac.uk
Chuck Lynd Associate Director
Information Technology Services
Ohio State University Quality Network
700 Ackerman Road, Suite 440
Columbus, Ohio 43202-1559
Telephone: 614-447-0844, ext.122
Fax: 614-447-9043
E-mail: lynd.7@osu.edu		 Susan Markko
Early Head Start Program Specialist
Administration for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
233 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 400
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: 312-353-9695
Fax: 312-886-5373
E-mail: susan.markko@acf.hhs.gov
Jan Maruna
Executive Director
Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies
207 West Jefferson Street, Suite 503
Bloomington, Illinois 61701
Phone: 309-829-5327
E-mail: jmaruna@ilchildcare.org		 Nina Sazer O. Donnell
Vice President
Families and Work Institute
3405 Hillsborough Road, Suite B-24,
#24 Durham, North Carolina 27705
Telephone: 919-477-7137
Fax: 919-477-4257
E-mail: nsazerodonnell@familiesandwork.org
Maril Olson
Project Coordinator
National Association for the Education of Young Children
1509 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 202-232-8777, ext.12122
Fax: 202-234-6415
E-mail: molson@naeyc.org		 Susan Rohrbough
State Technical Assistance Specialist
National Child Care Information Center
17596 Walnut Trail
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44023
Telephone: 440-708-2852
Fax: 440-708-2852
E-mail: srohrbou@nccic.org
Shannon Rudisill
Director Technical Assistance
Child Care Bureau
Administration for Children and Families
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Switzer Building, Room 2046
330 C Street SW Washington, DC 20447
Telephone: 202-205-8051
Fax: 202-690-5600
E-mail: srudisill@acf.hhs.gov		 Donna M. Ruiz
Academic Director
Early Childhood Learning Community
University of Cincinnati
4123 French Hall West, P.O. Box 210047
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0047
Telephone: 513-556-2620 or 888-325-2669
Fax: 513-556-3007
Linda Saterfield
State Child Care Administrator
Illinois Department of Human Services
400 West Laurence, 3rd Floor
Springfield, Illinois 62762
Telephone: 217-785-2559
Fax: 217-524-6030
E-mail: dhsd6501@dhs.state.il.us		 Debra Torrence
Educational Planning and Program Consultant
Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute
CB 8040
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-8040
Telephone: 919-962-5777
Fax: 919-962-7463
E-mail: torrence@mail.fpg.unc.edu
Jocelyn Tucker
Accreditation Council Co-Chair
National Association for Family Child Care
1652 South Fairfax Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90019
Telephone: 323-964-0975
Fax: 323-937-4420
E-mail: jtucker4@hotmail.com		 Mary Beth Van Why
Early Childhood Specialist II
Council for Professional Recognition
2460 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20009-3575
Telephone: 202-265-9090, ext. 300
Fax: 202-265-9161
E-mail: maryv@cdacouncil.org
Tim Walker
Technology Coordinator
Center for Early Childhood Leadership
National-Louis University
6310 Capitol Drive
Wheeling, Illinois 60090
Telephone: 847-947-5054
Fax: 847-465-5910
E-mail: timwalker@nl.edu 		Kathy Ward-Cameron
Subscriber Relations Manager
HeadsUp! Network
National Head Start Association
191 Stuarton Drive
Wheaton, IL 60187
Telephone: 630-699-2685
E-mail: kwcameron@aol.com
Patty Wells
Assistant Director of Distance Education
Penn State Better Kid Care
253 Easterly Parkway
State College, Pennsylvania 16801
Telephone: 814-865-9837
Fax: 814-865-7893
E-mail: plw8@psu.edu		 Debra Windham
Director
HeadsUp! Network
National Head Start Association
917 Rothowood Road
Lynchburg, Virginia 24503
Telephone: 434-386-9477
Fax: 434-386-9477
E-mail: dwindham@nhsa.org
Mary Wynne
Director
Professional Development
Minnesota Child Care Resource and Referral Network
380 Lafayette Road, Suite 103
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107
Telephone: 651-290-9704, ext.104
Fax: 651-290-9785
E-mail: maryw@mnchildcare.org		  

 
PDF Icon Need Adobe Reader?