1. Allard, Dick, McKernan, Ryan: Learning on the Satellite. Lessons on the Satellite: What Teachers Say About Professional Development via the Interactive Satellite Learning Network. by Andrea Allard, Bev Dick, Helen McKernan, Jacqui Ryan, Education of Girls Program, Directorate of School Education, Victoria. Paper presented at the Australian Association of Research in Education Conference, Hobart, Tasmania, November, 1995. Abstract: Over the last three years, the Interactive Satellite Learning Network (ISLN) in Victoria has been used to deliver a range of professional development programs for teachers. This paper describes the professional development processes used in three different series of programs: "I Spy Technology: Girls in Country Schools"; "Science, Maths and Technology for Girls in Secondary Schools" and "Gender Issues in the Curriculum". The first two series of programs were funded by the Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) and produced for Victorian teachers by project officers working at Hypatia's Place and McClintock Collective between 1993 and 1995. The third series, also funded by DEET, was a joint National Professional Development Project between the Victorian Directorate of School Education and the New South Wales Department of Education, produced in 1995. The response of primary and secondary teachers to these three series of programs, particularly as regards the ISLN medium for professional development is the major focus of this paper. Teachers' comments concerning what 'worked' and 'didn't work' offer valuable insights, raise important questions and need to be taken into account for the successful delivery of professional development programs via the ISLN. The comments from participants in the three series of programs recognise important achievements and provide clear directions for ways to better utilise the new technology for more effective professional development. Introduction. In Victoria, as an initiative of the Government, all primary and secondary schools now have access to an educational satellite learning network. While a number of programs are offered via the satellite for students, providing access to particular learning areas such as language and science, the projects discussed in this paper provide a different approach to using the satellite network. Building on sound professional development principles, the three professional development programs presented here aimed to utilise contemporary technology for the benefit of teachers across many sites. What professional development principles inform these programs? What do teachers say about professional development via the Interactive Satellite Learning Network (ISLN)?1 This paper reports on a number of common responses from the various teams of participants in three different series of programs, all of which use a similar model of professional development. Background to the three series of ISLN programs. HypatiaÕs PlaceÑthe Maths, Science, Technology Education Centre for Girls is part of the Victorian Directorate of School EducationÕs Education of Girls Program. Staffed by three project officers, including the McClintock Collective project officer, the aim of the centre is to increase the participation of girls in maths, science and technology studies. This is done predominantly through the provision of professional development to teachers in both primary and secondary schools. In 1993 - 1995, Hypatia's Place and the McClintock Collective were funded by the Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) to take their work to country schools via the ISLN. This funding was particularly to assist girls in isolated, rural and disadvantaged schools. What evolved were two professional development courses for teachers: one for primary teachers new to gender issues in technology education and another for secondary maths, science and technology teachers also new to gender inclusive curriculum. Most of these teachers were not normally able to access professional development programs due to distance constraints. The Hypatia's Place ISLN programs aimed to: ¥give teachers a better understanding of the issues for girls in science, maths and technology studies ¥support teachers in trialling a variety of gender inclusive strategies for use in their classrooms ¥allow teachers access to current thinking about gender inclusive curriculum. The project officers drew on their extensive experience of how teachers learn best, as well as on a number of other successful professional development models used in Victoria, including that of the Gender Equity in Maths and Science Teaching Project (Lewis and Davies, 1988). What resulted was a model of professional development that incorporated a series of sessions held over an extended period of time. Participants were involved in activities and discussion about curriculum both during and between sessions. Through ongoing contact with school based facilitators, and scheduled interactions and feedback, the project officers, in these programs, also aimed to maintain a 'personal touch' in a medium which could easily be very impersonal. At the core of the model developed by Hypatia's Place and McClintock Collective project officers were five interactive satellite learning network sessions per project spaced at fortnightly intervals and delivered at the end of the school day. The series of five sessions in the I Spy Technology: Girls in Country Schools project was offered three times between 1993-1995. Science, Maths and Technology for Girls in Secondary Schools was trialled once in 1993 and repeated in 1994. The third ISLN program discussed in this paper, is that of Gender Issues in the Curriculum. This was a 1995 DEET-funded National Professional Development Project (NPDP). Partners in this NPDP included the Directorate of School Education, Victoria, the Department of School Education, New South Wales, the University of Melbourne, James Cook University and the Curriculum Corporation. Gender Issues in the Curriculum was a pilot project consisting of 12 ISLN sessions. The content of this project was based on the National Action Plan for the Education of Girls 1993-97; the new directions of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, (MCEETYA) Gender Equity Taskforce, particularly as regards boys and education; and the materials developed through the Commonwealth Gender Equity in Curriculum Reform Project, including STAGES: Steps to Address Gender in Educational Settings (Allard, Cooper, Hildebrand, Wealands, 1995), Foundation Stones. The Construction of Gender in Early Childhood, (Alloway, 1995) and Divided By a Common Language? Gender and the English Curriculum (Gilbert, 1995). The Project focused on the following three key priority areas of the National Action Plan for the Education of Girls 1993-97: Examining the construction of gender; Reforming the curriculum and Improving teaching practice. Specific objectives of the project were to: ¥investigate how gender issues can be addressed through the national curriculum statements and profiles as these are interpreted through different state frameworks; ¥disseminate the findings of the MCEETYA Gender Equity Taskforce and the Commonwealth's Gender Equity in Curriculum Reform Project; ¥provide a professional development program, based on the above materials, to assist principals and teachers, particularly those taking a curriculum leadership role in their school to: -investigate and enhance their own understandings of the construction of gender; -explore the impact of gender on their current teaching practice and on the culture of their school; -incorporate new ways of teaching and school management based on the outcomes of the investigations; -develop curriculum which incorporates this knowledge for students, using the national curriculum statements; -implement and trial these approaches in their schools; and -enable them to evaluate the effectiveness of these approaches. As may be seen from the above objectives, the Gender Issues in the Curriculum was designed to take a broader based, more general approach to change across a wide range of learning areas and school cultures. While there were important differences between the I Spy Technology program, the Science, Maths and Technology for Girls in Secondary Schools program and that of the Gender Issues in the Curriculum program, particularly in terms of content and target groups, to a real extent, the latter project relied extensively on the model developed and trialled in the work of Hypatia's Place project officers. While at times, it is difficult to separate content covered from processes used, for the purpose of this paper, we will be focussing mainly on the shared model. The similarities and differences between the three ISLN programs are discussed in the following sections. Shared Framework for ISLN participation. Working together in teams--minimum of 5, maximum of 12 A condition of entry into each of the three different ISLN programs was that a minimum of five teachers from each school participated in the respective program. This minimum ensured that there were enough teachers present to undertake the 'on-air' activities during each program and facilitated the teacher interaction and professional sharing. A maximum of twelve teachers in a group was recommended for ease of organisation eg seating around the TV, afternoon tea provision and the facilitation of group work which occurred during each ISLN program. Where schools were very small, for example many rural primary schools in Victoria, teachers from neighbouring schools were asked to work together in clusters. To keep the number of teachers in the program at a manageable level for both administration and evaluation purposes, and to enable programs to be somewhat flexible in response to the needs of participating schools and teachers, there was an overall limit set on the numbers of participants accepted into each program. The Hypatians found, through experience, that 30 viewing groups and a total of 270 teachers was a manageable maximum. Finding ways to be interactive proved a challenge. Limiting the number of participants ensured that over the series it was possible to hear from or mention each group of teachers involved at least once. Teachers appreciated the personal touch such as a special hello and a mention of the great work they were doing. A similar number of participants was aimed for in the Gender Issues in the Curriculum project. However, given the scope of the project and the different selection procedures used for participating schools in Victoria and in New South Wales, the number grew from the intended 300 participants to closer to 400 across both states, in city and country locations. The approximately 400 participants included teams of teachers, parents, and principals located in 66 primary and secondary schools. Approximately 100 curriculum consultants and/or writers were also involved as well which brought the total participants to around 500. (This does not take into account those schools who simply 'audited' the programs via the satellite without being 'formally' enrolled as participants). This emphasis on working in teams draws on research in the area of teachers and change. Rosenholtz, for example, argues that "...teaching is a collaborative rather than individual enterprise, and analysis, evaluation, and experimentation in concert with colleagues are conditions under which teachers improve." (1989:73) All of the ISLN projects were written, presented and produced collaboratively which exemplifies both a commitment on the part of those involved to the strengths of collaboration and collective decision-making, and, as well, a professional recognition of the research literature concerning teachers and change. Johnson, for example, in Teachers and Change: A Literature Review (1989) comments: "The major finding of extensive research into the learning of new teacher repertoire (eg. Stallings, 1981; Sparks, 1983, 1986) is that studying theory, observing modelling or demonstration, and practising with feedback are sufficient to enable most teachers to develop new ways of working to the point that they can use the approach in a situation of the same complexity...These studies show that relatively few persons who obtain skill in new approaches to teaching will make that way of working a part of their regular practice until a 'coaching' or 'colleagial support' component is added to the components present in the initial activities." (Emphasis added). This concept of 'collegial support' was a significant one in this model for the Interactive Satellite Learning Network. 'Interaction' was first and foremost defined as the interactions that took place between members of the same team as they investigated, discussed, and compared experiences concerning the issues covered in the ISLN programs over an extended period of time. Interaction also referred to the exchanges which took place between teams of teachers and the presenters of the programs before, during and after the transmission. Additionally, interactions between teams, via the sharing on-air of ideas and experiences was also a feature of this ISLN model. Evaluation from the various series of programs suggest that working together in teams over a period of time was an aspect that teachers appreciated and from which they gained a great deal. Commitment of participants/Support of principal. Interested schools or clusters were asked to apply to participate after detailed information about each series of programs, and the commitment required, was either sent to them or circulated via educational newsletters. In the case of the Hypatians' programs, due to the nature of the ISLN medium and the fact that teachers felt more able to opt in and out of sessions because there was not a ÔliveÕ presenter, teachers were asked to sign a contract committing themselves to attending the sessions and completing the set tasks. In all series of programs, a Certificate of Participation was presented to participants who completed the programs. In addition, in most applications the school administration was asked to make a commitment to keep the viewing time free of other meetings in order for the participants to attend the ISLN sessions. The application form was also signed by the principal and principals were encouraged to take an active interest in the professional development programs, either as a member of the team or by supporting the work in which their teachers were engaging. The importance of the support from principals and others in leadership positions in schools has been recognised within research literature Fullen and Hargreaves (1991) for example, acknowledge the critical role of principals in bringing about change in schools. They argue: "The individual and collective efforts of teachers as supporters and initiators of improvement are vital. But where leadership and school environments are... unsupportive, the success of teacher efforts will be slim, short-lived or non-existent, and teachers will quickly learn not to make them. This is where the role of the principal is crucial...The principal's role as a supporter and promoter of interactive professionalism is essential. This should involve helping teachers to understand their own situation in ways that provide insights and means of improving." (1991: 84) Working through a team facilitator (and sometimes with support from local consultant) At the start of each series of programs, each participating school group was asked to nominate a facilitator to take responsibility for the organisation and overseeing of the ISLN sessions on their site. In the case of the Hypatians' programs, these facilitators attended a residential inservice where they worked through the issues relating to girls and maths, science and technology and received training in how to lead a group. They were shown snippets of previous ISLN broadcasts to help them understand the difference between commercial (high quality, high cost, professional presenters and trained actors) television and interactive satellite learning (low budget, consultant presenters). This face-to-face training prepared the facilitators to more confidently coordinate activities and discussions at their site over the course of the program. In terms of the Gender Issues in the Curriculum series, the face-to-face residential professional development was done with 40 key curriculum consultants in Victoria and 50 key curriculum consultants or curriculum writers in New South Wales. These consultants/writers were then expected to either work with teams of teachers from their respective regions who were participating in the ISLN programs, or in the case of curriculum writers, to contribute to the writing or presenting of the ISLN programs relevant to their expertise in a nominated key learning area. For all of the series, the school-based facilitator was vital to the success of the programs. In selecting their facilitator, schools were asked to note the importance of the role. The Hypatians strongly encouraged the selection of a facilitator who was committed to gender equity and professional development issues as well as being able to organise a group. Articles sent as pre-reading and investigations to be done in schools between programs. As an integral part of each series of programs and prior to each broadcast a package of materials was sent to the school-based facilitators. These contained detailed instructions for the activities to be presented in the forthcoming ISLN program as well as relevant readings and homework or 'investigations' to be completed prior to the broadcast by the participating teams. In the case of the Gender Issues in the Curriculum, the pre-readings were chosen to provide participants with current research literature in the area of the social construction of gender and related issues of power relationships and knowledge as a construction. Readings associated with key learning areas explored how these concepts related to teaching and learning within the curriculum. The homework or investigations were designed to raise awareness of the ideas/strategies to be introduced during the broadcast and to enable participating teams of teachers to consider their own contexts in relation to the new ideas to be presented. Activities done during the programs All of the ISLN programs aimed to be as hands-on and interactive as possible with a mix of teachers doing activities in off-air time, interspersed with the presenters introducing, explaining and clarifying the issues and outcomes. In the series produced by Hypatia's Place project officers, each session included two or three segments of 15 - 20 minutes duration, where they were 'off air'; during these segments, participants trialled activities and carried out discussions in their own contexts supported by the team facilitator. While time 'off air' in the Gender Issues in the Curriculum did not always extend to 15 minutes per activity, the aim was the same: to enable teachers to trial activities that were of relevance and adaptable to their own contexts. Some research on teachers and change argues that "What teachers believe to be true is that which they have seen work in their own classrooms with their students. Therefore according to Bolster (1983), efforts to improve education must begin by recognising that teachers' knowledge of teaching is validated very pragmatically, and that without verification from the classroom, attitude change among teachers with regard to any new program or innovation is very unlikely." (Guskey, 1986:7) Teachers continually asked for 'practical strategies' for use in the classroom. While the focus on strategies without adequate consideration of underlying theories can and did present dilemmas, particularly in the Gender Issues in the Curriculum program, the two Hypatian programs as well as the eight key learning area sessions in the Gender Issues in the Curriculum series offered practical, classroom based activities for teachers to trial in their teams before taking them into their classrooms. Hearing from other teams via the on-air interactions Again all three series of programs designated certain schools to phone in at particular times during each broadcast and to report back on the outcomes of their groupsÕ participation in activities and discussions. Each of the series aimed to have every participating school ring in at least once or have presenters comment on a phone or fax received from a school. In the case of the Gender Issues in the Curriculum ISLN programs, this was not always feasible since a number of NSW schools, in particular those in the Sydney metropolitan region did not have access to school-based satellite facilities. This meant that teams of teachers travelled to their nearest TAFE campus and utilised the satellite facilities there. However, this meant that no phone or fax facilities were available to them on site. Reflections as a team following each program and at the end of each series. In all three series of ISLN programs, after each program participants were asked to fax in comments about the content, presentation, and other aspects about the broadcast. In the Hypatians' programs, this was called 'Your Say'; in the Gender Issues in the Curriculum series, this was referred to as the 'Tell Us' responses. In turn, responses from individual programs were summarised and circulated to the participating teams in each series of programs to enable participants to 'hear' what other teams were saying and to share experiences, another dimension of the 'interactive' approach. These responses, along with the participants' evaluations of some of the programs are reported on later in this paper. Within the research literature, (eg., Baird, Fensham, Gunstone, R. & White, 1991; Schubert and Ayers, [eds], 1992) collaborative reflection is increasingly recognised as an essential stage in the change process. Schubert and Ayers, for example, argue that 'it is only reflective teachers (not those who teach by recipe, technique, or doctrine) who are able to grow continuously. They are the ones who genuinely have twenty or thirty years of experience, instead of one year of experience twenty or thirty times.' (1992: preface) The requisite of this model of ISLN that teachers spend at least 15 minutes after each session discussing the concepts and writing comments back to the presenters was an effort to ensure that the sessions were more than passively watched, that the processes used as well as the materials covered were considered in light of the teachers own contexts and experiences. In turn, the 'feedback' was used to inform the directions of the following programs, whenever possible. Differences in approaches to the series of programs. Number of sessions per program While the Hypatia's Place model of ISLN programs served to inform the third project, Gender Issues in the Curriculum, there were also significant differences between the first two and the third. As already mentioned, the Hypatians' programs consisted of a series of five sessions for each program. The Gender Issues in the Curriculum consisted of 12 sessions, with the initial four sessions designed for both primary and secondary teams to explore current research and practices around gender as a construction and whole school approaches to change. Of the following eight sessions in the series, four were designed for primary school teams and four were aimed at secondary school teams; each of these sessions focussed on gender issues in two key learning areas. Range of participants Target audience for the Hypatians' programs were mainly Victorian teachers who were unfamiliar with issues of gender in the area of girls in maths, science and technology; (although the second time each of these series was offered, teachers from other states also participated); each series focused on either primary teachers or secondary teachers. Gender Issues in the Curriculum, as a joint project between two systems, included a wide range of primary and secondary schools in New South Wales as well as Victoria; the schools participating came with different starting points, that is some of the schools had done a great deal of work already in the area of gender equity while others were just beginning to explore the issues. Same or different presenters Another major difference between the Hypatians' programs and the Gender Issues in the Curriculum program was that the Hypatians' programs were all written, presented and produced by three expert consultants in the area of girls, maths, science and technology. The Gender Issues in the Curriculum sessions, in contrast, were written, presented and produced by a wide range of experts; the first four programs, for example were presented by a team including the project coordinator, a high school principal and an academic. The next eight programs, focussing on key learning areas, were presented by different teams of two or three experts per program; these presenters included consultants, curriculum writers and practicing teachers, drawn from the Victorian Directorate of Education and the New South Wales Department of Education. This difference in approach as to writers/presenters added a new variable to the shared ISLN framework; participants' comments concerning the use of curriculum writers and teachers will be discussed in the following section. What the ISLN participants said. The 'feedback'/reflections from teachers and principals involved in all three series of programs was wide ranging and extensive. For the purpose of this paper, we will consider a range of team responses to the shared components of this model of ISLN professional development, that is, what participants said about working in teams, the value of pre-readings and between-program investigations, the activities undertaken during the programs, on air interactions and, as well some overall reflections on the processes involved. The comments presented here aim to give a 'flavour' of how teams responded to the model rather than be an all-inclusive summary. In selecting and presenting these comments, we aim to highlight the factors in these professional development programs that teachers found useful and to illustrate some of the difficulties they encountered. These comments suggest how the medium of ISLN can build upon these programs to better address the professional development needs of educators. For the most part, we have chosen to allow the voices of teachers to 'speak' for themselves, only commenting occasionally on particular aspects. Working together in teams with facilitators. As already noted, this was a feature that teachers found particularly useful. Some comments concerning this: "The most rewarding part of the session was the interaction within the group." "I am really enjoying listening to other staff members' ideas and thoughts." "It's great to have teachers from four different schools as each bring different ideas and resources to sessions." "Although at our school, we have been working on gender equity programs, we found it interesting that our views in the [values clarification activity] could be so different." "I found some very creative and inspiring people to work with today, and they reminded me that to have some fun along the way was a good thing. [ISLN] is important, and its good to share ideas of the wider group, but the group you work with is vital. Everyone needs to be risk-takers and comfortable with their team members." While there was overall consensus that working in teams was extremely valuable, the commitment needed to do so was also commented on by teachers: "Despite the level of stress and tension associated with the extra activity at this time, it was good to spend some discussion time with our peers. I hope that in Term 3 we will return refreshed to the task." 'I'm disappointed with the numbers of people missing sessions (coming late too), in spite of the letters we sent reminding them of their commitment." "I thought the idea of this was that there was a group who participated each session, not just people dropping in because they can't bear anything going on without them. The group works best with the same participants who have the same background experience of attending all the sessions. Facilitator's time (and others) is wasted explaining things to them [which] others already know. People either attend all sessions or they shouldn't be allowed to come." Commitment of participants/support of the principal. While school teams were asked to commit themselves fully to the respective program, some teams found it difficult to maintain their momentum due to other 'pressures' or difficulties with facilities. On the basis of their experiences, the Hypatian project officers theorise that professional development via ISLN may not be considered as 'sacred' as when a live presenter is invited into the school, with participants feeling free to wander in and out of the sessions, talk during the ISLN presentation times or during phone-in times On the other hand, school teams often took the time to let presenters know before or after the program about some of the difficulties they were experiencing in keeping up with the programs, as may be seen from the following: "The timing of the programs is a problem, ie., CATS, reports etc." "Lots happened at school today and I'm feeling harassed and not tuned in. I didn't like the activity...as I couldn't really see how to adapt this to the classroom...I think I'm just tired and my imagination's dead. Take no notice!" "Good discussions in group--difficulty experienced at school level in terms of staff changes--inconsistency with attendance therefore because of this." "Will not be on line today as the satellite is being used for a teleconference at TAFE. We are getting the program taped...We will watch the program in our staff meeting tomorrow." Clearly, external factors influence different teams' ability to participate and/or to fulfil their commitment to the programs. Pre-reading and investigations. "Good pre-reading, would have liked more focus on this. Discussions of investigations were interesting but too brief." "Several members of our team took issue with the pre-course reading and expected to be debating it, not using it as a starting point for the session." "We enjoyed the investigation and feel it gave us some good ideas." "From our [pre-program investigation] we held a healthy discussion re composition of some grades and staff profiles." "Difficulty of some readings but understandable and better that it is that way than to be seen as too easy and perhaps patronising. It would be good to include some focus questions/issues with readings, papers." "Pre-readings were long but valuable - some further summary of content of these (with overheads) would help all of us with greater understanding." "Reading provoked much comment. The homework has created great discussions--especially the readings. Chances are that without the [ISLN] session, the articles would not have been read and definitely not discussed. It is a great way to start a session because people get involved quickly and are thinking about issues before actually looking at the strategies." "I did wish there had been more time to discuss the homework from last session." "We found the readings this week difficult. The theory covered in the first half of the program was also 'heavy'. The mapping of terms helped us to discuss the more difficult terminology and we are slowly coming to grips with these." Off air activities Due to the constraints of the interactive satellite medium and because the presenters usually had so much information they wanted to pass on to participants, the activities had to be fairly strictly timetabled. While some participants reacted well to being kept on task, others felt frustrated by their discussions/activities being cut off just as they are getting into them. 'We would have liked more time to discuss some concepts, especially in relation to the children we teach rather than in general terms." "None of the activities were threatening." "Lots of activities and info to digest. Keeps Friday morning tea interesting." "We would like more time if possible for activities, or less expected in that time as the discussion generated was great." "We intend to follow up [particular activity] with our students and compare with our own perceptions." "The off-air time for discussion was too brief for us but much post broadcast discussion was generated." "After being rather negative over the last two sessions, I didn't want to miss the chance to mention how our team felt that [this program] was a great improvement--1) activities were carefully explained; 2) time for team discussion was sufficient; 3) content was practical and relevant. Many thanks for your efforts. " "Activities were relevant, challenging and confronting." "Great activities that can be taken back to classroom. Teachers gained a lot. Having activities on telly ties presenters in and is very successful." "Not enough time to complete activities. Social construction of gender and power perspective very difficult." Negative comments concerning activities included: "Activity was a bit useless - really need whole staff to discuss and make real changes in school organisation. " "The analysis of the unit was a good activity, but not especially suited to the medium of 'interactive' satellite broadcast." "Some of us had seen most of this information before." On air interactions. Most participants enjoyed hearing from other schools and they particularly liked being mentioned on air. "It was good to hear some ideas back from other groups. As an all female group, we particularly liked to hear how the males [in other teams] viewed the questions." "More feedback from a range of schools - are there trends? eg., inner city vs country schools?" "Good to hear other schools' comments--breaks down 'isolation' barriers." "Great to hear views of other teachers especially when they coincide with our findings." "Thanks for the opportunity to participate on-line - your patience with our nightmare of a time with getting the satellite going was terrific." "Phone-in seemed much better today--some very good comments." "Program didn't always feel interactive because to interact we had to leave the room and were then not part of the broadcast." However, the on-air interaction aspect was not without critics: "Most not pleased with 'interactive' sections. See it as forced, not free flowing as would be the case when face to face with presenters." "Don't find much benefit in the phone link-ups. Guess it keeps the phone-in school on its toes--can't see much other benefit. I'd rather have more time to discuss with my group. Share ideas with other schools in our own team (We come from four different schools)." Comments on presenters: Hypatians' programs. "Improvement on your first session. By session five, you will be as good as the professionals if this continues. Shorten 'hello and feedback' because this cuts into time for other parts of program." "Went very quickly. Smoother presentation." "Didn't seem as well prepared as week one. Less cohesive." "All members of our group enjoyed the presentation and felt they could relate to the presenters (in fact, one person commented that it felt like being at an ordinary inservice with face to face contact)." "...your casual approach makes the sessions so user friendly. Far better than a sterile polished production. At times, you could have been in the room with us." "Very friendly. You made us feel welcome. Paced well--we didn't notice the time going. Natural presenters unlike others..." "Someone else felt that [the presenters] were almost condescending (talking as if to primary children). (This was not a consensus opinion!)" Comments about using Academics, Curriculum Writers and Teachers as presenters on Gender Issues in the Curriculum Programs: "Presenters were relaxed and easy to listen to." "Presenters came across well and appeared as people who knew their topic." "Too much time spent 'waffling' and socialising on screen." "Very human presenters. We appreciate your fresh collaborative approach. Felt totally involved." "The presentation seemed stilted." "Presentation excellent. [Male presenter] added balance and equity." "The use of the male presenter added an extra dimension to the telecast making it not just seen as a women's perspective. [Male presenter] came across very well." "Professional actors with teaching background would add to the programs." "We understand how difficult it is to speak in front of a camera. The presentation would have benefited from more visual aids which would further highlight the very good content." "While we can sympathise with the difficulties of presenters not being TV presenters, it is very poor to have them reading information with little eye contact. Some professional development for interactive presenters is needed?" "As per other programs - not bad, but I guess we are just used to 'professional' TV." "Very professional, easy to watch.": "Very competent presenters who were confident and pleasant in their job." Overall reflections on the process. "Team has been very, very appreciative of the opportunity to be participants in the programs. We have learnt HEAPS --grateful for being presented with SOUND research and literature. All members are confident that their understanding of gender issues in the curriculum had increased and been strengthened. Thank you to all the team -- you have been fantastic. Regards and best wishes." "The learning area programs have been most beneficial. Thanks again." "Our group are having difficulty coming to grips with the [social construction of gender and power] perspective. We feel we need lots more practice looking through this perspective and doing activities which reinforce how we can go about using it with children. A really good program." "Very good series with a lot of things to think about for the future." "Concerns: whether the whole school will consistently adopt equity strategies." "Its been the most enjoyable and practical (very applicable to the classroom) professional development we've ever done. We have more confidence in promoting technology and encouraging girls' involvement." "I had no idea what to expect and the TV part at the beginning didn't enthrall me. I thought I had to sit and listen to a 'lecture' for the time of the program. But not so...I loved it. Fast!!! That was great. Do this. Do that. Very hands on. Very relevant for my grade tomorrow. I feel confident. Small group was nice! Our facilitator is tops. The activities were fun and relevant." "Best points about [ISLN]: 1. Saves travel. 2. Informal setting so more relaxed about activities and discussions. 3. Feeling of 'immediacy'. 4. Using a facilitator ensures that the learning groups keeps on task. Generally a stimulating program in that I can't wait to get 'stuck into' a better tech studies course next year." But a recurring theme that appeared in a number of evaluations: We're cynical about PD being offered this way. One of the bonuses of PD meetings was the discussions with the other teachers about things they are doing or have tried. (Informal discussions). I question the need for interactive television as our group, being mixed, [from different schools] has plenty to discuss and the facilitator is quite capable of running the session. About the Technology... Due to the newness of this technology, the sound and picture quality were often less than perfect, sometimes dropping out altogether. Additionally, some schools did not have access to fax or phones with STD connections near them during the broadcast, as these were often located in a different part of the school or these facilities were not available when viewing the broadcasts from a non-school site. While we did not specifically ask teams to comment on the technology, in their end-of-session responses, the following comments highlight a few of the frustrations experienced, not only by teams but, indirectly by presenters. "We are glad you didn't pick on us as we don't have access to a STD phone or a Fax after 4.00pm at our school." "Unfortunately our satellite transmission was faulty and we couldn't hear any of the show! We were all very disappointed as we were keen to be part of the last presentation. We spent the hour discussing the pre activities, viewing the visuals & trying to read lips!" "We lost you on 20-30 occasions--may have been less but seemed like this many--so many frustrations were built up!" "The commitment of the group learning is vital. So many things go wrong (poor reception, no sound, phone call not getting through, etc). It would be pointless having participants who were only partly interested!" Discussion. From the comments of the participants across all three series of programs, many found particular aspects of this ISLN model useful for professional development. The opportunity to work together in teams, to undertake investigations and activities within their own contexts, especially if they saw the relevance of suggested activities and investigations to their own teaching, and to share their findings with colleagues, are particular strengths of sound professional development which this ISLN model was able to replicate and in some cases extend. However, teachers' comments also raise a number of issues concerning professional development delivered via ISLN. The difficulties in maintaining teams, and ensuring that the time committed to participating in the respective program wasn't disrupted, clearly becomes more of an issue with professional development delivered in this mode rather than in a face-to-face program. School camps, parent-teacher nights, end of term fatigue, as examples, all impinged on the ability of teams to see programs through in the time and/or sequence in which they were delivered. Some schools endeavoured to overcome these obstacles by videotaping the programs and watching them at another time, although some anecdotal evidence suggests that when this occurred, the temptation to simply fast forward through the interactions and/or activities was there. On the other hand, schools also commented that videotaping allowed them to take more time with their own discussions, and not feel pressured to keep up with the scheduled program. Another difficulty, not unique to but perhaps experienced more, in the Gender Issues in the Curriculum project than in the I Spy Technology: Girls in Country Schools or in the Science, Maths and Technology for Girls in Secondary Schools programs, was the wide range of starting points for the participants. Because the Hypatians' programs were more clearly targetted at specific audiences, for the most part, they were better able to meet the specific needs of participants. Gender Issues in the Curriculum had a broader, more general focus and consequently, attempting to deal with the range of expectations, the vastly different experiences of the 66 participating teams was an ongoing challenge. ISLN may require the more specific targetting of participants, with different programs designed for beginning through to more advanced stages of understanding around particular educational issues. Again, when professional development is delivered face to face, the facilitator can better address the concerns and needs of participants in an ongoing manner. With ISLN, presenters cannot see how participants are responding, cannot listen to their conversations and cannot offer suggestions to address particular problems as they arise. A related concern has to do with trying to find the 'right' mixture of theory and practice. Because teachers are incredibly busy and feel the daily pressures of coping with many responsibilities, many, not all, become frustrated when they think too much time is taken up with either exploring 'new' theories or revisiting work with which they are already familiar. There is a tension between providing enough sound background for teachers to become reflective practitioners in their own right, and the need to provide practical, 'try-this-in-your-classroom-tomorrow' strategies. How well the ISLN mode of professional development manages to cope with theoretically complex ideas as well as practical experiences is very dependent on a range of factors, including the expectations and openness to change of the participating teachers as well as the skills of presenters. These issues require further exploration and analysis. As can be seen from the teachers' comments, presenters' skills of working in a new medium as well as their 'expert' knowledge are very important in delivering professional development via ISLN. The Hypatians, working together as teams of two, over five different series of programs certainly honed their skills in presenting via the camera and were, for the most part, very well received by their participants. They became 'known', familiar faces and teachers clearly felt very comfortable with them. There is much to say for developing this expertise if ISLN professional development is to be ongoing. On the other hand, the Gender Issues in the Curriculum, as a joint collaborative project between the Victorian DSE and the New South Wales DSE required that presenters were drawn from both systems. While using new presenters for each program for the eight key learning area sessions did not allow for developing the level of expertise which the Hypatians clearly attained, nevertheless, there are a number of interesting aspects associated with this approach. For one thing, in a joint project between two systems, credibility with participating teachers from both systems depends on having both represented as joint contributors through the involvement of presenters. Secondly, the opportunity to hear and discover commonalities in curriculum approaches and in experiences from two different systems is a strength of this aspect. (Although in one instance, clear differences in curriculum also became apparent!) Developing a 'pool' of presenters by enhancing, through experience, the skills of a range of curriculum writers, teachers and consultants will be essential if the ISLN is to continue to grow. (It should also be added that the actual process of working with one-time-only presenters was at times quite stressful for all concerned!) In preparing/skilling the presenters, the New South Wales Department of Education adopted a model worth noting. All key learning area curriculum writers attended the two day 'face-to-face' professional development program offered in early June as Stage One of the Gender Issues in the Curriculum National Professional Development Project. After this inservice, where the issues, ideas and strategies to be covered in the ISLN were presented and discussed, curriculum writers gathered together a 'team' of writers, including classroom practitioners. These 'teams' then participated in a two day writing workshop, facilitated by the Project Coordinator and a representative from the technical staff of the ISLN; this workshop covered aspects of presenting ideas to camera, outlining and writing scripts, choosing activities and identifying pre-program readings and investigations. The teams of writers continued to work together and as each presented 'their' programs live to air, they shared their experiences with the upcoming presenters. This collegial approach to learning together, building up professionalism, showed through in the increasing confidence that New South Wales presenters brought to scripting and presenting their various programs. This approach may be worth emulating if a pool of presenters for ISLN is to develop the requisite skills for presenting confidently to camera within their own areas of expertise. Another variation in the ISLN model discussed here concerns who receives the face-to-face professional development before the programs begin. With the Hypatians' programs, as has already been mentioned, school-based facilitators were inserviced and clearly this had enormous benefits in terms of their familiarity with the presenters, their knowledge of activities which teams were to undertake and their own 'comfort zone' in terms of how to manage the ISLN professional development programs. The Hypatians' experience indicated that facilitators' participation in the face-to-face professional development made a significant difference to the overall success of their programs. The positive responses to the various series of programs speaks well for this approach. The Gender Issues in the Curriculum on the other hand, as a joint project between two state education systems, inserviced key curriculum consultants and writers with the aim of empowering these people to act as 'change agents' within their areas of responsibility, including the schools with whom the consultants worked. The 'ideal' was to skill consultants who in turn could work more closely with their various educational communities. While the evaluation of the Gender Issues in the Curriculum project has not yet been completed, anecdotal evidence suggests that many schools were not well supported by their consultants. Time constraints again appear to be the major reason for the failure of consultants to work closely with the schools involved in the ISLN project. Once again, time and commitment become issues which must be addressed in order to enable consultants to support and expand the possibilities of professional development via the ISLN. Nevertheless, when consultants did support those schools in their districts or regions who were participating in the ISLN programs, this seemed to be an enormously powerful approach. For one thing, the consultants themselves gained confidence in working through the range of new ideas presented and could in turn use them in other locales. Additionally, consultants could also follow up the ISLN programs by providing additional support in the form of workshops to extend and address any difficulties teams of teachers were encountering. Perhaps another approach to consider is a series of ISLN programs specifically targetted for consultants who then, in turn, could trial the new concepts and strategies with teachers in a face to face format. This approach could provide curriculum consultants with 'cutting edge' praxis, ongoing interactions with new theory and practice. In turn, they could then provide face-to-face professional development programs for the many teachers who remain convinced that this is their preferred learning style. This could be an optimum use of ISLN since curriculum consultants and writers are key change agents whose sphere of influence, unlike the school-based facilitator, is far wider than a single school setting. Alternatively, a combination of ISLN programs which set out new approaches to curriculum change and which utilise the practices discussed in this paper, coupled with introductory and follow-up face-to-face inservices could combine the best of what we know in terms of professional development for change. None of the issues discussed here present unsolvable problems. ISLN, when used for professional development, has the potential to address these issues, perhaps by adopting some of the ideas already mentioned. However, questions of adequate resourcing and system support for professional development via the ISLN, the need for skilled technical staff to assist and support new presenters to operate in this unfamiliar medium, and the necessary time and commitment on a local, school-based level to take account of teachers' participation in such programs are all aspects of professional development on the ISLN which will require ongoing analysis and examination. Conclusion In conclusion, our diverse experiences in implementing these professional development programs have been positive and challenging overall and we have learnt a great deal. It is possible to support and stimulate teachers through using ISLN as a means of professional development. While the model discussed in this paper presents a number of successful ways to build on sound professional development principles, nevertheless, there remains more work to do in order to successfully meet the needs of all teachers via this medium. References Allard, A., Cooper, M., Hildebrand, G., Wealands, E. 1995. STAGES: Steps to Addressing Gender in Educational Settings. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Alloway, N. 1995 Foundation Stones. The Construction of Gender in Early Childhood. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Australian Education Council. 1993. National Action Plan for the Education of Girls 1993-97. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Baird, J., Fensham, P., Gunstone, R. & White, R. 1991 The importance of reflection in improving science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (2): 163-182. Dick, B., Ryan, J. 1993 I Spy Technology: Practical ideas for gender equity in primary technology studies. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Fullen, M. and Hargreaves, A., 1991. Working Together For Your School: Strategies for developing interactive professionalism in your school. Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Administration. Gianello, L.[ed] & The McClintock Collective. 1988 Getting Into Gear: gender inclusive teaching strategies in science. Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre. Gilbert, P. 1995 Divided by a Common Language? Gender and the English Curriculum. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Guskey, T. 1986. Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change in Educational Researcher, May, 1986: 5-12. Hargreaves, A. 1994 Changing Teachers, Changing Times. Teachers' Work and Culture. London: Cassell. Johnson, N. 1989. Teachers and Change: A Literature Review. Unpublished Monograph. Melbourne: Institute of Education. Lewis, S. & Davies, A. [eds] 1988 Gender Equity in Maths and Science Teaching Project: GAMASTprofessional development materials. Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre. Rosenholtz, S. 1989. Teachers' Workplace: The Social Organisation of Schools. New York: Longman Publishing. Schubert, W. H. & Ayers, W. C., [eds] 1992 Teacher Lore. Learning From Our Own Experience. New York: Longman Publishing. 1 The Interactive Satellite Learning Network (ISLN) has gone through several name changes. In 1994, Interactive Television (ITV) was the terminology used; at the end of 1995, ISLN has been renamed SOF Net. However, ISLN was the name used for most of 1995 when many of the programs discussed in this paper were broadcast; hence, for the sake of clarity we have continued to use it in this paper.