Research Highlights in Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2011 Technology and Teacher Education 2011 Edited by Cleborne D. Maddux, Ph.D. Senior Book Editor Book Editors: David Gibson, Ed.D. Bernie Dodge, Ph.D. Matthew J. Koehler, Ph.D. Punya Mishra, Ph.D. Carl Owens, Ph.D.ISBN: 1-880094-88-6site.aace.org
Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2011 Edited by Cleborne D. Maddux, Ph.D. Senior Book Editor The University of Nevada, Reno David Gibson, Ed.D.Arizona State University and The Global Challenge Award Bernie Dodge, Ph.D. San Diego State University Matthew J. Koehler, Ph.D. Michigan State University Mishra Punya, Ph.D. Michigan State University Carl Owens, Ph.D. Tennessee Technical UniversitySociety for Information Technology and Teacher Education site.aace.org
Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2011ArticlesPreface.............................................................................................................................................................................i RETHINKING PEDAGOGYGame Changers for Teacher Education David Gibson and Gerald Knezek...................................................................................................................................3Developing a HEAT Framework for Assessing and Improving Instruction Marge Maxwell, Matthew Constant, Rebecca Stobaugh, and Janet Tassel.....................................................................13Problem Upon Problem: Integrating PBL Throughout a Computing Curriculum Samuel B. Fee. ................................................................................................................................................................21 TPACKDeveloping Secondary Mathematics Preservice Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) Influencing Positive Growth Jeremy Zelkowski............................................................................................................................................................31Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Observation Instrument Mark Hofer, Neal Grandgenett, Judi Harris, and Kathy Swan...................................................................................39Learning by Design: TPACK in Action Technology Integration Preparation for Preservice Teachers Liangyue Lu, Laurene Johnson, Leigh M. Tolley, Theresa Gilliard-Cook, and Jing Lei.........................................47Using the TPACK Framework to Study a Sixth Grade Classroom with High Access to Technology Keith Wetzel and Summer Marshall...............................................................................................................................55 INTEGRATING NEWER TECHNOLOGIESIntegrating an Open Textbook into Undergraduate Teacher Education Terence Cavanaugh........................................................................................................................................................65Web Video Project as an Instructional Strategy in Teacher Education Denys Lupshenyuk, Martha M. Hocutt, and Ron Owston. ..........................................................................................73YouTube Annotations: Reflecting Interactive, Web based Hypervideos in Teacher Education Thomas Winkler, Martina Ide, and Michael Herczeg. .................................................................................................81Identifying Affordances and Barriers to Student-centered Collaborative Learning in the Integration of Interactive Whiteboard Technology Cesar C. Navarrete.........................................................................................................................................................89Poetry in Motion: Using VoiceThread to Prepare 21st Century English Teachers Leanna Archambault and David Lee Carlson..............................................................................................................97
Improving Student Science Knowledge and Skills: A Study of the Impact of Augmented-Reality Animated Content on Student Learning Scott Elliot and Cathy Mikulas....................................................................................................................................105 BLENDED AND DISTANCE ENVIRONMENTSLessons Learned from Teaching in Hybrid Learning Environments for In-Service Mathematics Teachers Heng-Yu Ku, Chatchada Akarasriworn, Lisa A. Rice, David M. Glassmeyer, Bernadette Mendoza, and Shandy Hauk.................................................................................................................................................................115Preparing for Doctoral Supervision at a Distance: Lessons from Experience Peter R Albion and Ronel Erwee. ................................................................................................................................121Engaging Students through 21st Century Art Learning: Three-dimensional Virtual World Pedagogy Lilly Lu. .........................................................................................................................................................................129Students’ Argument Patterns in Asynchronous Dialogues for Learning Lisbeth Amhag. .............................................................................................................................................................137Social Networking And Education: Using Facebook As An Edusocial Space Pamela Pollara and Jie Zhu.........................................................................................................................................145 ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONSTeachers’ Perspectives on Using Graphical Representations in Enhancing the Process of Mathematical Modeling Andrzej Sokolowski and Elsa Gonzalez y Gonzalez...................................................................................................157Pre-Service Teacher Survey and Collaboration Between the United States and Jordan Christine J. Anderson, Marisa Beard, and Lama Bergstrand Othman.....................................................................165What Makes Preservice Teachers Trust Digital Technology? Andrea Francis. ............................................................................................................................................................173Multimedia Juvenile Victimization: School Faculty Perspectives about Youth Behavior Thanh Truc Nguyen......................................................................................................................................................181Impediments to Technology Integration: Individual Factors, School-Based Factors, and System-Wide Factors Identified by High Technology-Using Teachers Priscilla Norton and Dawn Hathaway........................................................................................................................189Two Teachers’ Technology Use: Recommendations for English Teacher Preparation Sara Flanagan and Melanie Shoffner.........................................................................................................................199Instructional Technology Adoption Strategies for College of Education Faculty Robert Bowe..................................................................................................................................................................209Recruiting Appalachian Girls to STEM Educational and Career Paths: Implications for Teacher Education Reagan Curtis, Gary Winn, Robin Hensel, Philip Adu, and Neelam Kher...........................................................217 SHARING RESOURCES IN A NETWORKED WORLDThe Semantic Web: Reviewing Its Potential in Teacher Education and a Concept Analysis of Related Educational Literature Cleborne D. Maddux, Leping Liu, Wenzhen Li, and Jenna Sexton...........................................................................229
MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION Advancing Instructional Technology in Teacher Education http://site.aace.org/Mission: The Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education is an international associationof individual teacher educators, and affiliated organizations of teacher educators in all disciplines, whoare interested in the creation and dissemination of knowledge about the use of information technologyin teacher education and faculty/staff development.The Society seeks to promote research, scholarship, collaboration, exchange, and support among itsmembership, and to actively foster the development of new national organizations where a need emerges.SITE is the only organization that has as its sole focus the integration of instructional technologies intoteacher education programs. SITE promotes the development and dissemination of theoretical knowledge, conceptual research, and professional practice knowledge through the SITE conference, books, collaborative projects with other organizations, and the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education.Join SITE Today!You are invited to join SITE and receive the following benefits of professional membership. And, as amember of SITE, you automatically become of member of the Association for the Advancement of Com-puting in Education (AACE).Benefits of SITE membership: • Subscription to the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education • Subscription to the AACE member periodical [electronic] • Early announcements on Calls for Papers and CITE electronic journal issues • SITE Conference registration discounts • Discounts on all other AACE journals and conference proceedings • Opportunities to work and collaborate with members on activities in areas of common interest and concern Professional Membership: $115 (US); $130 (non-US) Student Membership: $35 (US); $50 (non-US) To join SITE, see http://site.aace.org/membership/ Join Us at Next Year’s SITE Conference http://site.aace.org/conf/ International Headquarters: SITE PO Box 1545, Chesapeake, VA 23327-1545 USA Tel: 757-366-5606 • Fax: 703-997-8760 • E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Journal Articles Conference Papers Special Topic Books Conference Invited Speaker Talks Videos Conference Presentation Slides EdITLib is your source for 15+ years (with your subscription) of peer-reviewed, published articles (20,000+) and papers on the latest research, developments, and applications related to all aspects of Educational Technology and E-Learning. Ten (10) Four (4) Academic Journals Conferences including: including:• Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia • ED-MEDIA – World Conference on Educational Multimedia,• International Journal on E-Learning Hypermedia & Telecommunications (Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education) • E-Learn – World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate,• Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching Healthcare, Government, and Higher Education• Journal of Interactive Learning Research • SITE – Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference• Journal of Technology and Teacher Education• AACE Journal Adding soon! (electronic) • Global Learn Asia Pacific – Global Conference on Learning• Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education and Technology (electronic) • Global TIME – Global Conference on Technology, Innovation, Media & Education Individual subscriptions Does Your Library $19/month Subscribe? Free access to abstracts so you can try the Digital Library at no cost! • Conduct research • Keep current on the latest research and publications in your field • Access and fully search publications • Create and store personal collections of articles by topic • Receive table of contents alerts prior to journal publication • Share article abstracts and search results with colleagues via email and include your comments • Export citations to BibTex, EndNote, and RefWorkswww.EdITLib.org Email: email@example.com • Phone: 757-366-5606 • Fax: 703-997-8760
SITE BOOK REVIEWERS - 2011Peter Albion, University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, Queensland, AUSavilla Banister, Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH USSally R. Beisser, Drake University Des Moines, IA USMuhammad Betz, Southeastern Oklahoma State University Durant, OK USNiki Davis, Iowa State Univ & Univ. of London Inst. of Ed. Ames, IA USNatalie Johnson-Leslie, Arkansas State University State University, AR, USGerald Knezek, University of North Texas Denton, Texas USCleborne Maddux, University of Nevada, Reno Reno, NV USSara McNeil, University of Houston Houston, TX USMahnaz Moallem, UNC Wilmington Wilmington, NC USChrystalla Mouza, University of Delaware Newark, DE USMargaret Niess, Oregon State University Corvallis, OR USPriscilla Norton, George Mason University Fairfax, VA USDavid Pugalee, University of North Carolina at Charolette Charolette, NC USMark A. Rodriguez, Sacramento State Sacramento, CA USMichael Searson, Kean University, NJ USKathryn Shafer, Ball State University Muncie, IN USScott Slough, Texas A&M University College Station, TX USDavid Slykhuis, James Madison University Harrisonburg, VA USDebra Sprague, George Mason University Fairfax, VA USJames Telese, University of Texas — Brownsville Brownsville, TX USMaryellen Towey, Schulz College of Saint Mary Omaha, NE USJana Willis, University of Houston — Clear Lake Houston, TX USDee Anna Willis, Northwestern State University of Louisiana Natchitoches, LA USHarrison Yang, State University of New York — Oswego Oswego, NY USSIG members and SIG chairs also reviewed for this book.
Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2011 FOREWORDIn its third year of publication, SITE’s Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education has be-come one of the “most viewed” journals in the extensive holdings in the AACE digital library (EdITLib). Theevolution of Research Highlights reflects a careful nurturing by previous SITE presidents Gerald Knezekand Ian Gibson, along with the critical organizational support provided by AACE CEO Gary Marks.Of course, an academic journal has little merit without critical and timely scholarship. SITE’s ResearchHighlights is quite fortunate to have Cleb Maddux, University of Nevada Reno, serve as its Senior Editorsince its inception. Dr. Maddux has provided steady and rigorous guidance to all those associated withpublication of Research Highlights. I am happy to report that he believes that the quality of the publications“has been improving steadily,” with a bumper crop of stellar articles in this year’s edition.Each year, SITE designates leaders from its membership to serve as co-editors for the Research High-lights to be published in conjunction with its annual conference. This year, Drs. Matthew Koehler andPunya Mishra worked closely with Dr. Maddux, and other SITE leaders, in producing the 2011 ResearchHighlights in Technology and Teacher Education. To be considered for publication in Research Highlights, asubmission first has to be accepted as a “full paper” at the annual SITE conference. Subsequently, thosefull papers undergo additional rigorous review and editing (I have been told that no papers are publishedsimply on the basis of their “full paper” status alone. Authors are always required to do additional edits andrevisions to meet the high standards of Cleb and his team.) This year, a total of 1272 submissions, from the351 accepted as conference “full papers were considered. Of those, only 31 were selected for publicationin the 2011 Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education.In the end, a successful journal succeeds only based on the quality and rigor of the work submitted forpublication. SITE’s Research Highlights is fortunate to have an outstanding cohort of international scholarsand practitioners who have chosen to share their innovative work in this volume. I trust you will be as stimu-lated as I am by the high-level scholarship they have produced. AT SITE, we are honored to have their workpublished in the 2011 Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education.Please enjoy this volume and consider using SITE, through its conferences and publications, to share yourwork with our growing international community.Regards,Michael SearsonPresident, Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education SITEExecutive Director, School for Global Education & Innovation, Kean University
PREFACEThe 2011 book of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education is the third in the series. Once again,the articles in this collection are clear evidence that the field and our society continue to advance and mature.We have organized the chapters this year into seven main sections:Rethinking PedagogyTechnology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK)Integrating Newer TechnologiesBlended and Distance EnvironmentsAttitudes and PerceptionsSharing Resources in a Networked WorldGamesOver 80 articles were considered for publication. Of those, two review processes involving detailed edits and feedbackresulted in 31 selections, which were then further shaped by the editors. We think you will agree that the result is aninteresting and valuable record of the diversity of interests of Society members.Next, we briefly outline the contents.RETHINKING PEDAGOGYDavid Gibson of Arizona State University and Gerald Knezek of the University of North Texas authored GameChangers for Teacher Education. This chapter introduces ideas for a new framework for teacher education based onComplex Systems Knowledge, and Global Flatteners.Developing a HEAT Framework for Assessing and Improving Instruction is co-authored by Marge Maxwell of WesternKentucky University and colleagues Matthew Constant, Rebecca Stokbaugh and Janet Tassell. HEAT standsfor Higher-order thinking, Engaged Learning, Authentic Learning, and Technology integration. The authors havedeveloped an instrument based on these ideas and intended for use assessing instruction and lesson plans of pre-service and advanced teacher education students.Problem Upon Problem: Integrating PBL Throughout a Computing Curriculum is the work of Samuel B. Fee fromWashington and Jefferson College. This chapter discusses the use of Problem Based Learning to engage students indeep problem solving and independent critical thinking.TPACKDeveloping Secondary Mathematics Preservice Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge(TPACK): Influencing Positive Growth is by Jeremy Zelkowski from The University of Alabama. Zelkowski investigatedthe effectiveness of a secondary mathematics teacher education program in developing Technological PedagogicalContent Knowledge (TPACK) in preservice teachers who rarely used technology in their own K-14 mathematicscoursework.Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Observation Instrument, by Mark Hofer from the College of Williamand Mary and colleagues Neal Grandgenett, Judi Harris, and Kathy Swan reports on successful efforts to construct aTPACK-based observation rubric. The instrument is available online.Learning by Design: TPACK in Action. Technology Integration Preparation for Preservice Teachers is a chapter byLiangyue Lu and her colleagues at Syracuse University including Laurene Johnson, Leigh M. Tolley, Theresa Gilliard-Cook and Jing Lei. The authors present initial efforts to apply TPACK and Learning By Design in the design anddevelopment of a series of technology integration courses for elementary preservice teachers.
Keith Wetzel from Arizona State University and Summer Marshall from the Ecker Hill International School collaboratedin this chapter entitled Using the TPACK Framework to Study a Sixth Grade Classroom with High Access toTechnology. They report on their qualitative study investigating the ways an experienced middle school teacher usesthe TPACK framework.INTEGRATING NEWER TECHNOLOGIESIntegrating an Open Textbook into Undergraduate Teacher Education by Terence Cavanaugh from the University ofNorth Florida presents a discussion of the use of open textbooks as a cost effective strategy as well as a preparatoryactivity for future classroom applications.Denys Lupshenyuk from York University, Canada, Martha M. Hocutt, of the University of West Alabama, and RonOwston, also from York University authored this chapter entitled Web Video Project as an Instructional Strategy inTeacher Education. The chapter presents a conceptual framework for the integration of user-generated web video intostudent learning, and shares practical experiences of web video application in the teacher education curriculum in aregional university in Alabama.YouTube Annotations: Reflecting Interactive, Web based Hypervideos in Teacher Education is by Thomas Winkler,Martina Ide and Michael Herczeg from institutions in Germany. The authors present their experiences and conclusionsrelated to using hypervideos.Cesar C. Navarrete from the University of Texas at Austin authored Identifying Affordances and Barriers to Student-centered Collaborative Learning in the Integration of Interactive Whiteboard Technology. The study presented in thechapter made use of text analysis and identified four systematic barriers to transformative technology integration:(a) need of time for professional learning, (b) need for leadership involvement, (c) usability issues, and (d) lack ofsupplemental resources.Poetry in Motion: Using VoiceThread to Prepare 21st Century English Teachers is a chapter by Leanna Archambaultand David Lee Carlson from Arizona State University. The chapter explores how technology can be used to improveteaching within the content area of English/language by examining the artifacts and reflections of 21 pre- and in-service secondary English teachers at a large university in the southwestern part of the United States.Scott Elliot and Kathy Mikulas from SEG Measurement collaborated on this chapter entitled Improving StudentScience Knowledge and Skills: A Study of the Impact of Augmented-Reality Animated Content on Student Learning.These researchers asked if fourth grade students using both the books and augmented-reality animated contentachieve greater increases in science knowledge and skills than a comparable group of students who use only thebooks or a comparable group of students using nothing at all?BLENDED AND DISTANCE ENVIRONMENTSLessons Learned from Teaching in Hybrid Learning Environments for In-Service Mathematics Teachers is acollaborative effort by Heng-Yu Ku from the University of Northern Colorado and colleagues Chatchada Akarasriworn,Lisa A. Rice, David M. Glassmeyer, Bernadette Mendoza and Shandy Hauk. The authors used a mixed methodsstrategy to investigate middle and secondary in-service teachers’ attitudes towards participation in a graduate levelprobability and statistics course in a hybrid learning environment.Peter R Albion and Ronel Erwee from the University of Southern Queensland authored this chapter entitled Preparingfor doctoral supervision at a distance: Lessons from experience. Motivation for the research they conducted camefrom the increasing shortage of professors in Australian universities. These authors explore the use of distanceeducation in doctoral education.Engaging Students through 21st Century Art Learning: Three-dimensional Virtual World Pedagogy is a chapter byLilly Lu from Northern Illinois University. The chapter seeks to explain the characteristics of 3D Virtual Worlds andaddresses how they can serve as virtual learning environments (VLE) for art education.
Lisbeth Amhag of Malmö University, Sweden is the author of Students’ Argument Patterns in Asynchronous Dialoguesfor Learning. This research investigated how distance students can learn to use argumentation processes as a tool forlearning. A dialogic model for argument analysis is also described.Pamela Pollara and Jie Zhu from Louisiana State University collaborated on Social Networking and Education: UsingFacebook as an Edusocial Space. This paper explores the use of Facebook within a high school science-mentoringprogram. The authors report of research indicating that the use of Facebook positively affected the relationshipsbetween mentors and mentees. In addition, students believed that they learned more by using Facebook and wouldlike to use Facebook for other educational purposes.ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONSAndrzej Sokolowski and Elsa Gonzalez y Gonzalez from Texas A & M University jointly authored Teachers’Perspectives on Using Graphical Representations in Enhancing the Process of Mathematical Modeling. Thisqualitative study investigates the teacher’s role in using modeling and visualization in the teaching of mathematics.Christine Anderson from Western Illinois University collaborated with Marisa Beard and Lama Bergstrand Othmanin Pre-Service Teacher Survey and Collaboration between the United States and Jordan. This project was aimed atincreasing the awareness of the educational systems in both countries and uniting 34 pre-service special educationand early childhood teachers from two countries through technology in an interactive assignment.What Makes Preservice Teachers Trust Digital Technology?is a chapter by Andrea Francis from Albion College. Sheused exploratory regression analyses and found one of the most important factors in participants’ decision to trustand use educational technology in future classes was the extent of a person’s positive experience with technology inteacher education classes.Thanh Truc Nguyen from The University of Hawaii is the author of Multimedia Juvenile Victimization: School FacultyPerspectives about Youth Behavior. More than 400 faculty members in three states were surveyed. Faculty identifiedonline sexual predators and cyber bullies as their greatest concern, whereas misinformation and bias was the leastconcern.Impediments to Technology Integration: Individual Factors, School-Based Factors, and System-Wide Factors Identifiedby High Technology-Using Teachers is a collaborative effort by Priscilla Norton and Dawn Hathaway from GeorgeMason University. The authors investigated barriers to integrating technology. Results identified seven categoriesrelated to Individual Factors, ten related to School-Based Factors, and four related to System-Wide Practices andPolicies Factors.Sara Flanagan and Melanie Shoffner from Purdue University collaborated on this chapter entitled Two Teachers’Technology Use: Recommendations for English Teacher Preparation. This qualitative study explored two secondaryEnglish teachers’ use of technologies for instruction. Both teachers – one novice, one experienced – took part in aseries of 10 observations and 3 interviews.Instructional Technology Adoption Strategies for College of Education Faculty is a chapter by Robert Bowe ofNational Louis University and National College of Education. Multi-year survey data, Q Methodology, and videotapedinterviews were used to identify three distinct groups of IT-using faculty. Professional development activities areidentified for each group.Recruiting Appalachian Girls to STEM Educational and Career Paths: Implications for Teacher Education is acollaborative effort by Reagan Curtis of West Virginia University and colleagues Gary Winn, Robin Hensel, Philip Adu,and Neelam Kher. The research was undertaken because the authors believed traditional recruiting and retentionmethods are not efficacious for Appalachian girls. A survey of 107 high school sophomores and juniors suggestedways recruiting and retention efforts should be modified to attract more Appalachian girls to engineering.
SHARING RESOURCES IN A NETWORKED WORLDCleborne D. Maddux, Leping Liu, Wenzhen Li and Jenna Sexton collaborated on this chapter entitled The SemanticWeb: Reviewing Its Potential in Teacher Education and a Concept Analysis of Related Educational Literature.This article clarifies the idea of the Semantic Web and uses a discourse analysis tool to analyze the content of 92published articles on the Semantic Web in education.Sharing Digital Resources among Teacher Educators is written by Lena Olsson of Stockholm University incollaboration with Eeva Koroma and Jennifer Monroe. This chapter reports on a 3-year project devoted to develop andcultivate a digital culture in Teacher Education.GAMESKaren Schrier of Columbia University and David Gibson of Arizona State University authored Using Games toPrepare Ethical Educators. The researchers set out to explore how to develop teachers who are reflective and criticalthinkers of ethics. They suggest that one potential solution is to incorporate digital games and simulations into teachereducation curricula.Video Game Design Principles in Logo Impact Teacher Candidates’ Technology Integration is by Aaron C. Bruewerand Kathryn G. Shafer, both of Ball State University. The researchers sought to determine which assignments ina math education course for middle school and high school teachers engaged the students’ developing sense oftechnology integration. Conclusions include the importance of supporting teacher candidates at the RecognitionStage of technology integration as a pre-requisite to developing their Technological Pedagogical Content andKnowledge (TAPCK).Marilyn Ault, Jana Craig Hare, Bruce Frey, and Gail Tiemann of the University of Kansas collaborated to writeUseof Targeted Games to Support Instruction. The use of targeted games in education was investigated. The resultsindicated that students have a strong preference for competitive games over single-player and collaborative games,and sustain play outside of the school day. An additional follow-up survey suggested that students have strongpreferences for characteristics inherent to targeted games. These include autonomy, feedback, competition, andchallenging levels of play.Cleborne D. Maddux, Ph.D.Senior SITE Book EditorThe University of Nevada, RenoDavid Gibson, Ed.D.SITE Book EditorArizona State University and The Global Challenge AwardBernie Dodge, Ph.D.SITE Book EditorSan Diego State UniversityMatthew J. Koehler, Ph.D.SITE Book EditorMichigan State UniversityMishra Punya, Ph.D.SITE Book EditorMichigan State UniversityCarl Owens, Ph.D.SITE Book EditorTennessee Technical University
Game Changers for Teacher Education 3 Game Changers for Teacher Education David Gibson Arizona State University Gerald Knezek University of North Texas Abstract This article introduces ideas for a new framework for teacher education based on two sets of forces that are radically transforming the way educational researchers and practitioners see their world: 1. Complex Systems Knowledge, and 2. Global Flatteners. Complex systems knowledge is part of a new approach in science, a transformation in thinking now maturing towards dynamical systems and evolutionary computational modeling. The global flatteners represent economic game changers brought about by the Internet and the changed business practices it allows. These ideas are game changers for teacher education, preparation and continuing support.Global Transformation The global information society fueled by the Internet and digital media has produced a flattened playingfield for vast numbers of people to participate in the world’s education and economic opportunities (Friedman, 2005).Ubiquitous low-cost access to information has opened the floodgates. Exemplified by carrying smart phones enabledwith global positioning software, people can acquire personally useful information from anywhere at any time to findanswers to questions such as where is the nearest coffee shop, what is the name of the street four blocks away, whereare my friends now and where will be they in 10 minutes? The same device can show you a movie, tell you whatthe likely temperature will be tomorrow (or what it was 100 years ago), engage you with an animation of a complexmathematical curve, or define and spell a difficult word for you, and then translate it into 40 other languages. Clearly,information is not the most important thing being learned in schools and colleges today, because it is being acquiredeverywhere, anytime people need it. The age of global knowledge workers forecast in the 1980’s is in full swing. These global workers arethe circulation system feeding a vast transfer of wealth occurring among countries. They live in countries thatwere impoverished a few short years ago, but that now own important stretches of the information superhighway.Technologies in the East, such as smart phones and high bandwidth networks, have allowed these countries to leapfroginto the future with new infrastructure that is more flexible and powerful than in the West. As a result, vast numbersof people can now learn more than ever before, with lower barriers to entry and access, and with more personalizationand autonomy. People all over the world now understand that knowledge is indeed power and it can be had for theasking. Universal education for all is now a global matter: the game has changed. At the same time, a game-changing transformation in world-view has reached maturity in the sciences.Many of the sciences are converging on an evolutionary view of how new aspects of reality emerge locally from thesurrounding and interpenetrating global complexity. The roots of this altered worldview seem simple; when somethingchanges in a small way, most of what it was remains the same and some new small thing is added. As that newcapability is consolidated and used, if it helps, it stays; otherwise it disappears. The criteria of whether it “helps”is determined by the encompassing environment, which passes harsh judgment on unhelpful things. Those are theseemingly simple roots of evolutionary development. Taken together, they imply a multifaceted and complex openecology with the possibility of multiple causes, strange loops of feedback and reflection, dramatic jumps in behavior,nonlinearity and chaos. Computers now allow us to see, manipulate and understand this more nuanced world in newways, and that is transforming the way the world does science. The new evolutionary worldview of complex systems isa result of science coming to grips with the implications of its simple beginnings in the face of errors that accumulatefrom applying those ideas to complex realities; it is an example of the structure of scientific revolutions (Kuhn, 1970). The revolutionary perspective is now transforming many other fields and education research needs to wake upand get moving in this direction; the game has indeed changed. The transformation, for example, is impacting the arts
4 Gibson and Knezekand humanities; fields which in some ways foresaw, and now celebrate the changes as part of a cultural shift towardcreativity, building upon but completely renovating and surpassing the old worldview of simple, linear, positivist,empiricism (Kauffman, 2010). The grip of traditional knowledge authorities and the methods and ways of knowingthat were developed for a paper-based world and that supported a learning economy, are giving way to more fluid,flexible, shared form of discovering and validating knowledge in a complex, open ecology of learning (Carroll, 2010). Driven by conceptual as well as technological advances, which are entwined in a co-evolutionary dance thatself-organizes and adapts each to the other at ever more complex levels (Dennett, 1995; Holland, 1995; Kauffman,2000), researchers at the leading edges of the sciences, arts and humanities have been observing and documentinga dramatic transformation of society writ large. A new zeitgeist or mental model of the era has arrived. The changehas come about largely because new ideas and methods bolstered by digital media tools are in the hands of creativeresearchers and practitioners. Their intuitions about structure and processes have been sharpened through vastlyexpanded capabilities of inquiry, scholarship, experimentation, and expression made possible by the new modelsand tools. We hope to broadly outline these models and tools here and draw linkages to and implications for teachereducation. These facts have been chronicled, and their integration heralded, by writers from many fields: politicaland economic (Beinhocker, 2006; Friedman, 2005; Radzicki, 2003), philosophical and practical (Manning, 1995;Newman, 1996; Putnam, 1992; Tetenbaum, 1998), scientific and mathematical (Holland, 1995; Prigogine, 1996),historical and sociological (Diamond, 2005; McNeill, 1998; Wicks, 1998). Now is a good time to consider how theseforces have created “game changers” for teacher education. This paper attempts to build a new vision for teachereducation institutions, for future discussion and elaboration, by outlining two of the game changers and synthesizingtheir implications for educator preparation programs. Oddly out of step with the global transformation, educational bureaucracies across the world are for themost part still clanking along their tracks with rusty industrial-age models of authority, economy, and control. Reformmovements come and go with minor impact on the norms, roles and relationships of traditional structures. This is so inspite of the scholarship from the cognitive and behavioral sciences indicating how people learn and how they should betrained for rapidly changing environments (Bransford, 2007; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000), how a generationof learners has been shaped by their digital experiences (Beck & Wade, 2004; Gee, 2004; Prensky, 2001), and howeducational institutions can begin to rethink their role in society (Carroll, 2009; Davidson & Goldberg, 2009). In educator training and research on educational systems, there is a need for better understanding of complexdynamic systems represented by learning organization entities such as learners, classrooms, school buildings, andschool district systems (Gibson, 2000; Lemke & Sabelli, 2008; Senge, 1990). Some have referred to this emergentunderstanding as the “ecological” model of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Morgan, 1995). By whatevername we refer to it, if educators are going to join in constructing the knowledge and practice base needed by teachersand school leaders, it entails teacher educators learning some new basics.The New Basics of Complex Adaptive Systems This section presents some of the key concepts and definitions that interdisciplinary researchers use tomake sense of complex adaptive systems, and draws out a few epistemological and methodological implications forteacher education (Table 1). The concepts selected here don’t completely define the field. They are offered as a setof initial sensitizing concepts to raise awareness of the need for new arenas of research and development in educationscholarship. Michael Quinn Patton, in his book “Developmental Evaluation,” applies complexity ideas to innovation anduse-focused evaluation and offers concepts such as adaptation, dynamics, uncertainty, and co-evolution, which needto be integrated and further developed into the framework outlined here (Patton, 2011). A significant new field ofmethodological development awaits as well. We are grateful to Paul Resta, professor of Curriculum and Instructionat the University of Texas at Austin, who offered the following suggestions concerning the new methodologies:“knowledge modeling, data mining, visualization and representation that, although not yet widely embraced in teachereducation, are emerging as viable approaches to dealing with this complexity.” He also suggested that we include
Game Changers for Teacher Education 5learning analytics, which deserves an extended quote from George Siemens, of the Technology Enhanced KnowledgeResearch Institute at Athabasca University, who blogs on ELEARNSPACE: Learning analytics is the use of intelligent data, learner-produced data, and analysis models to discover information and social connections, and to predict and advise on learning. EDUCAUSE’s Next Generation learning initiative offers a slightly different definition “the use of data and models to predict student progress and performance, and the ability to act on that information”. Their definition is cleaner than the one I offer, but, as I’ll detail below, is intended to work within the existing educational system, rather than to modify it. I’m interested in how learning analytics can restructure the process of teaching, learning, and administration. LA relies on some of the concepts employed in web analysis, through tools like Google Analytics, as well as those involved in data mining (see educational data mining). These analytic approaches try to make sense of learner activity (through clicks, attention/focus heat maps, social network analysis, recommender systems, and so on). Learning analytics is broader, however, in that it is concerned not only with analytics but also with action, curriculum mapping, personalization and adaptation, prediction, intervention, and competency determination. Added to these suggestions, we also recommend looking at Paul Thagard’s work on coherence (Thagard, 2000),which includes a computational modeling program that can be flexibly applied to many problems of epistemology:explanation, deduction, conceptualization, reasoning by analogy, perceptual reasoning such as pattern finding innoisy data, filtering and so forth. Elsewhere (Gibson, 2010), we’ve begun to outline a theoretical foundation forassessing digital media-based learning, based on evidence centered design theory, traditional decisions and dilemmasof assessment, and the affordances of immersive digital media learning environments. We recommend that schools of education develop faculty with the expertise to develop and utilize newmethods of inquiry and analysis in order to create a new knowledge base and understanding of complexity in education.Table 1. Complex adaptive systems concepts Complex System Concept Brief definition Nonlinearity A nonlinear system is one in which the output is not directly proportional to its input; the cause of some response by the system is not the simple sum of the stimuli, as it is in linear systems. This can give rise to surprising, unpredictable behavior. Feedback loops Information is recycled, connecting the current state to past states of the system. This cycling is in large part the cause of the nonlinearities, and is also the foundation for growth, learning, and other emergent properties. Co-evolution through openness The system accepts “inputs from” and “outputs to” a larger external environment. Systems co-evolve with the niche as well as with other nearby systems through openness. Self-organization & Adaptation Impacts on the current state of the system are carried forward into future states of the system. Systems adapt to their environment, including its other systems and dynamics. Nested relationships & Dynamics Components of the system may themselves be complex systems and as part of a network of relationships, give rise to trajectories, rhythms, and cycles of activity, rituals, routines and so forth. The dynamics generally lead to three types of overall system behavior (1. events that rise or expand until exploding or becoming chaotic, 2. events that begin, sustain and die away over time, and 3. cycles of events that sustain for longer periods of time through periodic ups and downs).
6 Gibson and KnezekTable 1 Continued Emergent properties Properties of the whole system depend upon the nonlinear nested relationships of the components and often need a new level of analysis and representation from that of the components. Macro-patterns can emerge. In educational contexts these might be mesosystems of overlapping cultures (family, race, gender, socioeconomic, historical). Intersectionality This concept has recently been introduced in the context of complex social systems and represents a particular multi-element dynamic in which sets of elements overlap, combine, collide, and settle into a temporary equilibrium through coherence of their mutually causal relationships. Boundaries Since the system has nested relationships, there are boundaries that separate the elements from each other as well as from the larger encompassing environment. In social systems research the idea of “boundary-crossing objects” or “boundary objects” points out that things like concepts, terms, definitions, values, words, etc. that have meaning in one context might take on different meanings after crossing a boundary into another context. Nonlinearity. In real systems, nonlinearity is everywhere and it is more prevalent than our current linearmodels and the majority of present-day research would lead us to believe. Educational research traditions persist inallowing linear simplifications to dominate the discourse, even though the world does not behave in a straight line,neither do its learners, classrooms, teachers and communities. The linear worldview feigns that we can understandcomplex systems by considering them well behaved and at root, no more complex than a sand pile. In spite of the well-accepted fields of knowledge from developmental psychology, classroom observations, educator development, and thesocial foundations of education, many current educational research approaches are founded on the assumption thatvariance in data is itself constant! Linear models are satisfied to view the average or mean of data and assume that theunderlying reality can be represented as a line. The observed means and their measures then become crucial buildingblocks for finding correlations and making inferences. But this worldview has reached its limits; the time has come tointroduce “time” into the equations. Educators need to become comfortable with hyperlinked learning progressionsand “Internet time” ((Bjerede, Atkins, & Dede, 2010) replacing linear scope and sequence conceptions of knowledgetransmission. Classroom realities are dynamic - changing over time - and they display surprising behavior from time totime; such as a student who is learning a new mathematical method, or a group of students experiencing the arc of aclassroom’s history from the beginning of school to the end of the semester. A better analogy than a line for these kindsof evolving systems is a musical composition, which at times has a single melody, then suddenly breaks into multipartharmony, and may become quiet after a storm of sound. At each point in time in the composition, listeners experience“frequencies,” but that experience is not represented by the average frequency at a particular moment, and certainlynot the mean frequency of the piece as a whole. Imagine the absurdity of asserting that Beethoven’s Ninth Symphonycan be summarized as “on average 256 cycles per second.” Instead, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and ithas to be perceived as it is unfolding in order to comprehend it. This is a challenge for quantitative methods, but it isnot insurmountable. Feedback Loops. Information cycling in a system, or feedback loops, are mechanisms that relate the past statesto the present. The current state of a student’s mind or a classroom’s profile is not randomly related to the immediatepast state; it is a mixture of reverberations of the state just past, with some newly evolved and additional informationarising in the present. This property of feedback more often than not violates an assumption of the ordinary leastsquares method used in linear regression analysis, which says that error terms are not supposed to be related to eachother. So the typical methodology of most educational quantitative research may be unfit to represent the evolution ofreal systems. Perhaps this is part of the reason that analytic methods view “reflection” as a qualitative matter, when itis instead, also a highly important matter for a quantitative understanding of the dynamics of systems that are changing
Game Changers for Teacher Education 7over time. Teacher education programs that have embraced the language of reflection in the qualitative sense, haveyet to appreciate the significance of information cycling in quantitative models. In order to remedy this problem, newdirections in quantitative methods are needed. Openness. Openness refers to a function of exchanges of matter or information at the boundary of any systemand its environment. This exchange zone is a co-producer of the system’s behavior and is inseparable in any analysisthat attempts to account for dynamic behavior. Qualitative methods have long appreciated the importance of context forunderstanding the relationships influencing system evolution. Learners are better understood, for example, when weknow their culture, home life, first language, as well as their interests, aspirations and learning preferences. However,in most quantitative models, these aspects are left aside, or they are added in as explanatory descriptions that meantto enhance the primarily linear analysis. In a few rare cases, attempts are made to quantify and integrate exogenousvariables into the linear framework, but the models created by traditional linear methods still ignore the dynamicfeatures of nonlinearity, recycling and openness. Openness in the learning environment is achieved by promoting the exchange of information betweenstudents and people outside of the classroom. Teachers need to know how to initiate exchanges and leverage themfor student learning, treating the vast open knowledge system as a potential ally. Ubiquitous mobile technologieswill quicken the establishment of openness in the educational system (Bjerede et al., 2010). If educators preservethe right to remain close advisors to their students, then the benefits of openness far outweigh any potential dangers(e.g. from bad information, predators, commercial advertising interests); every external exchange is an opportunityfor learning if the teacher is a trusted guide. Benefits to both the teacher and students include the renewal of energyfor essential questions, access to higher levels of expertise, a built-in external audience for performance, higher levelsof realism and authenticity, and better more up to date information, among many others. Crucial to understandingopenness, teachers need to believe that they and their students can make contributions of real value to the outsideworld, because healthy sustainable exchanges, across the boundary between classroom and outside world, are two-way streets (Gibson, 2000, 2008). Co-evolution. The initial concept here is of simultaneous change and mutual adaptation with others, butthis dance also leads to structural changes; so we can also include the idea of structure as memory. While one mightfirst think of memory as “in the brain” and persisting no more than the lifetime of an individual, there is more toit. Biological structure, for example, is a form of species memory. In like fashion, school structure is for the mostpart, frozen memory of the cultural transmission model and hierarchical bureaucratic form of education that is stillprevalent in education. Just as short term memory becomes long term through repeated practice or in moments ofemotional stress (or both), educational change of structure is a long drawn-out process involving establishing newpractices in the presence of highly valued incentives to persist with the needed changes. This conception of memorylinks to “collective intelligence” and “distributed cognition” (Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, & Robison, 2006)in the sense of understanding the cultural nature of knowledge; for example, that our knowledge about the “sun” is notlearned first hand through experience, but from a shared culture that “already knows that.” The fundamental fact of thesocial construction of knowledge should cause teachers to abandon the notion that knowledge is primarily what is inthe student’s head and what they can access from unaided memory when prompted on a quiz or test. Knowledge is equally all of Wikipedia and the rest of the entire Internet, plus what peers know in the classroomtoday, and what family and community members know. What may be most important for “learning to learn” is whethera student knows when and where such knowledge is appropriate to acquire and remix (a digital media literacy, see(Jenkins et al., 2006)) in their search for meaning, understanding, and explanation. Nested relationships and dynamics. Hierarchical linear modeling efforts attempt to understand nestedrelationships and are helpful in analyzing the nested layers of educational system policy and practice complexity.Since the entities are relationships, the essence of the analysis focuses on networks. Educational researchers needadditional training in network analysis in order to leverage the considerable advances taking place now in biology,earth systems sciences, physics, medicine and elsewhere. Leadership and policy research and practice has exploreda variety of nested systems visions; e.g. (McLaughlin, 1987; P. Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994; You,1993; Zimmerman, 1995). If we reorient
8 Gibson and Knezek Emergent properties. The nonlinear worldview implies that the “averaging over time” way of looking atcomplex systems is inaccurate for some purposes. It also means that schools of education need to 1. employ newresearch methodologies with nonlinear dynamical approaches and 2. acculturate new researchers with well-informedand balanced critical awareness of the limitations of linear methods. The new methods may include helpful devicesfrom the traditional statistical toolkit, such as nonparametric statistics, but more important, schools of education needto develop new nonlinear quantitative methods and tools of research to join the current toolkits in qualitative andquantitative methods.What Teacher Education Programs Need to Know In order for education to leverage the new basics on the global playing field, those in teacher education,researchers and teachers need to be able to contribute to knowledge and model building, experimentation,implementation, and critique. We offer an adaptation of Friedman’s “Ten World Flatteners” as a starting point forenvisioning the future of teaching in the 21st Century, and invite discussion, critique and enhancement from our peers.Ten Concepts for 21st Century Teacher Education Thomas Friedman’s analysis of ten events and capacities that have flattened the world’s barriers to educationaland economic opportunity (Friedman, 2005) provide a second game changing framework for reflection about newpractices and tools needed for 21st Century teacher education. For each of the ten concepts, we have generated ideasthat connect to the major forces and ideas described above and suggested some educational implications. Ten “Flatteners” Educational Implications Teacher Education Implications Berlin Wall Collapse A new generation of learners with Diversify the teaching workforce; Lower high motivation and a greater barriers to entry and re-entry to formal diversity of people with the desire to education; Integrate and acknowledge achieve. informal education; Teach to the world, about the world, using boundary-crossing collaborative methods; Promote universal education by enacting roles as teacher educators of the world. Browser Easy and unfathomable access to Develop teachers as knowledge workers world knowledge resources (human, (participatory creators of knowledge) who technical, political and symbolic). are trained to develop learning environments for assisting the development of other knowledge workers. Workflow software Automated processing and agents; Develop teachers as designers of new types games and simulations; self-paced of instructional experiences that leverage multimedia tutorials; collaborative emerging learning technologies, such as authoring tools; learning experiences communal bookmarking, wiki-coauthoring, will evolve from static textbooks interoperable data systems; mashup to immersive, interactive learning authoring systems (media appropriation) as environments (CED, 2009) part of new media literacy (Jenkins et al., 2006). Uploading Network-based file spaces for Develop teachers who know how to personal and team work and sharing assemble, assess, and validate ePortfolios “self” (e.g. Wave, Facebook, Flickr, that are out on the open-web, and can mine delicious) “the Web footprint” of a learner across time.
Game Changers for Teacher Education 9 Outsourcing Remote team learning, allows and Develop teachers who de-emphasize promotes division of labor into individual “knowledge acquisition” and remote locations - not “same labor balance it with both team and individual by all;” utilizing the cognitive performance capabilities and the creation of surplus and collective intelligence of evidence of knowledge-in-use. the world Offshoring Leveraging to reduce costs, including Develop teachers with learning environment cognitive costs. Leverage thinking planning skills that assume and utilize tools. Not all thinking goes on in the distributed knowledge, collaboration, and head. peer-to-peer support and feedback. Supply-chaining Multidisplinary distribution. Develop teachers as coaches, with the habits Learning team leaders need to and expectations of being only one stop in be able to manage their human the chain of expertise students learn to use resources and make best use of the in every inquiry and expressive learning diversity of the team; opportunity. Such teachers allow students to split their work within the class and they have the expertise to parse credit among team members; peer coaching and learning teams (even teams beyond the classroom!) as learning communities. Teacher “communities of practice” are sponsored and resourced by teacher education programs, and offer 24-7 support to growing networks of teachers. Insourcing Students performing useful service Teachers act as resources for authentic and creating valued products that problem solving within the school’s larger benefit society. communities. In-forming Remove barriers to all forms of Teachers are comfortable in modeling access in the classroom! Get the responsible use of technology. They are blockers off. Assume that kids can experts in helping students learn “to validate find what they need to know. the credibility and accuracy of sources, detect bias, and draw conclusions by analyzing and synthesizing large quantities of varied input.”(Bjerede et al., 2010) Personal electronics Let the smart phones in! and Teachers need access to a variety of cameras. Let students HAVE all technologies too, especially at home as well the technology they use outside of as at school! They should have hands-on “school.” experience with a wide range of technology tools and develop the expectation of learning and using a new tool in their chosen area of inquiry and expression every few months – for life.Summary This document briefly outlined a new framework of ideas for considering the future of teacher education, inwhich faculty and students develop an understanding of how to induce change and evolution in the homeostatic systemsof schools, with their many change-resisting feedback loops. The concepts of complexity dynamics, the 21st Centuryglobal context and a new vision of teacher preparation were presented and lead to the following recommendations. 1. Schools of education should develop a faculty with expertise in complex systems’ basic terms, relationships, and tools of research (e.g. collection, representation & analysis). Schools of education should consider form- ing study teams to develop the theoretical and practical base needed for research and practice innovations with growing depth in this scientific perspective.
10 Gibson and Knezek 2. Educational research programs in schools of education need to develop new directions in quantitative re- search that are bounded by and help explain nonlinear dynamics, the role of feedback loops in creating struc- ture (including personal and organizational memory), openness of all systems to their environment, nested relationships and emergent properties in complex systems. 3. Schools of education should share in the creation and validation of a global framework for reflection about new practices and tools needed for 21st Century teacher education. We offer ideas based on ten “Flattening” principles to begin the conversation. 4. Schools of education should acknowledge the inseparability of technology with the advancing horizons of the science of education and embrace it as a core feature of research and practice, utilizing leading edge tools for instruction, research and policy leadership. Research without a strong technology component in data collection, representation and analysis should become seen as lacking the toolset for advancing the leading edge of the science of education.AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to Chris Dede of Harvard, Tom Carroll and Kathleen Fulton of the National Commission for Teaching andAmerica’s Future, and Paul Resta, of the University of Texas at Austin, for their comments and helpful feedback and for pointingout additional game changers and emerging themes in technology and teacher education. A special thanks is also due to Ken Kay,of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills and EdLeader21, for stimulating discussions in Sydney that further shaped these ideas.ReferencesBeck, J., & Wade, M. (2004). Got game: How the gamer generation is reshaping business forever. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Beinhocker, E. (2006). The origin of wealth: Evolution, complexity and the radical remaking of economics. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Bjerede, M., Atkins, K., & Dede, C. (2010). Ubiquitous mobile technologies and the transformation of schooling. from http://www. qualcomm.com/common/documents/articles/Wireless_EdTech_Article_EducationTechnology.pdfBransford, J. (2007). Preparing people for rapidly changing environments. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1).Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington: DC: National Academy Press.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.Carroll, T. (2009). Transforming schools Into 21st century learning environments: eSchool News.Carroll, T. (2010). Ideas to enhance the game changers line or argument. In D. Gibson (Ed.) (pp. Personal email). Stowe, VT: David Gibson.CED. (2009). Harnessing openness to improveresearch, teaching, and learning in higher education. Retrieved. from.Davidson, C., & Goldberg, D. (2009). The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age. Chicago, IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundationo. Document Number)Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the menaings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Viking Penguin.Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Gee, J. (2004). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Gibson, D. (2000). Complexity theory as a leadership framework. Montpelier, VT: VISMT Available: http://wwwvismtorg/pub/ ComplexityandLeadershippdfGibson, D. (2008). Make it a two-way connection: A response to “Connecting informal and formal learning experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 8(4), n.a.Gibson, D. (2010). Assessment and digital media learning: prezi.com.Holland, J. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robison, A. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st Century [Electronic Version]. New Media Literacies Project, 72. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://www.newmedialiteracies.org/files/working/NMLWhitePaper.pdf
Game Changers for Teacher Education 11Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigations. New York: Oxford University Press.Kauffman, S. (2010). Reinventing the sacred: A new view of science, reason, and religion. New York: Basic Books.Kelly, M. (2010). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Content Analysis of 2006-2009 Print Journal Articles. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010, San Diego: CA.Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd edition).Lemke, J., & Sabelli, N. (2008). Complex systems and educational change: Towards a new research agenda. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 118-129.Manning, P. K. (1995). The challenges of postmodernism. In In J Van Maanen (Ed) Representation in ethnography Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. In Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis Vol 9, No 2 pp 171 -178.McNeill, W. (1998). History and the scientific worldview. Hisotry and Theory, 37(1), 1-13.Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.Morgan, P. (1995). Reconceiving the foundations of education: An ecological model. In F. Margonis (Ed.), Philosophy of education (Yearbook). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.Newman, D. V. (1996). Emergence and strange attractors. Philosophy of Science, 63(2), 245-261.Patton, M. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).Prigogine, I. (1996). The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature.Putnam, H. (1992). Renewing philosophy.Radzicki, M. J. (2003). Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Forrester, and a Foundation for Evolutionary Economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 37(1), 133-173.Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. NewYork: Doubleday.Siemans, G. (2011) Elaernspace: What are Learning nalytics? retrieved February 25, 2011 from http://www.elearnspace.org/ blog/2010/08/25/what-are-learning-analytics/.Tetenbaum, T. J. (1998). Shifting paradigms: from Newton to chaos. Organizational Dynamics, 26(4), 21-32.Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Wicks, D. (1998). Organizational structures as recursively constructed systems of agency and constraint: compliance and resistance in the context of structural conditions. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology v35(3), 369-390.You, Y. (1993). What can we learn from chaos theory? An alternative approach to instructional systems design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41 (3), 17-32.Zimmerman, D. (1995). A systems approach to assessing school culture. In In Assessment in the learning organization: Shifting the paradigm Costa, A and Kallick, B (eds) Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and curriculum development.
Developing a HEAT Framework for Assessing and Improving Instruction 13 Developing a HEAT Framework for Assessing and Improving Instruction Marge Maxwell Western Kentucky University, USA firstname.lastname@example.org Matthew Constant Davies County Schools, USA email@example.com Rebecca Stobaugh and Janet Tassell Western Kentucky University, USA firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Abstract: Higher-order thinking, Engaged Learning, Authentic Learning, and Technology integration combine to form HEAT to boost the rigor of instruction to impact K-12 student learning. Through thorough examination of current research on each component, a HEAT Framework or instrument was developed for the purpose of assessing instruction and lesson plans of pre-service and advanced teacher education students. This article presents the theoretical background for the instrument as well as discussion of the levels and approaches for using the instrument.Introduction The trend of educational technology use is supplemental and often solely used for getting the attentionof students. While teachers feel required to use technology due to state teacher standards, the technology use isdispensable. Similarly, as a need to satisfy university teaching standards, college instructors are perpetuating thisproblem by requiring technology to be “somewhere” in the lesson plans, not realizing that they are contributing tothe trend. The International Society for Technology Education standards for Teachers (ISTE, 2008) and for Students(ISTE, 2007) advocate for a holistic and comprehensive approach to technology integration. Technology should beindispensable and inseparable from higher-order thinking, authenticity, and engagement in designing instruction. The researchers believe in the potential to improve K-12 student performance through targeted levels ofinstructional design by pre-service and advanced teachers. One vehicle to infuse this potential is through thedevelopment of the HEAT Framework. (See Table 1.) The researchers use this instrument in scoring lesson plansdeveloped by pre-service and advanced teacher education students at a southeastern university. The assertion is thatas teachers design lessons at higher HEAT levels, higher K-12 student performance can be achieved. The HEATFramework was originally based upon work by Moersch (2002) and expanded by the researchers using more currentresearch studies. The HEAT instrument consists of six levels of performance for each component: Higher-orderthinking, Engaged learning, Authentic learning, and Technology integration (see Table 1 for HEAT Framework). Thefollowing section describes the research and theoretical background of each component of the HEAT Framework.
14 Maxwell, Constant, Stobaugh, and Janet Tassell HEAT Levels Higher-Order Engaged Learning Authentic Learning Technology Integration Thinking Level 0 ✤ Lecture; Students ✤ Teacher directed ✤ No connection to real ✤ No technology use is evident by students Non-Use ✤ Taking notes only completely world or teacher ✤ No questions asked ✤ No student interaction Level 1 ✤ Students learning ✤ Students report facts they ✤ Non-relevant ✤ Teacher uses technology for demonstration Awareness at Remembering have learned on tests problems using or lecture and Understanding or questions posed by textbook/ worksheets ✤ Minimal or no student technology use Lower-order ThinkingÜ level of Bloom’s teacher ✤ Short one-method/ Taxonomy ✤ One single correct one-answer problems answer Level 2 ✤ Students learning at ✤ Students are engaged in ✤ Learning experiences ✤ Students technology use for lower-order Application Applying level of a task or activity directed use real world objects thinking tasks Bloom’s Taxonomy by the teacher or topics and provide ✤ Teacher questioning ✤ Multiple solutions some application to accepted real world Level 3 ✤ Students learning ✤ Student choice for ✤ Learning may be ✤ Technology use appears to be an add- ÛHigher-order Thinking Exploration at an Analyzing, projects or to solve a relevant to the real on or alternative—not essential for task Teacher-directedÜ Evaluating, or problem posed by teacher world or the past completion Creating levels of ✤ Students are engaged ✤ Learning occurs in a ✤ Technology is used for higher-order Bloom’s Taxonomy in projects based on simulated real-world thinking tasks such as analysis and ✤ Teacher-directed preferred learning styles, situation such as a decision-making. questioning and interests or passions class store instruction ✤ Multiple instructional strategies Level 4 ✤ Student-generated ✤ Students partner with the ✤ The learning ✤ Technology use is integrated and essential ÛStudent-directed Integration questions/projects teacher to help define experience provides to task completion at Analyzing, the task, process, and/or real world tasks ✤ Technology use promotes collaboration Evaluating, or solution which can be among students for planning, Creating levels of ✤ Problem solving based integrated across implementing, and/or evaluating their Bloom’s Taxonomy on student questions subject areas work. ✤ Multiple indicators ✤ Students partner with ✤ Learning has a ✤ Technology is used as a tool to help of learning other students to classroom or school students identify and solve higher-order collaborate on learning emphasis and impact thinking, authentic problems relating to an projects overall theme/concept. Level 5 ✤ Student learning/ ✤ Students partner with the ✤ The learner ✤ Technology use is directly connected to Expansion questioning teacher to help define the experiences the real task completion involving one or more at Analyzing, task, the process, and/or world; opportunity to applications Evaluating, or the solution apply their learning to ✤ Technology extends the classroom by Creating level of ✤ Students partner with a real world current expanding student experiences and Bloom’s Taxonomy local community/field issue collaboration beyond the school to the ✤ Complex thinking experts on learning ✤ Authentic assessment; local community. involves extensive projects Access to expert ✤ Technology supports collaboration, higher- non-linear ✤ Opportunity to express thinking and order thinking, and productivity. problem solving, different points of view modeling processes decision making, ✤ Mutual feedback between ✤ Local or community experimental teacher and student emphasis and makes a inquiry and positive impact investigation over ✤ Student beginning time to think like a field expert or discipline Level 6 ✤ Student learning/ ✤ Students partner with the ✤ The learner ✤ Technology use is directly connected and Refinement questioning teacher to help define the experiences and needed for task completion and students at Analyzing, task, the process, and the makes a positive determine which application(s) would best Evaluating, or solution impact on real, global address their needs Creating level of ✤ Students partner with issues and events. ✤ Technology is a seamless tool used by Bloom’s Taxonomy global experts on ✤ Student produce students through their own initiative to find ✤ Complex, open- learning projects on products like a field solutions related to an identified “real” ended learning global issues expert global problem or issue of significance to environment ✤ Student-designed them. problem-solving and ✤ Technology provides a seamless medium issues resolution are the for information queries, problem solving, norm and/or product development.
Developing a HEAT Framework for Assessing and Improving Instruction 15HEAT FrameworkHigher-Order Thinking There is great emphasis in today’s 21st-century landscapes for problem solving and open-ended challenges.Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) define higher-order thinking as “the mental processes that allow students to developfactual, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge within the creative and critical domains.” Bloom (1956) providedthe firm teaching and learning foundation from which most classrooms continue to operate. Defining and quantifyinglevels of student thinking, Bloom (1956) identifies Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis,and Evaluation levels. The model is designed to allow for foundational knowledge (knowledge and comprehension)in order to apply higher levels of thinking (Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation) which integrate amongand across content areas. Krathwohl (2002) recognizes the 21st-century need to better identify teaching strategiesthat may further engage learners thereby producing higher-level thinkers. Based on his researched observations,cognitive processes are better defined and observable based upon an expansion of Bloom’s work. The updated levels,then, include: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating (Krathwohl 2002). Theproposed HEAT instrument focuses on the aggregate effect of the four variables (higher-order thinking, engagement,authenticity, and technology) to primarily focus on the Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating levels of the RevisedBloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl 2002). The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy’s most notable difference from the original Bloom’s Taxonomy lieswithin the complexity of each cognitive level. In effect, the revised taxonomy moves into a two-dimensional model,whereby more specific types of knowledge, for instance, are identified and observed (Krathwohl, 2002). In the revisedtaxonomy, knowledge is specified by factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. As teachers plan lessons, thisKnowledge level is identified and subsequently charted against the higher levels of the revised taxonomy. Kreitzer(1994) and his associates argue that there are more demands of knowledge than other levels might involve and thusmust be delineated for the teacher. As the taxonomy further evolved, a cognitive process domain became moreaccepted for use. The Knowledge level, then, was replaced by Remembering and Understanding. Krathwohl (2002)and his colleagues believed this better described and captured students’ initial thinking processes. The Applying levelremained with subdomains of executing and implementing. Analyzing, then, was described as breaking material intoconstituent parts and could be thought of in terms of differentiating, organizing, or attributing. Krathwohl (2002)also interchanged the original taxonomy Synthesis and Evaluation, and ultimately changed Evaluation to Creating.Evaluating, or making judgments based on criteria and standards, could be considered as checking or critiquing. TheCreating level, according to Krathwohl et. al (2002), replaced the original taxonomy level of Evaluation and added anoriginal student product or thought by generating, planning, and producing. Liu Ru-De (2010) investigated the importance of companion resources in accommodating and leveraginghigher-order thinking. Her study looked at the construction of word problems along with the availability of datacollection software that also prompted and guided users (through feedback, tutoring, and reflection prompts). Studentswho were able to understand at a deep level were able to construct their own rationalizations, explanations, andextrapolations (Ru-De, 2010). Supporting a complete and radical change of today’s traditional education system,Ru-De (2010) believes reform steeped in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) will lead to knowledgecreation and innovation, the top levels of thinking. In Marzano’s exploration about delivering high-quality teaching and learning in the 21st-century classroom,cognitive thinking skills were identified and codified into writing techniques, thinking techniques, and generalinformation processing strategies. Marzano reported positive results when coaching students to make inferences aboutprocesses. Inferential methods are routinely skipped or ignored by classroom teachers but are the foundation forhigher-order thinking processes (Marzano, 2010). The learning target or objective of a lesson can be raised to higherlevels of cognitive thinking. As teachers raise the learning target of a particular lesson, it can be argued that instructionhas improved. When objectives, activities, and assessments are properly aligned at higher levels of cognitive thinking,not only has instruction improved but also student learning improves (Raths, 2002).
16 Maxwell, Constant, Stobaugh, and Janet TassellEngagement Whether we realize it or not, teachers are preparing their K-12 students not only for the world they will facewhen they leave school (a world we know), but also for a future where technology will become significantly faster, morepowerful, and much smaller (a world we can hardly imagine). The only way to succeed is to conceptualize learning ina new way, with adults and young people each taking on new and different roles from past teacher-directed methods.Today’s 21st century learners need to focus on new tools, finding information, making meaning, and creating. Teachersmust focus on questioning, coaching and guiding, providing context, ensuring rigor and meaning, and ensuring qualityresults. Prensky (2010) calls this partnering—a 21st century method of students and teachers working and collaboratingtogether to produce and ensure student learning while preparing them for a new and different future. Partnering is the very opposite of teaching by telling. In the partnering pedagogy the teacher’s goal is to dono telling at all (at least to the whole class). The teacher needs only to give students, in a variety of interesting ways,open-ended, thought-provoking questions to be answered. Partnering teachers find that the process of students activelyanswering higher-level questions leads to higher engagement. The increased engagement typically produces betterretention of material and higher test scores. Utilizing students’ passions and interests are the perfect routes and filtersthrough which partnering teachers create individualized learning—learning that will stick in their minds, be valuablein their lives, and make them want more. In a partnering pedagogy we are all both teachers and learners who mutuallyrespect one another. Students will do what teachers want them to do if teachers will do some of what students like.Mutual feedback on the partnering process is an opportunity for students to learn proper and effective methods ofgiving feedback and expressing opinions, especially when they are negative.(Prensky, 2010). The degree to which teachers vary instructional strategies also plays a role in the level of engagementobserved. Bogaert, Pressley, & Hawkins (2006) collected artifacts from ten sixth grade classrooms and categorizedteachers into either highly-engaging, moderately-engaging, or low-engaging. Results indicated the teachers with themost variety of instructional strategies coupled with providing support for student independence and choice were themost engaging. The level and complexity of the task given must also be considered when examining engagement. Whilesmall group collaborative work may be an effective instructional strategy, if the tasks are focused on proceduresrather than higher-level thinking the cognitive engagement levels are low (Blumenfeld & Meece, 1988; Nystrand& Gamoran, 1991). Instructors, then, must carefully plan activities that incorporate cognitive demands and fosterappropriate collaboration if the desired end result is higher cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement (Wu &Huang, 2007).Authentic Learning Marc Prensky (2010) makes a keen distinction between relevance and real. Relevance means that studentscan relate to something taught, or something said, to something they know. In other words, the context is familiar tothem or happened in the past. Prensky posits that the problem with relevance is that it does not go far enough. Realmeans that there is a perceived connection by the students, at every moment (or at least as often as possible), betweenwhat they are learning and their ability to use that learning to do something useful in the world. Real learning not onlyrelates content to current issues/events in the world today or the future, but it involves making a difference or havingan affect on those current issues or events. Making education real goes beyond teaching content just because it is in the curriculum. Instruction andcontent should relate to the students’ world in a real (not just a theoretical, relevant) way. Further, learning should notjust be about the students’ world but about changing and improving their world. For example, history and social studiesshould be less about “what happened?” and more abut “what can we learn or use from other civilizations, times,places, cultures, events, wars, and people to improve our own lives or the world?” Students need to relate math not toreal-world or relevant math word problems but to “real” experiences actually taking place such as a bridge collapsingor being built (computing forces or stress), an election that’s taking place (probability, percentages, statistics), a spacelaunch (trajectories, fuel consumption, rates of speed and acceleration), golf tournament (parabolas), baseball orfootball (statistics), or a song being recorded (timing, notes, compression, sampling rates (Prensky, 2010).
Developing a HEAT Framework for Assessing and Improving Instruction 17 Teachers can help students make real-world connections with workers, practitioners, and outside “experts”as possible. These community or field experts can serve as models, guide in research, and assist with problem solving.(Prensky, 2010). Howard Gardner (2008) presents the “disciplined mind” as one that has mastered at least one wayof thinking—a distinctive mode of cognition that characterizes a specific scholarly discipline, craft, or profession.“Without at least one discipline under his belt, the individual is destined to march to someone else’s tune.” For example,scientists observe the world; come up with tentative classifications, concepts, and theories; design experiments inorder to test these tentative theories; revise theories in light of findings; and then return to the same process. Historiansattempt to reconstruct the past from scattered and often contradictory fragments of information. Teachers’ feedbackto students should also address students’ abilities to pick up the distinctive habits of the mind and behavior of theprofession or “discipline” they are studying. Gardner further believes that it is essential for students to study the“gateway” disciplines of science, mathematics, history, and at least one art form. He poses that a course in history canopen up the gates to a range of social sciences and one art form eases entry into others. Splitter (2008) makes a case for educational authenticity being referenced from the earliest philosophicalwritings of Plato and Rousseau. Certo, Conley, Moxley, and Chafin (2008) reported students stated “un-authentic”assignments as completing worksheets or taking notes. These methods, according to them, precluded any kind ofmeaningful classroom dialogue. Instructional activities students recommend as lending to authenticity include:cooperative learning, role-playing, simulations, games, and technology-based work (Certo, et. al., 2008). Utilization of context involves awareness of the makeup of the classroom and using that makeup to draw uponreal-life experiences with specific intent to tie those experiences to the learning content (Lin 2006). In fact, the roleof the teacher becomes more of a facilitator in an authentically-charged classroom (Renzulli, Gentry, and Reis 2004).Technology Integration Little research exists on the other three components in HEAT related to technology integration. Baylor andRitchie (2002) qualitatively studied technology integration impact on teacher morale, perceived student learning, andhigher-order thinking skills in classrooms. They found that three variables are important to consider in terms of studentcontent acquisition: strength of technology leadership on the school level, teacher openness to change, and teachernon-school computer use all. The degree to which higher-order thinking took place in classrooms was predicted byteacher openness to change, the amount of individual technology use in creative situations, and the level of integrationattempted within the classroom. While researchers continue to make the case for the positive correlation between higher-order thinking skillsand integration of technology (Agnew 2002; Lee 2002; Thomas 2002), making the exclusive connection remainsdifficult (Sherry & Jesse 2000; Trucano 2005). Sharma and Haigh (2008), in fact, conducted a case study in whichcomputer integration and thinking skills were intended as isolated factors. However, they found the two extremelydifficult to isolate when considering the varied and obvious environmental factors that had measurable effects. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) published the National Education TechnologyStandards (NETS) for Students in 2007. These standards support the holistic view of Technology integration found forthe HEAT instrument by calling attention to: creativity and innovation; communication and collaboration; researchand information fluency; critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making; digital citizenship; and technologyoperation and concepts. These standards have pieces that are directly related to the HEAT instrument document.Related to Higher-order thinking, a connection to Standard 1, Creativity and Innovation, is that students “createdoriginal works as a means of personal or group expression.” Another is “apply existing knowledge to generate newideas, products, or processes. Also related to Higher-order thinking, in Standard 3, Research and Information Fluency,a connection to the HEAT framework T column for Technology integration is “process data and report results.” Relatedto Engaged learning, in Standard 2, Communication and Collaboration, a connection to the Technology integrationon the instrument is made with “contribute to project teams to produce original works or solve problems.” Also,related to Engaged learning, from Standard 5, Digital Citizenship, the HEAT document connects with “exhibit apositive attitude toward using technology that supports collaboration, learning and productivity.” Related to Authenticlearning, from Standard 4, Critical Thinking, Problem-Solving, and Decision-Making, three components relate to
18 Maxwell, Constant, Stobaugh, and Janet TassellTechnology integration on the HEAT framework: ”identify and define authentic problems and significant questions forinvestigation,” “plan and manage activities to develop a solution or complete a project,” and “collect and analyze datato identify solutions, and/or make informed decisions.” As a pure Technology integration connection, from Standard6, Technology Operations and Concepts, the HEAT framework includes the essence of “select and use applicationseffectively and productively.” It appears that Standard 6 is what technology in the past would have encompassed.HEAT Framework Levels The HEAT instrument incorporates six levels of performance for each component: Higher-order thinking,Engaged learning, Authentic learning, and Technology integration (see Table 1 for HEAT Framework). The levels areas follows: 0 = Non-Use, 1 = Awareness, 2 = Application, 3 = Exploration, 4 = Integration, 5 = Expansion, and 6 =Refinement. Several overarching themes began to influence the development of this HEAT Framework. One significanttheme is whether the instruction is teacher-directed or student-directed. This is the separating line between levels 3 and4 through all components. While the researchers believe and much of the research supports the interaction and almostinseparability of Higher-order thinking, Engaged learning, and Authentic learning, an attempt was made to keep theresearch and framework levels as pure as possible for those three components. The interconnections are then includedin the discussion and the HEAT framework in the Technology integration component. The researchers pose thattechnology is a skill that supports and interacts with the other three components. Another important consideration isthe emphasis that instruction must achieve a level three or higher on each component of the HEAT Framework. Acrossthe components, level three includes the minimum of acceptable instruction: some higher-order thinking (Analyzingor higher even if it is teacher-directed), some student choice in projects or varied instructional strategies; some relevant(not real) world instruction; and students are using some technology to create a product or solve a problem. Theresearchers continue to emphasize that the Higher-order thinking component means Higher-order thinking with thecontent, not just the technology. Many teachers are impressed with the glitz of technology and think that just creatingsomething with if higher-order thinking. This framework views technology as a means or tool to create higher-orderthinking with the topic or content. The Higher-order thinking component is measured using the Revised Bloom’s Cognitive Taxonomy (1956).Levels three, four, five, and six all require the Analyzing or higher level of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl,2002). Other concepts that distinguish those levels include teacher or student-directed instruction, multiple indicatorsof learning, complex thinking (such as problem-solving, decision making, reasoning, investigation, and reflection) anda complex, open-ended learning environment. The instruction or lesson plans must be rated at the Analyzing level orhigher (Krathwohl, 2002). The Engaged learning component is based on indicators presented by Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, andRasmussen (1994) and Prensky’s partnering strategies. Indicators that distinguish among the levels include acceptanceof multiple solutions, student choice in projects/assignments, student-student collaboration, student-teacher partnering,student-expert collaboration whether local experts or global experts. The Authentic learning component levels are concerned with relevant or real learning (Prensky, 2010) as wellas use of a disciplined mind. (Gardner, 2008). The Technology integration component is primarily based on how technology is used by students, not theteacher. Other distinguishing indicators include how integral or necessary the technology is to instruction, promotescollaboration, higher-order thinking, and engagement. The complexity of the technology use, use of several types oftechnology, and use of technology as a seamless medium to solve real global issues are also indicators of the six levels.Using the HEAT Framework The HEAT Framework is taught in teacher education courses at both the pre-service and graduate level.Emphasis is placed on creating instruction where students must employ the Analyzing level or higher on the Revised
Developing a HEAT Framework for Assessing and Improving Instruction 19Bloom’s Taxonomy; alignment of objectives, instructional activities, and assessment; real world involvement;student-directed lessons (partnering with student and teacher); collaboration among students, teacher, and experts;and seamless technology integration. Lessons plans from pre-service and graduate courses are evaluated for eachcomponent of the HEAT Framework. Research is underway to determine the effectiveness of the HEAT Frameworkinstruction, the instrument reliability, and improvement of lesson plan instruction of pre-service and graduate teachereducation students. This research has potential to improve K-12 student performance as pre-service and advanced teachers arecalled to higher levels of performance and design. One vehicle to infuse change is through challenging pre-serviceand advanced teachers to design lesson plans with a focus on HEAT. This research can be harnessed to designnew indicators and descriptions of performance levels to challenge pre-service teachers to implement HEAT therebyincreasing K-12 student performance. As teachers design more effective lessons, graduates should be able to bettermeet and exceed state teacher standards. The key is to combine the four components in teacher preparation programsat both levels—Higher-order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic learning, and Technology integration. Technologyshould be indispensable and inseparable from higher-order thinking, authenticity, and engagement in designinginstruction.ReferencesAgnew, A.L. (2002). Windows into the classroom. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, December 4-6, Auckland, New Zealand.Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for teaching, learning and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning intechnology- using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39, 395-414.Bloom, B.S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKayBlumenfeld, P.C. & Meece, J.L. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior and students’ involvement and use of learning strategies in science. Elementary School Journal, 88, 238-249.Raphael Bogaert, L. M., Pressley, M., & Mohan Hawkins,L. (2006). What does engaging instruction look like in middle school?East Lansing: Michigan State University Literacy Achievement Research Center.Brookfield, S.D. (2006). Authenticity and power. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 111, 5-16.Certo, J.L, Cauley, K.M., Moxley, K.D., & Chafin, C. (2008). An argument for authenticity: Adolescents’ perspectives on standards- based reform. The High School Journal, 91(4), 26-39.Corno, L. & Mandinach, E.B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. EducationalPsychologist, 18(2), 88-108.Cothran, D., & Ennis, C. (2000). Building bridges to student engagement: Communicating respect and care for students in urban high schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 40(1): 34-59.Ennis, R.H. & Weir, E. (1985). The Ennis-Weir critical thinking essay test, Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest.Enzle, M.E.& Anderson, S.C. (1993). Surveillant intentions and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 64, 257-266.International Society for Technology in Education (2007). The national educational technology standards for students.International Society for Technology in Education: Eugene, OR.International Society for Technology in Education (2008). The national educational technology standards for teachers.International Society for Technology in Education: Eugene, OR.Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., and Rasmussen, C. (1994) Designing Learning and Technology forEducational Reform. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.Knotts, G., Henderson, L., Davidson, R., and Swain, J (2009). The search for authentic practice across the disciplinary divide. College Teaching, 57 (4), 188-196.Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4). 212-218.Kreitzer, A. and Madaus, G. (1994). Empirical investigations of the hierarchical structure of the taxonomy. In Anderson, L. andSosniak, L. (Eds.) Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Forty-year Retrospective (pp. 64-81). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.Kornelson, L. (2006). Teaching with presence. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 111, 73-82.
20 Maxwell, Constant, Stobaugh, and Janet TassellLee, K.T. (2002). Learning with ICT: The challenge of changing the way we teach. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, December 4-6, Auckland, New Zealand.Lin, L. (2006). Cultural dimensions of authenticity in teaching. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 111, 63 72.Lysakowski, R.S. & Walberg, H.J. (1982). Instructional effects of cues, participation, and corrective feedback: A quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 559-578.Marzano, R. J. (2010). Teaching inference. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 80-81.McMahon, G.P. (2009). Critical thinking and ICT integration in a western Australian secondary school. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 269-281.Moersch, C. (2002). Measures of success: Six instruments to assess teachers’ use of technology. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(3), 10-18.Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement, Research in Teaching of English, 25(3), 261-290.Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Raths, J. (2002). Improving instruction. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 233-237.Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S. M. (2004). A time and a place for authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 73-77.Ru-De, L. (2010). Psychological research in educational technology in China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(4), 593-606.Sharma, S., & Haigh, P. (2008). Strengthening pedagogy through ICT, retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://ictwiki.dnsalias.net/index.php/Notre_Dame_High_School.Sherry, L., & Jesse, D. (2000). The impact of technology on student achievement, RMC Research Corporation, Denver, retrieved March 20, 2009 from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~lsherry/pubs/tassp_00.htm.Splitter, L.J. (2008). Authenticity and constructivism in education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28(2), 135-151.Thomas, J.D.E. (2002). Technology integrated classes versus traditional classes and their impact on user performance and perceptions. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, December 4-6, Auckland, New Zealand.Trucano, Michael (2005). Knowledge maps: ICTs in education, Washington, DC: InforDev/World Bank.Walberg, H.J. (1982). What makes school effective? A synthesis and critique of three national studies. Contemporary Education Review, 1, 23-24.Wu, H.-K. & Huang, Y.-L. (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-centered technology enhanced learning environments, Wiley Interscience. Retrieved from www.interscience.wiley.com
Problem Upon Problem: Integrating PBL Throughout a Computing Curriculum 21 Problem Upon Problem: Integrating PBL Throughout a Computing Curriculum Samuel B. Fee Washington & Jefferson College firstname.lastname@example.org Abstract: Every instructor in a computing field is working to engage students in deep problem solving and independent critical thinking. In our interdisciplinary IT department, our experiences indicate to us that students make the most marked improvements to their abilities in analyzing and solving complex computational problems when we pursue pedagogies that support them in developing these skills in an incremental manner, not only within a single course, but throughout their experiences with us. We pur- sue a problem-based learning approach across the curriculum of the entire department, scaffolding the content and learning outcomes at each level to build on one another. Thus, while each course has its own specific objectives, every course is also integrated thoughtfully and intentionally into a departmen- tal pedagogy. We believe this approach can transfer to the education of teachers as well, and encourage teacher educators to consider implementing a problem-based learning approach for cross curricular ac- tivities and assignments. Washington & Jefferson College is one of the nation’s preeminent liberal-arts colleges. At W&J, our studentscan major in Information Technology Leadership (ITL) with a focus on Computer Science, New Media, or DataDiscovery. This program emphasizes not only the development of technical skills, but more important, the deepunderstandings and critical thinking abilities that will make students future leaders in technology. In all ITL courses,students learn about the historical and social contexts of technology, various forms of problem solving, and theinteraction between technology and its users, as well as leadership and ethical issues surrounding technology. We haveexperienced our greatest successes as we have deployed a problem-based learning pedagogy not only in individualcourses, but also throughout our entire departmental curriculum. We think this success can be transferred to publiceducation environments as well, and offer suggestions for teachers and teacher educators for way to think across thecurriculum when considering the employment of Problem-Based Learning.Let’s Speak the Same Language: What Is Problem-Based Learning? Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach that centers student learning around open-ended,student-driven problems facilitated by an instructor in order to achieve the learning outcomes of a course. It appeals toa cognitive constructivist epistemology which suggests that learners make optimal gains through relating educationalmaterial to real-life experience, and that such experience informs their ability to conceptualize content (Duffy &Jonassen, 1992). Constructivism calls for learning opportunities that are experiential, active, and collaborative, and thatalso develop problem solving skills (Jonassen, 2000). The goal for the learner is not to passively absorb information,but rather to actively engage with the content, relate to it through an analysis with personal experience, and effectivelysolve problems with the corresponding knowledge gained. This of course means that the student is an active participant in the learning process (Bonwell & Eison, 1991).The result is a necessary relaxing of the traditional classroom structure so that students can pursue ideas in a fashionthat makes sense to them individually, rather than taking a prescribed approach dictated by the instructor. Indeed,many approaches could be relevant for attaining the knowledge developed by the intellectual task at hand. Therefore,students need to be free to develop those knowledge constructions in their own way. This does not mean that there is nostructure to the process as some might suggest (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). Rather, a looser structure governsthe endeavor and allows the student to maneuver in several different directions under the guidance of an engagedinstructor. Of course, numerous pedagogical approaches enable a constructivist way of knowing. But one of the mostpromising approaches is problem-based learning. Problem-based learning has seen its largest and earliest adoption in the medical education field, where theapproach orients students “toward meaning-making over fact-collecting” (Rhem, 1998). Much recent literature,
22 Feehowever, discusses the potential for this pedagogy in various fields of inquiry outside of medical education. Foran in-depth discussion, the inaugural issue of The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning contains aparticularly useful introduction to the essential elements of PBL (Savery, 2006).An Important Distinction At this juncture, it is important to note that problem-based learning differs from the more specific approachknown as project-based learning. Problem-based learning asks students to confront and solve problems by consolidatinga knowledge base that they have developed through prior experiences in class (Collins, et al. 1991). This pedagogyemphasizes student freedom in choosing how they will apply that knowledge to the problem at hand. Project-basedlearning, on the other hand, asks students to produce a particular outcome defined by the instructor, and involvesgreater structure, sometimes even including specific steps for students to follow. Problem-based learning presentsstudents a problem and challenges them to invent a solution; project-based learning gives students an objective andhas them work through the steps to get to it. While project-based learning has real merit for some purposes (and weoften assign projects ourselves), our focus in this discussion is on the unique advantages of problem-based learning inhelping the learner identify outcomes and parameters for success (Savery, 2006). When thinking about PBL, then, it isimportant to remember the problem part, and not confuse it with project-based learning.Other Elements to Bear in Mind Leading students through the process of problem-based learning is by no means easy. Developing goodproblems for student to solve is a challenging and critical step in providing effective instruction (Duch, Groh & Allen,2001). These problems need to be reasonably understandable as students begin developing their problem solvingskills, but increasingly ill-structured as students progress throughout their coursework. Quality problems must havesolutions that are discoverable based on the knowledge students can be expected to possess; further, good problemsmust also serve students working at different levels within a given class. Considerable instructor time must be devotedto careful consideration of the problems to be presented to students. Furthermore, PBL requires real investment indirect work with students, as the instructor must be available to mentor students in the problem solving process. Suchmentoring diminishes as the students become more capable of such thought on their own, but at the introductory level,this mentoring requires skilled guidance on the part of the instructor to remain effective.PBL: How We Do It at W&J Several principles have emerged as we have moved toward our instructional goals at W&J. Specifically,PBL provides a unifying context for the content of our individual courses. Students must bring together many of theindividual concepts from previous courses to solve the problems they encounter at each level of the curriculum. WhilePBL can be applied in any discipline, its appeal for computing education is evident, as many of our courses, such asprogramming, visual communication, or data mining, require the cultivation of problem solving skills. Further, therapid advances within our field make it of particular concern that students understand how to be good independentlearners. Thus, we particularly value a pedagogy that produces graduates able to educate themselves about newtechnologies and integrate those new technologies into their repertoire of problem solving tools. In the Association forComputing Machinery’s 2008 computer science curriculum interim revision, six characteristics of computer sciencegraduates were described: a systems-level perspective, an appreciation of the interplay between theory and practice,a familiarity with common themes and principles, significant project experience, attention to rigorous thinking, andadaptability (ACM, 2008). The PBL approach directly supports the last three characteristics, and with a carefulselection of problems, makes itself open to development of the first three characteristics as well.Student Experiences and Instructor Challenges The advantages and challenges inherent in problem-based learning as experienced within a single class arealso relevant to considering its application to an entire curriculum. Instructors of single courses are encouraged to givestudents small problems initially and gradually add complexity while removing specific guidance. The intent is thatby the end of the course, students will be able to address real-world problems, and ideally, problems that they haveselected for themselves. Thus, students will take increased ownership of their learning and will experience the pitfallsand dead ends that occur through a realistic problem solving process. This is a very appealing picture, but when faced
Problem Upon Problem: Integrating PBL Throughout a Computing Curriculum 23with the realities of the typical classroom environment, a pure application of the problem-based learning pedagogycan be very challenging as it provides for many different directions for students to go and requires their investment ina process that they might not yet appreciate. And sometimes their motives or resistance can be at odds with the goalsof the course and the objectives of the instructor. These same realities affect the implementation of problem-based learning across our department’s curriculum.For instance, students often enter computing coursework at W&J with an interest in the particular tools that theywill be using, the software they want to learn, or a desire to construct the types of products they see other studentsgenerating in these courses. While these goals are natural – and in fact provide good motivation to the students as theypursue difficult tasks – few students enter our courses with a stated intention of becoming better problem-solvers. Theyenter wishing to learn Java or Photoshop, build a video game, or perhaps create dynamic web sites. An appreciation forthe general skill of problem solving comes only later in the curriculum, or more commonly, after they have graduatedand entered the work force. Thus, we face a particular challenge when making this pedagogical approach central toour curriculum, since it sometimes generates significant student resistance. One of the frequent complaints that we hear from our students is that they are being asked to do things they“have not been shown how to do.” Invariably, this means that the instructors have shown the students the pieces that arerequired to solve the problem, but have not shown them explicitly how these concepts coalesce to enable them to reachtheir goals. From an instructor’s perspective, this restraint in instruction is purposeful: the process the students need tofollow has been illustrated and practiced, but the students are now expected to discover how this process applies in anew way. To the student, this experimentation may seem to “get in the way” of the immediacy of completing the taskfor a grade. But without experiencing the process of experimentation with possible solutions and possible mistakes,students will not become self-sufficient problem-solvers. We recognize that experiencing some discomfort while pushing instructional boundaries is a good thing.Nonetheless, the focus on independent problem solving and student-directed exploration encouraged in problem-based learning can lead to novice students feeling overwhelmed by the degree of flexibility they have been permitted(Kay et al., 2000). And this is certainly an issue that any instructor implementing PBL should be watchful for. Atthe same time, there is sometimes also an assumption held by students that assignments will ask them to completehighly structured problems that closely resemble problems they have been shown, and that can be solved by applyingthe same steps with few adjustments. They may not be familiar with the complex steps required to deconstruct aproblem into its parts and search for a solution. There is value in understanding this disconnect between students’and instructors’ perceptions of what a problem is, for this disconnect can lead to a culture clash between students andfaculty that must be broached (Kolikant & Ben-Ari, 2008). The early iterations of PBL can be designed to close this gap if an instructor exhibits for students an alternatemodel for problem definition and solution. Instructors can then introduce their students to a new skill and help themdevelop their own problem solving abilities. While it is appropriate to allow students a certain degree of mentaldiscomfort and uncertainty, it is important that the creative leaps they are being asked to make are within their graspand that they can see a path to success with reasonable effort on their part. Our challenge, then, is to allow studentsto experience these frustrations while preventing their frustration from becoming so severe they give up. We wouldsuggest that the scaffolding provided by a PBL approach – especially when applied across several courses within acurriculum – leads students effectively along this path of negotiating frustration and achieving success.Problem-Based Learning Across the Curriculum Given the centrality of problem solving to the entire breadth of our computing curriculum, it seems unrealisticto expect students to achieve a high level of proficiency during a single course, particularly given the modest initialstarting point of problem solving abilities for many new college students. It seems preferable to view the developmentof more complex problem solving skills as something to be developed over a longer stretch of time – perhaps eventhe student’s entire college career. For novice problem-solvers, simply familiarizing them with the idea that there maybe more than one way to approach a problem (and that exploration is encouraged), may be as large a step as they areprepared to take in one course. Certainly for some of our students, it seems to be a new idea! That realization in itselfwill set these students up for greater success in later courses that presuppose an initial comfort with a problem-basedapproach. For this reason, we propose using problem-based learning as the framework for an entire curriculum.
24 Fee There are secondary advantages to integrating problem-based learning across a curriculum as well. PBLoffers an ideal opportunity to encourage students to pursue self-regulated learning. Students are supported in self-regulated learning when they are given opportunities, ideally explicitly through classroom tasks, to practice thenecessary skills of managing their own learning, including time management, goal awareness, and appropriate useof peers and faculty in supporting their learning (Pintrich, 1995). Like problem solving, self-regulated learning mustbe developed incrementally over time, and the same activities that model the breaking down of problem solving canalso be used to illustrate to students a general process for learning. Additionally, because of the tensions describedabove that some students may experience when first encountering PBL exercises, this approach is modeled as a validway of pursuing computing education, so students come to expect the experience in later courses without significantdisorientation. Some PBL practitioners have also expressed concern that when PBL is implemented in introductorycourses but not followed at the higher levels, the positive retention effects seen early can be reversed as students arefaced with a more conventional course formats (Kay et al., 2000). It is worth reiterating that implementing a problem-based curriculum represents a significant commitment onthe part of the faculty involved. As we discussed before, mentoring students through their individual struggles withproblem solving experiences can be very time intensive. The quick and easy answer is certainly the first that somestudents will reach for. But when students are encouraged to develop their own problems and solution strategies,faculty must plan on spending additional time to support these efforts – not only with the development of contentknowledge, but also problem solving processes. For these reasons, a problem-based curriculum is likely to be mosteffective as a conscientious effort on the part of an entire department, where the additional workload will be recognizedand supported by all. As a result, course-load decisions and scheduling can be done with an awareness of and respectfor the obligations of PBL, especially at the introductory level. This point also underscores the need for administrativeunderstanding of the workload realities of PBL.Implementation When applying PBL across a curriculum, we suggest that instructors should plan on entry-level courses thatintroduce students to the process of problem solving with just a few projects or activities and underscore the fact thatstudents may be asked to approach novel problems with a willingness to explore and innovate. In fact, in introductorycourses, starting small with homework assignments or minor projects works better than ‘throwing students into thedeep end’ with a large project that constitutes a significant portion of their grade. This approach also provides anopportunity for significant class time to be devoted to introductory content regarding the field. This basic knowledgeis an important component of the content scaffolding we mentioned earlier. Instructors should expect to provide afair degree of guidance at this level about how particular problems ought to be solved, leaving students with modestcreative gaps to fill in. As students progress through a program of study, the scope of the problems they will be expected to tacklewill increase in complexity, and the degree of guidance they are given about how to solve the problem will decrease.Problem solving projects become a much larger portion of the student grade for the term, and represent a greateramount of effort on their part. They also require the implementation of content mastery for a significant portion ofthe course materials. In fact, some higher-level content may only be accessible to students once they have solvedproblems indicating a thorough understanding of certain significant concepts covered earlier in the course. By the endof the curriculum at W&J, we challenge our students to tackle a significant real-world problem and produce resultssatisfying to a real-world standard. This project work consumes the entire final term of the students’ senior year, andrequires them to address multiple problems relating to the planning as well as the implementation of their problemsolving techniques.Some Examples To illustrate how we implement problem-based learning across our curriculum, we focus below on how selectcourses shepherd students through successively high-level and independent problem solving tasks. This chart is not anexhaustive listing of every problem students would encounter, but it describes a major project for each representativecourse discussed. The descriptions demonstrate how the problems become increasingly ill-structured over time, andhands-on guidance by the instructor diminishes.
Problem Upon Problem: Integrating PBL Throughout a Computing Curriculum 25 Representative Course: New Media (Introductory) Example Problem Given: Develop a portfolio of digital imagery that illustrates the concepts of visual communication that have been covered. (Course project, building on several homework assignments, 3 weeks duration.) Level of Guidance: Learning Objectives/Outcomes: • Instructor models numerous examples and techniques for • Understand basic processes for developing digital developing digital imagery. imagery. • Instructor lectures early in course provide basic • Develop a theoretical grounding for visual literacy and understandings of visual communications theory. relate that to development work. • Instructor provides indication of time needed for model • Manage completion of project and subtasks on a defined tasks. schedule. • Students complete their imagery individually, but consult • Identify ways to collaborate with others on solving with peers in class. problems, without necessarily producing results. Representative Course: Web Design & Development (Intermediate) Example Problem Given: Working individually, select one of a set of proposed web sites requiring a significant degree of re- design and create an efficient implementation, e.g. develop a new design and code appropriately. (Course project, following a number of homework assignments and traditional coding exams, 3 weeks duration.) Level of Guidance: Learning Objectives/Outcomes: • Instructor lectures early in course provide basic • Recognize ancillary programming expertise that needs to understandings of coding syntax. be developed. • Sample projects are provided, but students must make • Identify project challenges and attentively select an selections. appropriate site to re-create. • Students must identify design problems and develop a • Propose a feasible task decomposition of a significant course of action for addressing them. project. • Instructor establishes deadline and approved re-design • Meet weekly team obligations, with occasional instructor planning documents. support. • Class time spent meeting with groups, discussing • Develop group problem solving skills in a structured approach and timeliness of progress. environment. Representative Course: Service Learning Capstone (Advanced) Example Problem Given: Working as a team, design and implement a solution to a current technology problem facing a local non-profit organization. (Term project, entire semester duration.) Level of Guidance: Learning Objectives/Outcomes: • Instructor introduces team members to organization • Student teams manage relationship with and needs liaison. assessment for organization. • Deadlines given for initial project scope document and • Student teams internally manage establishing deadlines final deliverable. and task assignments. • Presentation of scope document to department faculty • Appropriate training provided for organization. with feedback provided. • Successful resolution of organization’s problem, with • Instructor leads general course discussions related to specification of further steps needed as called for. readings on project management. Table 1: Representative Courses As has been noted, in the lower level courses students generally do not spend the entire course solvingproblems. In the New Media course, many concepts are practiced during class with on-the-spot activities directlyconnected to the material and then subsequently useful for the students in completion of the portfolio project. It
26 Feeis for the student, however, to figure out how to tie these techniques together to create new work. These classroomand homework activities provide students with the necessary content scaffolding to succeed on the larger problemspresented as projects throughout the course. They also begin the process of developing the core content knowledge foraddressing more complex problems in later courses.Putting it All Together The introductory course in this example provides basic content for scaffolding knowledge. In addition, itillustrates the way in which the curriculum scaffolds student knowledge through the sequence of courses. Whenstudents are asked in Web Design and Development to create a plan for solving their problem, they are required tothink back to the basic design principles that they were taught in the New Media course, and to make sure their website re-designs reflect those principles. Based on their earlier coursework, students not only have a model of what theyshould be doing, but also have experienced the advantages of solving a problem based on a self-directed, ordered setof component steps from their earlier coursework, thereby reducing the perception of the problem solving tasks asbusywork delaying them from really “working” on the project. They realize from the outset that the problem solvingprocess involves important planning. Thus, they build both content knowledge and problem solving organizationalskills and work habits as they move from one course to another within the curriculum, while also moving into problemsof greater complexity as they advance, from beginner to intermediate and intermediate to advanced levels. Our curricular model, with 100-level courses within the department required of all students, ensures thatevery student gets access to the same initial experience of solving a significant problem while being supported throughdetailed guidance. This preparation enables us to make more challenging demands of students’ problem solvingabilities in later courses such as our capstone course, the final course in our curriculum. The capstone course, inwhich students partner with local agencies or organizations to provide IT services, requires students to demonstratethe type of real-world robust problem solving skills that problem-based learning strives to instill. All students areexpected to enter the capstone course prepared for independent, real-world problem solving. Their capstone projectsare not merely the result of their work in that final course, but are rather the end product of an entire curriculum – andthey demonstrate not just the students’ mastery of content, but the independence and critical analysis skills that areintentionally developed throughout the curriculum. The course instruction is spent helping students make the finaltransition of applying their problem solving skills in a real world setting where money, organizational mission, and theneeds and priorities of a client become part of the equation as well. This community engagement is possible becauseof the shared preparation that all of the students taking part have had, whether they have taken the same combination ofcourses or not. While they may start unaware that problem solving is a skill they must learn, by the time they graduatethey are capable of explicitly discussing this approach and how they must adapt their problem solving strategies to therequirements of their team and their client.Suggestions for Teachers and Teacher Educators We recognize that problem-based learning works wonderfully as a method of instruction for individualassignments and courses, and our purpose in this discussion has been to argue beyond those familiar parameters forhow its potential can be leveraged for the delivery of an entire curriculum. Based on our own experience, we believethat problem-based learning can be incorporated into multiple courses within any program of study, so that thosecourses can build upon one another in method as well as content and learning objectives. As a method of instruction,we have found PBL to be quite effective – in our individual courses as well as throughout our program of study. Theapproach has strengthened students’ understanding of the content and enhanced their critical thinking skills. And inthe end, it helps us provide a context for the content of these courses, resulting in our success at producing graduatesthat can go on to solve technical problems on their own. We think these successes can transfer into teacher education as well. It would require an ongoing effort to thinkacross curricular boundaries and outside of individual subject areas and classrooms. The goal is to use computationalthinking to solve problems in various disciplines and class content – and to work against thinking about the computeras a tool for only a narrow range of courses. Conversation and planning among teachers could provide opportunitiesto create projects that encourage problem solving and address curricular content in more than one class. Problem-based learning experiences in one course could inform those of another, making the process an activity that students
Problem Upon Problem: Integrating PBL Throughout a Computing Curriculum 27become familiar with, and therefore have the ability to build upon with recurring exposure to a PBL pedagogicalapproach. Moreover, once that understanding of problem solving is established, teachers can begin creating project-based experiences that build upon earlier problem solving activities, ensuring that students develop the ability to growtheir problem solving skills by facing increasingly complex problems. By way of a pragmatic example, consider a high school industrial design course that introduces students toweb design and development, followed by an art course that contains a project for creating an online portfolio of work,and finally a history class that requires a visual presentation to accompany an oral report. In the initial design course,the problem solving might be minimal; instead, there would be considerable instruction in the technical skills requiredfor web development as well as direct examples of design concepts. Problem solving might be limited to addressingdesign decisions, and having students develop their own projects. The art course however, could assume a certain levelof problem solving ability already, and build upon that by presenting students with the problem of how to best displaytheir artwork in an online portfolio. Given the different nature of each individual’s art, the resulting portfolios wouldnecessary be unique. The instructor might need to provide guidance regarding design elements, but students wouldneed to determine the best way of presenting the work and solve the technical problems that result, even though thetoolset used for creating the online portfolios might be the same for all students. With the project for the history course,students would be challenged to solve problems that use technology the way historians do (e.g. for data collection,analysis and display, text analysis and so forth) and to implement how their presentation relates to the content of theirreport and best communicates the concepts that they are trying to share. Teacher educators can support the implementation of PBL by encouraging teachers in the field to rememberthe eventual pay-off for the added expenditure of time and effort. Moreover, a reiteration of the research resultsregarding the successes of PBL can provide further encouragement – numerous reports of and case studies areavailable online via the Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Research. And, any efforts that teacher educatorscan make toward facilitating cross-disciplinary communication and collaboration can only improve the likelihoodthe implementation of PBL in public schools. Anecdotally, finding time for such interaction seems to be a primarydifficulty PBL implementation among public school teachers. We remain particularly sensitive to the time constraints that teachers face, and recognize the need for anidentifiable return on the investment of teachers’ time and effort. We recognize the additional communication andcoordination that PBL activities and curricular development would require. But we would suggest that our observationof the overall impact on the quality of learning is quite considerable, and the result is very much worth the additionaleffort. Our ongoing research will continue to collect data regarding the effectiveness of this approach on terms ofcomputing education, and we will continue to publish the results as our work extends and concludes. We hope theadditional data will make even more compelling the benefit of a multidisciplinary PBL approach to learning andthe value of its pursuit in computing education. We would suggest also that further study could indicate with someassuredness the applicability of our work in public education as well as academia, and we anticipate that our futureresearch endeavors will head in that direction.ReferencesACM. (2008). Computer Science Curriculum 2008. http://www.acm.org/education/curricula/ComputerScience2008.pdfBarrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based Learning in Medicine and Beyond: A Brief Overview. In L. Wilkerson & W. Gijselaers (Eds.). Bringing problem-based Learning to Higher Education: Theory and Practice. New Directions For Teaching and Learning Series, No. 68. 3-12. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Ben-David Kolikant, Y., & Ben Ari, M. (2008). Fertile Zones of Cultural Encounter in Computer Science Education. Journal of the Learning Science. 17(1), 1-32.Bonwell, C. & Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Washington DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports.Belland, B. French, B. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Validity and Problem-based Learning Research: A Review of Instruments Used to Assess Intended Learning Outcomes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 59-89.Boud, D. & Feletti, G. (1997). The Challenge of Problem-based Learning (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Collins, A. Brown, J.S. and Holum. A. (1991). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible. American Educator. 12 (6), 6-11, 38-46.
28 FeeDuch, B. Groh, S. & Allen, D. (2001). The Power of Problem-Based Learning: A Practical “How To” for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.Duffy, T. & Jonassen, D. (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Philadelphia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum.Fellows, S. & Ahmet, K. (1999). Inspiring students: Case studies in Motivating the Learner. London: Kogan Page.Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review. 16(3), 235-266.Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving. Educational Technology Design and Development, 48(4) 63-85.Jonassen, D. (2004). Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (2nd). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Jonassen, D. & Hung, W. (2008). All Problems are Not Equal: Implications for Problem-Based Learning. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. 2(2), 6-28.Kay, J. Barg, M. Fekete, A. Greening, T. Hollands, O. Kingston, J. H. & Crawford, K. (2000). Problem-based learning for foundation computer science courses. Computer Science Education. 10(2), 109-128.Kirschner, P. Sweller, J. & Clark, R. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: an Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-based, Experiential, and Inquiry-based Teaching. Educational Psychologist. 41(2), 75-86.Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The Effectiveness of Problem-Based Instruction: A Comparative Study of Instructional Methods and Student Characteristics. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. 1(2), 49-69.Pintrich, P. (1995). Understanding Self-regulated Learning. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 3(10), 3-12.Rhem, J. (1998). Problem-Based Learning: An Introduction. The National Learning and Teaching Forum. 8(1), 2-4.Savery, J. (2006). Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem- based Learning. 1(2), 9-20.Schwartz, P. Mennin, S. and Webb, G. (eds.) (2001). Problem Based-Learning: Case Studies, Experience and Practice. Routledge.Uden, L. & Beaumont, C. (2005). Technology and Problem-based Learning. London: Information Science Publishing.Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A Problem-based Learning Meta-analysis: Differences Across Problem Types, Implementation Types, Disciplines, and Assessment Levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 12-43.Wilson, B. (1995). Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Developing Secondary Mathematics Preservice Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) 31 Developing Secondary Mathematics Preservice Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK): Influencing Positive Growth Jeremy Zelkowski, PhD The University of Alabama Department of Curriculum and Instruction United States, Tuscaloosa, Alabama email@example.com Abstract: This study focused on discovering aspects of a secondary mathematics teacher education program’s effectiveness at developing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in preservice teachers (PSTs) who rarely used technology in their own K-14 mathematics coursework. Using qualitative research techniques over the course of three consecutive semesters before student teaching, this study revealed preconceived beliefs about teaching mathematics with technology could be influenced through advanced mathematical tasks and rigorously focusing on TPACK development. I give voice to PSTs who made great strides and briefly describe two mathematical lesson tasks found to be influential during the study. Keywords: TPACK, preservice, secondary, mathematics, technologyIntroduction Teaching secondary mathematics (SEMA) through advanced technologies is essential in maximizing studentlearning and engagement in the classroom. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM) technologyprinciple states, “Technology is essential in teaching and learning mathematics; it influences the mathematics that istaught and enhances students’ learning” (NCTM, 2000, p.24). However, a modest percentage of traditional high schoolmathematics classrooms today use little or no technology. Research has revealed that students who use technologylearn more mathematics, learn mathematics at deeper levels, engage in the study of mathematics more, have highermathematics achievement, and generally raises student’s mathematical self-efficacy (Kaput, 1992; Waits & Demana,2000; NCES, 2009). However, even with empirical research evidence, some teachers still view technology as a crutchor easy way out for students in the mathematics classroom (Norton, McRobbie, & Cooper 2000; Pierce & Ball, 2009).We live in a technologically driven world where technology makes us more efficient at what we do, reduces the timeneeded for menial tasks, and advances our understanding of the world around us. All teachers of mathematics mustbe cognitively aware of technology benefits and give more students the opportunity to succeed in a subject generallypermissible to say publicly you hate or dislike, are not good at, or is boring. Technology opens the mathematical doorsfor more students, but we still have a long way to go in making mathematics accessible to all students. Over the course of the last 20 years, some SEMA preservice teachers (PSTs) have graduated from highschools with little use of technology during their own mathematics coursework while being some of the highermathematics achievers in their high schools. Because of this, the development of preconceived beliefs about teachingand learning mathematics without technology can form—beliefs that technology is not necessarily essential in theteaching and learning of mathematics (Leatham 2007; McKinney & Frazier 2008; Quinn 1998). In a very traditionaland low achieving region of the country, preparing a new generation of SEMA PSTs to be advocates of change in howwe teach mathematics is a daunting task. Even more daunting is challenging the beliefs of PSTs and forming viewsthat teaching mathematics without technology is an inequitable classroom setup for all students.The Study This paper presents a subset of the findings for a three-semester study of a SEMA teacher education program(TEP). I focus on changed beliefs and Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) development
32 Zelkowskiof PSTs. Using the TPACK framework, the SEMA TEP utilizes the first mathematics education course to advancePSTs technology knowledge (TK) specifically, while they are concurrently enrolled in at least two content coursesdeveloping their content knowledge (CK). The PSTs either completed a general pedagogy course or were concurrentlyenrolled which encompasses early development of pedagogical knowledge (PK). This approach uses the TPACKtheoretical framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; AMTE, 2009), that without developingfoundational TK, CK, and PK, it would be difficult to begin an interaction of TK, CK, and PK. Hence, PSTs would notbe able to develop the specialized knowledge of TPACK. The TEP focuses on TPACK development (AMTE, 2006;Niess, 2006; Niess et al, 2008), serving as the setting to explore this research question: Can preconceived beliefs about teaching mathematics without technology be impacted through extended use of technology (over three semesters) and higher cognitive mathematical tasks during a preservice teacher education program focused on TPACK development?This study used a qualitative design strategy of purposeful sampling. Patton (2002) defines purposeful sampling as: Cases for study (e.g. people, organizations, communicates, cultures, events, critical instances) are selected because they are informative rich and illuminative, that is, they offer useful manifestations of the phenomenon of interest; sampling, then, is aimed at insight about the phenomenon, not empirical generalization from a sample to a population. (p.40)TPACK development was longitudinally tracked using the five-stage developmental model for an innovation-decisionprocess (Niess et al, 2009; Niess, Sadri, & Lee, 2007; Rogers, 1995). The five stages are: 1. Recognizing (knowledge-level-1) where teachers are able to use the technology and recognize the alignment of the technology with mathematics content, yet are not willing to integrate the technology in teaching mathematics in their classrooms. 2. Accepting (persuasion-level-2) where teachers may attempt to engage their students in learning mathematics with an appropriate technology as part of the process of determining if they have a favorable or unfavorable disposition toward incorporating the technology in their classrooms. 3. Adapting (decision-level-3) where teachers engage their students in activities in teaching and learning mathematics with an appropriate technology. 4. Exploring (implementation-level-4) where teachers actively integrate teaching and learning of mathematics with an appropriate technology. 5. Advancing (confirmation-level-5) where teachers evaluate the results of the decision to integrate teaching and learning mathematics with an appropriate technology. Data was collected during three consecutive semesters (fall-spring-fall) at a large southeastern researchuniversity through observations, interviews, and documents (class assignments) in three mathematics educationcourses. Data was coded at 20 different points in time (see figure 1). The researcher used qualitative analysis strategiesduring data coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994). First, each PST was assumed special and unique. Data was coded oneach individual independently. Second, the researcher was immersed in the details of the data to discover patterns,themes, and interrelationships through analytical principles. The conceptual framework used for data coding involvedscanning documents for language that identified with one of the five stages of development. Unclear decisions werecoded conservatively or remained unchanged from the previously coded stage. Interviews at the end of the first twocourses were used to recode, check, and clarify interpretations of data. Observations of teaching were coded based onmy perceived effectiveness of the mathematics lessons taught. The researcher, with 10+ years of mathematics teaching experience using technology, had direct contactwith all ten cases for the study duration. Each PST was of traditional age (19-22) and all graduated with certificationafter student teaching in the spring term following data collection. On the first day of the fall technology course, PSTswere asked to write extensively (45 minutes) about their beliefs, knowledge, and expectations regarding teachingmathematics and more specifically, regarding technology. This initial writing took place before the students had readthe technology course syllabus or completed any assignments. This initial writing sample allowed for the unbiasedbaseline assessment of each PST. Written reflections on articles from Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School(MTMS) and Mathematics Teacher (MT) were assigned pertaining to course content. At the conclusion of the firsttwo courses, I interviewed each PST to triangulate authenticity of my coding, clarify unclear writings or class notes,increase the coding trustworthiness, and give PSTs a forum to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each courseto examine my own teaching effectiveness. In the final fall semester of data collection, PSTs taught lessons that wereobserved and assessed. One lesson was required to incorporate technology to meet quality-teaching standards. Toprotect the identities of the PSTs, pseudonyms have been chosen to mask gender and names.
Developing Secondary Mathematics Preservice Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) 33Technology Course Curriculum Course Methods/Clinicals1. Baseline writing task 7. Cognitive task level exam 14. Brahier reflection2. NCTM principles reflection 8. Lesson plan 1 15. Teaching observation 13. MTMS reflection paper 9. MTMS reflection paper 16. Motivation writing4. MT reflection paper 10. Lesson plan 2 17. Teaching observation 25. End of course growth meeting 11. MT reflection paper 18. Teaching observation 36. Final—Technology lesson 12. End of course growth 19. Teaching video reflectionplan meeting 13. Final—Lesson plan 3 20. Final—Unit PlanFigure 1. Course components analyzed for tracking TPACK development with the five-stage model.Findings The initial fall technology course, PSTs were given five prompts to write about their experiences as a studentin mathematics classrooms. Two of the prompts dealt with their knowledge and ability to use technology. One promptasked, “Describe your use of technology in middle school, high school, and college mathematics classes.” The secondprompt asked, “Describe your comfort level at using technology yourself when you are studying mathematics.” Onlytwo of the students said they used technology more than just on occasion in high school. Paul and Elizabeth saidrespectively, “I used technology extensively, but skills are important just the same” and “I used technology regularlyin high school math, but less in my calculus courses in college.” Both Paul and Elizabeth had passed the AdvancedPlacement (AP) calculus exam in high school. They both had high mathematical abilities (ACTm≥32) that may beattributed to use of advanced technology in their high school AP calculus class. They both implied their use of the TI-89 in calculus provided opportunities to focus deeply on mathematical concepts. The initial classification for Paul andElizabeth was Adapting (level-3). They proceeded to the Exploring (level-4) stage rather easily during lesson planningin course two and continued through observations of teaching. Of the other eight PSTs, seven said they used technology little or never at the onset of data collection. Theremaining PST (Missy) said, “Technology is essential to learn and do well in mathematics. It can be essential forcertain topics but isn’t essential regularly.” Missy was an interesting, yet clearly a contradicting case in this study,but not because of the positive aspects learned about her. Missy seemed to take the devil’s advocate approach duringthe program’s coursework. Her discussions during class generally provided a nice forum to discuss pros and cons ofusing technology to teach mathematics. However, her writing, lesson planning, and clinical experiences generallywere contradicting. The only consistent finding for Missy in three semesters was, “I definitely think more studentsengage in a technology classroom.” Missy was classified as Accepting initially, but she oscillated between Recognizingand Accepting because her language was never consistent. The seven PSTs who used technology seldom in theirmathematics studies provide rich findings for the research question. Each was classified initially at level-1, Recognizing(see figure 2 for a visual depiction).Figure 2. Visual depiction of PSTs’ longitudinal TPACK stage development.
34 ZelkowskiTom and Amy: Lack of TPACK Progress Of the [seven] least experienced PSTs using technology, five showed progress in their TPACK developmentand willingness to use technology in creating lessons, as well as during their clinical teaching experiences. The twoPSTs, Tom and Amy, who showed little TPACK progress, shared some telling characteristics. They both came fromrural high schools and seldom used graphing calculators before their first mathematics education course. Both studentsperceived themselves as very good mathematics students upon high school graduation. Tom said, “My teacher neverused any technology but an overhead projector.” Later in the program during an end of course interview, Tom said, “Myteachers told me I was one of the best math students they had, but it wasn’t until Dr. Smith’s geometry class [in college]that I realized I didn’t know mathematics as well as I thought.” Tom seemed to begin making progress towards level-2,Accepting, though he never really moved towards accepting technology as a regular part of the mathematics classroom.Tom’s major clinical experience during methods was with a teacher who sat behind the overhead projector the wholeclass and passed out worksheets regularly. Tom received no technology mentoring during his clinical experiences,ending at level-1. Amy continuously believed she knew mathematics very well and did so without using technology herself inhigh school or college. Amy said initially, “I don’t see the benefit of technology improving math because students useit too much as a crutch.” Later in the program on a written reflection assignment, Amy said, “If I use it [technology], itwill be because I have to. I learned math without it.” Until Amy’s mathematical weaknesses were exposed, she neverwavered in her beliefs that you can teach mathematics to all students without using any technology. During one classdiscussion, Amy insisted the square root of nine was positive or negative three. Amy was questioned to explain why orhow the square root of nine could be two different values. Amy said, “Any time you take the square root of a number,the answer is always plus or minus.” Amy was never able to communicate her understanding that she really meant,when solving an equation requiring taking the square root results in considering positive and negative possibilities.A few weeks later, Amy wrote, “Technology has made me smarter, but I still think you can teach math with littleuse of it.” Based on Amy’s writings being fairly inconsistent in three semesters, her classification ended at level-1,Recognizing. In the end, Tom and Amy showed little to no signs of positively viewing or effectively using technology intheir future teaching. They both seemed uneasy when required to use technology and their cooperating mentor teacherduring their methods course did not use technology in their own classroom. The lack of teacher/mentor technologysupport with Tom and Amy is similar to Margerum-Leys and Marx (2002) findings.Mike, Tim, Rachel, Robert, and Jennifer: Positive TPACK progress Five cases in this research revealed changes in preconceived beliefs and positive TPACK development throughstudying SEMA topics deeply using advanced technology over three semesters. Each PST demonstrated professionalgrowth in their ability to recognize, accept, adapt, and/or implement change in teaching views/practices during theircoursework before student teaching. Each PST indicated at some point on written assignments, during interviews, orwhen teaching a lesson, that technology can improve the teaching and learning of mathematics.Mike Of these five PSTs, Mike’s progress was categorized as slightly positive (moving from level-1 to level-2).Mike came into the first course with little to no ability in using a graphing calculator for more than computation orbutton pushing to graph functions. Mike said initially, “I rarely used technology and know little.” However, at theconclusion interview of the technology course, Mike commented, “I learned a lot [of math] myself using technology inthis class. I hope to use it more.” At the end of the second course (curriculum), Mike concluded, “I think I understandwhy my teachers didn’t let us use [graphing] calculators; it’s hard for poor students to afford one. It’s a fairnessissue I think.” Mike’s progress to see how technology can improve mathematical understanding progressed, but Mikebelieved he was going to return to the rural high school he graduated from to be a mathematics teacher. He worriedhe would not have access to graphing calculators or other technologies to use at his former high school. Mike said,“I know having technology to use in my first teaching position will help my students learn from me, but I don’t thinkmy high school has a classroom set of graphing calculators.” In the end, Mike most likely would Accept (level-2) thatteaching with technologies would help improve students’ learning and engagement, but he suspected he would nothave full access to such technologies.
Developing Secondary Mathematics Preservice Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) 35Tim Tim showed good progress in learning and using technology to teach mathematics (level-1 to level-3). Timinitially said, “I never used a graphing calculator until college math.” Tim had almost straight A’s during collegecoursework up to beginning the final two years of the TEP. My initial assessment of Tim was that he had high abilityin computational mathematics, but could not explain his answers to problems very well. At the conclusion of thetechnology course during the interview, Tim said, “I’m not sure I will use it as frequently as I should, but I understandit is important.” I ask Tim to elaborate on why he felt it was important. He said, “I clearly see that technology helpsstudents understand topics better. I think more students can learn math with technology.” Tim showed the greatestprogress during the curriculum course. In the course, one course objective is to examine assessment items using themathematical cognitive task framework (see Stein, Smith, Henningsen, and Silver, 2000). Tim began to understandthat it is hard to assess student learning at higher cognitive levels without writing good assessment questions. Hebegan to shift from seeing assessment in the mathematics classroom only as performing procedural type questionswith a focus more on computation to a view that assessments are to give students and teachers feedback. Tim wrote,“I really hope I get the chance to learn more in methods. It takes a lot of time to write questions.” During the end ofcurriculum course interview, I asked Tim what he meant by that written statement. He said, “It takes a long time towrite good questions when students have graphing calculators to use on tests. I don’t know if I will have that muchtime as a first year teacher. So, that was why I hoped we would do more of that in methods.” Tim showed progress inrealizing that handhelds are not just for getting answers, but that handhelds in the classroom can be used for deepeningunderstanding and assessing student understanding. Tim said, “The radical function lesson really made me realizethere is more to solving equations than getting answers.” While Tim’s statements at the end of the second coursemay have been classified higher, his final project lesson plan did not indicate level-3 yet. During the final semester,Tim taught a good lesson (the one required) during his clinical experiences in the methods course. Thus, Tim’s finalclassification was level-3, Adapting.Rachel Rachel was one of the top students entering the sequence of three mathematics education courses and at theconclusion of the courses. Rachel initially said, “I know technology is important, but I only used it in my upper levelmath [courses] some.” Rachel was very quick to learn new mathematics with technology. My initial classificationof her in the technology course was she would do whatever it takes to earn an A. Grades were her motivation early,rather than learning about how to teach mathematics. Because of these findings, her initial classification was level-1rather than level-2. However, I saw her view change dramatically as she began to focus on assignment objectives andteaching for understanding. During the interview at the conclusion of the technology course, Rachel said, “I hopethe school I get my first job at least has Excel for my students to use. I learned so much about exponential functionsusing Excel.” Rachel continued to want to learn about how to be the best teacher possible. She visited office hoursregularly for feedback well in advance of assignments being due. When she had lessons observed and evaluated thatshe taught in a clinical setting, she always wanted to know what she should focus on for next time. At the end of thethird semester, Rachel said, “If my school [first year job] can’t provide me or my students with some [technology],I worry I will not be able to engage all my students.” While Rachel was already a strong mathematics student, shereally began to understand what teaching was all about and that new teachers need to be advocates of change. Rachelcommented, “Schools really need to spend more money on technology to get more students engaged in studying math,the Calculus in Motion lesson really was an eye-opening experience to me.” During Rachel’s final observed lessonshe taught, Rachel used an Algebra in Motion file to teach a concept. She had already taught her required technologylesson, so her willingness to search and use a technology tool we did not use extensively in the technology coursedemonstrated her moving to level-4, Exploring.Robert. Robert showed remarkable progress (level-1 to level-4). Initially, his view of technology was that it is usedpurely to compute and save time for routine work. His ability entering the technology course was minimal. He said,“I only used a graphing calculator a few times in high school…I think precalculus.” My initial assessment of Robertwas confirmed late in the technology course during a presentation. While Robert was presenting in the technologyclass, he said, “I’m really not sure I am comfortable using technology at the level I should be.” However, it was two
36 Zelkowskiweeks later when Robert wrote a reflection about his own mathematical understanding of the derivative from calculus.He wrote, “If my calculus professor used Calculus in Motion, I’d understand [calculus] better.” At the end of thetechnology course during the interview, I asked Robert, “What did you mean when you said your calculus professorshould have used calculus in motion?” Robert replied, “Calculus in motion let’s you see how the derivative comesfrom the slope formula. It came to life in motion and I understood the concept now.” Robert was referring to a lessonwhen I used Geometer’s Sketchpad and the Calculus in Motion file that defines the derivative (see Weeks, 2009). Thegreatest change in Robert came when I saw him teach during the third semester of coursework. He taught a middleschool mathematics lesson using the graphing calculator. Of every technology lesson I observed in a middle or highgrades classroom that semester, it was the most engaging and mathematically sound lesson. The students reacted wellto the lesson. The students were actively engaged, were on task the entire class, and it was the students’ first time usinga graphing calculator. When I met with Robert after the lesson to go over the positives and negatives of the lesson, hesaid, “I think we should be using technology more in middle grades so students in high school don’t have to learn thebasics.” I would have never expected a statement like that a year earlier from Robert during the technology course. Hereally began to see how technology could be a useful tool to improve teaching and learning in mathematics classrooms.Jennifer. Jennifer was the most outstanding case (level-1 to level-4). Initially in the technology course, Jennifer saidshe had used technology only a little. However, by the end of the three courses, Jennifer was using technology allthe time. Jennifer wrote, “Initially I thought technology was the easy way out for lazy students, but I quickly realizedduring the radical equation and calculus in motion lessons that visual learners learn more with technology.” At theend of semester interview, I ask Jennifer about that statement. I asked, “What did you mean that visual learners learnmore with technology?” She replied, “Some students just don’t get math without seeing graphs in motion. The TI-Nspire and calculus in motion stuff made me realize how much I still have to learn about math…you see…I’m a visuallearner and know that technology has helped me.” I classified Jennifer as the PST who made the most progress indeveloping TPACK. She was always looking for a way to make mathematics engaging during her clinical experiences.Before each lesson was taught, she would ask about technology suggestions. Near the end of the final semester beforestudent teaching, she said during the interview, “Nspire is great and I will be looking for opportunities to learn it.” Shewent so far as to register for a summer workshop for learning to incorporate the TI-Nspire handheld into the algebraand geometry classroom. Jennifer showed remarkable progress in her ability and willingness to incorporate varioustechnologies into teaching mathematics many times demonstrating level-4.Two High Level Mathematical Tasks During the course of this study, two mathematics lessons seemed to be the most heavily weighted in PSTs’opinions in reshaping their beliefs and TPACK development. One lesson focused on reasoning and sense making whensolving equations containing radical functions (see Zelkowski, accepted). The second lesson focused on conceptuallyunderstanding the definition of the derivative. Each of these lessons was referred to most frequently during writtenassignments or post-course interviews as influencing their beliefs and/or ability to use technology. While there werea number of other meaningful comments during this study, these two lessons seemed most influential in TPACKdevelopment and changed views on teaching mathematics with technology. The radical function lesson targets a mathematical topic traditionally absent and void of technology. Solvingsquare root or cube root equations, generally consists of only procedures, algorithms, and a focus on getting answers.The radical lesson uses the concept of teaching mathematics through problem solving. That is, Teaching mathematics through problem solving begins by identifying the important mathematics that the students are to learn. The teacher then chooses a problem for which the students’ thinking about, and work on, that problem are likely to connect with the important mathematics. The teacher poses the problem to the class, making sure the students have sufficient understanding of the task but without telling them how to solve it. Then students explore the problem, trying to make sense of it, and eventually generate one or more solutions. (Kahan & Wyberg, 2003, p.15) The lesson is centered around this problem: Determine an equation containing a single radical function,that when solved algebraically, will yield one real solution and two extraneous solutions. There is no prescribed
Developing Secondary Mathematics Preservice Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) 37path to a solution and students must begin to make sense of extraneous solutions before they can begin to tackle thisproblem. The lesson uses the capabilities of the TI-Nspire CAS to make dynamic mathematical connections betweenalgebraic and graphical representations of equations containing radical functions. In the end, I attribute this lesson tobeing the most influential lesson at shifting beliefs and TPACK development. Each PST made some kind of commentconcerning this lesson during this study’s data collection. The second lesson focuses on understanding the definition of the derivative from calculus. PSTs had allcompleted differential calculus. Yet, many PSTs could not give a clear written explanation of the derivative other thanhow to compute a derivative algebraically using algorithms. This lesson takes out the computations associated with thederivative and focuses on the concept and applications of the derivative. Calculus in Motion, by Audrey Weeks, is acompilation of Geometer’s Sketchpad (GSP) files to aid in the teaching and learning of calculus concepts. Ms. Weeksis a retired high school AP calculus teacher who develops GSP files for deepening the conceptual understanding oftopics in high school mathematics. She also produces a package called Algebra in Motion for teaching precalculustopics. I used files in these packages during the technology course. The dynamic lesson uses the GSP file defining thedefinition of the derivative. Within this lesson, the concept of slope develops and ultimately defines the derivative—thecentral concept being rate of change. Throughout this lesson, students are asked to explain their understanding of thisconcept. Once they have a firm foundation, students must then apply the concept to application situations. In the end,I attribute this lesson as being second most effective at shifting beliefs and TPACK development.Limitations There are limitations worth noting in this research. First, I was the researcher, the professor for all threesemesters, and the data collector. This presents the possibility of PSTs’ writings, lesson planning, and teaching withtechnology to satisfy their pro-technology professor. I made all attempts to be objective during coding to removepersonal biases as much as possible. Second, the study should not be considered generalizable to other populations,but readers should consider the practitioner aspects within their own programs. Third, PSTs may walk-the-walk duringtheir TEP for grades, but do they talk-the-talk when they begin their first teaching job by using technology as they didin the TEP? High stakes testing pressures and technology access may prevent new teachers from continuing their useof technology—falling back on the stages of development would be likely. Fourth, the cooperating/mentor teachersshared differing views on the use of technology in their classrooms and could be a confounding factor in this study.Last, there were additional PSTs in the program who did not consent for their work to be part of this study. Their datamay have shifted the perceived effectiveness differently.Conclusions Changing preconceived beliefs in PSTs is a daunting task (Leatham, 2007), especially with SEMA PSTs sincethey are content specialists who have led the way during their own study of mathematics in high school—sometimeswith little use of technology. They perceive themselves as strong or the top students of mathematics. Otherwise,they would not be majoring in mathematics and studying to become SEMA teachers. I took the approach to changepreconceived beliefs that technology is not necessarily essential in teaching mathematics by exposing PSTs’ ownmathematical weaknesses and deepening their understanding of SEMA content using research-based practices andpedagogy (AMTE, 2006; Kaput, 1992; Niess et al, 2008; Waits & Demana, 2000). I pose challenging mathematicaltasks, appropriate for grades 7-12 mathematics classrooms, in a context where I know PSTs must deeply examinethe content through technologies to satisfactorily complete course objectives and assignments. Choosing topics anddesigning effective lessons has been difficult, but this study has revealed two mathematics lessons using advancedtechnologies as influential in shifting some PSTs’ beliefs and their TPACK development. This study revealed that technology continues to be a debatable topic. PSTs in this study showed positive progresswhile a few others did not. Even PSTs who demonstrated changed beliefs and increased TPACK development realizedthey might not have the technology available to them during their initial years of teaching—increasing the risk ofregressing their TPACK. This is a major concern. Therefore, the only real conclusion I can assert is that with threesemesters of exposure to using advanced technology, some PSTs can have their beliefs change and develop TPACK ina technology infused secondary mathematics teacher education program.
38 ZelkowskiReferencesAssociation of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE). (2006). Preparing teachers to use technology to enhance the learning of mathematics. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.amte.net/. (2009). Mathematics TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge) framework. Retrieved October 13, 2009 at http://www.amte.net/sites/all/themes/amte/ resources/MathTPACKFramework.pdfKahan, J.A. & Wyberg, T.R. (2003). Mathematics as Sense Making. In H. Schoen & R. Charles (Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Grades 6-12 (pp.15-25). Reston, VA: NCTM.Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp.515-556). New York, NY: Macmillan.Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook oftechnological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). New York: Routledge.Leatham, K.R. (2007). Pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ beliefs about the nature of technology in the classroom. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. 7(2/3), 183-207.Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A study of student teacher/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427-462.McKinney, S. & Frazier, W. (2008). Embracing the principles and standards for school mathematics: An inquiry into the pedagogical and instructional practices of mathematics teachers in high-poverty middle schools. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas. 81(5), 201-210.Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2009). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2009 (NCES 2010–451). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA. Author.Niess, M. L. (2006). Guest Editorial: Preparing teachers to teach mathematics with technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2). Available at: http://www.citejournal.org/vol6/iss2/mathematics/article1.cfmNiess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Driskell, S. O., Kosheleva, O., Pugalee, D., and Weinhold, M. W. (2008). In F. Arbaugh & P. M. Taylor (Eds.), Inquiry into mathematics teacher education (pp. 143-156). San Diego, CA: AMTE.Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper S. R., Johnston, C., Browning, C., Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4-24.Niess, M. L., Sadri, P., & Lee, K. (2007, April). Dynamic spreadsheets as learning technology tools: Developing teachers’ technology pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.Norton, S., McRobbie, C.J., & Cooper, T.J. (2000). Exploring secondary math teachers’ reasons for not using computers in their teaching: Five case studies. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 33(1), 87-109.Quinn, R.J. (1998). Technology: PSTs’ beliefs and the influence…. Clearing House. 71(6), 375-377.Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299-317.Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York, Free Press.Stein, M.K., Smith, M.S., Henningsen, M.A., & Silver, E.A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Weeks, A. (2009). Calculus in Motion: Definition of a Derivative [Geometer’s Sketchpad file]. Burbank, CA.Waits, B. & Demana, F. (2000). Calculators in mathematics teaching and learning: Past, present, and future. In M. Burke & F. Curcio (Eds.), Learning mathematics for a new century (pp.51-66). Reston, VA: NCTM.Zelkowski, J. (accepted). Making sense of extraneous solutions. Mathematics Teacher.
Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Observation Instrument 39 Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Observation InstrumentMark Hofer Neal Grandgenett Judi Harris Kathy SwanSchool of Education Teacher Education Department School of Education College of EducationCollege of William & Mary University of Nebraska - Omaha College of William & Mary University of KentuckyWilliamsburg, VA USA Omaha, NE USA Williamsburg, VA USA Lexington, KY USAmark.firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Abstract: Teachers’ knowledge for technology integration – conceptualized as technological pedagogical content knowledge, or TPACK (Mishra & Koehler 2006) – is difficult to discern, much less assess. Given the complexity, situatedness and interdependence of the types of knowledge represented by the TPACK construct, well-triangulated ways to assess demonstrated technology integration knowledge are needed. In 2009, three of the authors created and tested a rubric that was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the TPACK evident in teachers’ written lesson plans (Harris, Grandgenett & Hofer 2010). We have now also developed a TPACK-based observation rubric that testing has shown to be robust. Seven TPACK experts confirmed the rubric’s construct and face validity. The instrument’s interrater reliability coefficient (.802) was computed using both Intraclass Correlation and a percent score agreement (90.8%) procedure. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) was .914. Test-retest reliability (score agreement) was 93.9%. The rubric is available online at http://activitytypes.wm.edu/Assessments.Assessing Teachers’ TPACK The specific nature of teachers’ knowledge is notoriously difficult to discern, much less assess, withaccuracy (Shulman 1986). It is situated, socially constructed, and highly complex (Shulman 1987; Putnam & Borko2000). Yet if we choose to use a construct such as TPACK (Mishra & Koehler 2006) to conceptualize teachers’technology integration knowledge, we need valid and reliable strategies and instruments to assess that knowledge inthe many forms in which it appears. Recently, researchers have begun to use TPACK as a framework to explore multiple ways to understand andassess teachers’ knowledge for technology integration. Data from self-reports (e.g. survey responses), interviews, andclassroom observations, along with documents (e.g., preservice teachers’ journal entries), and other artifacts (e.g.,samples of K-12 students’ work) have been analyzed – often alone, but increasingly in combination – in researchers’attempts to describe and appraise teachers’ TPACK. Many recent TPACK assessments are based primarily upon surveydata, whether focused on teachers’ technology proficiency (e.g., Ward & Overall 2010), self-efficacy (e.g., Lee & Tsai2010), technology adoption concerns and/or stages (e.g., Williams, Foulger & Wetzel 2010), perceptions of necessaryknowledge (e.g., de Ovierira & Romero 2010; Robertshaw & Gillam 2010), or evaluations of TPACK-based learningexperiences (e.g., Zhou, Zhang, Li & Zhao 2010). Several have been based upon content analyses of teachers’ writtenreflections, such as assigned journal entries (e.g., Hechter & Phyfe 2010) and responses to instructional dilemmas(e.g., Graham, Burgoyne & Borup 2010). Increasingly, multiple-method assessments of teachers’ technology integration knowledge have beenattempted in an effort to uncover and understand more of the complexity inherent in the interdependence andsituatedness of the TPACK construct. Studies of experienced teachers’ TPACK by Niess & Gillow-Wiles (2010) andMueller (2010), for example, used individual interviews, observations of teaching, and a variety of self-report andself-assessment surveys, along with samples of student work (Mueller) and teachers’ portfolios and online discussions(Niess & Gillow-Wiles) to help researchers to better understand the multiple dimensions of participating teachers’curriculum-based technology integration knowledge. Stoilescu and McDougall’s (2010) ethnographic study ofmathematics teachers’ technology integration incorporated similar data types and sources, but in a more immersiveand contextually-based way typical of modern anthropological research. Jaipal and Figg’s (2010) multiple case studyof two groups of preservice teachers triangulated data sources and types extensively, combining multiple individual
40 Hofer, Grandgenett, Harris, and Swaninterviews with each participant, multiple instructional observations and debriefings, responses to both structuredand open-ended survey items, and analysis of lesson plans to determine the “characteristics of teacher knowledge forplanning and implementing technologically-enhanced…instruction” (p. 3868).TPACK Instruments A perennial challenge posed by such rich, well-triangulated ways to assess teachers’ knowledge is theirdependence upon researchers’ subjective interpretations of multifaceted data types. This challenge can be addressed,in part, with the use of individually validated instruments to generate some (or all) of the data considered duringknowledge assessment. Unfortunately, published TPACK-based assessment instruments that have been tested forvalidity and reliability are still small in number and variety. Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler, Shin, & Mishra(2009) and Archambault & Crippen (2009) developed self-report instruments with multiple items keyed to each ofthe seven types of knowledge represented in the TPACK construct: technological (T), pedagogical (P), content (C),technological pedagogical (TP), technological content (TC), pedagogical content (PC), and technological pedagogicalcontent knowledge (TPACK). Schmidt et al.’s survey was designed for repeated use by preservice teachers as theyprogress through their teacher education programs. It was also found to be reliable and valid for use at the beginningand end of shorter-duration summer courses in technology integration. Archambault and Crippen’s survey instrument,designed to be used by inservice instructors, was found to be reliable and valid with a nationally representative sampleof approximately 600 K-12 online teachers. The challenges inherent in assessing teachers’ knowledge accurately via self-reports—in particular, that ofinexperienced teachers—are well-documented. Unfortunately, measured gains in teachers’ self-assessed knowledgeover time reflect their increased confidence regarding a particular professional development topic more than their actualincreased knowledge in practice (Lawless & Pellegrino 2007; Schrader & Lawless 2004). Self-report data shouldtherefore be triangulated carefully with external assessments of teachers’ TPACK knowledge. Since no instrumenthad been developed and published by mid-2009 (to our knowledge) that supported this type of performance-basedevaluation of TPACK, three of the authors decided to create and test a rubric that can be used to assess the TPACKevident in teachers’ written lesson plans (Harris, Grandgenett & Hofer 2010). Five TPACK experts confirmed theinstrument’s construct and face validity prior to testing. The instrument’s interrater reliability was examined using bothIntraclass Correlation (.857) and a percent score agreement procedure (84.1%). Internal consistency (using Cronbach’sAlpha) was .911. Test-retest reliability (percent score agreement) was 87.0%. Encouraged by the success of the lesson plan instrument testing, we planned the development and testingof a TPACK-based instrument that can be used to assess observed evidence of TPACK during classroom instruction.Though several validated observation instruments that focus upon technology integration have been shared with theeducational technology community (e.g., Northwest Educational Technology Consortium 2004; Zambo, Wetzel,Buss & Padget 2003), none (to our knowledge) are TPACK-based. In fact, most emphasize teachers’ observabletechnological, pedagogical, and technological pedagogical knowledge, ignoring or de-emphasizing demonstratedcontent/curriculum, technological content, contextual, and/or technological pedagogical content knowledge.Instrument TestingWe drafted an observation instrument based on our Technology Integration Assessment Rubric (Harris, Grandgenett& Hofer 2010), then two authors pilot-tested it in four middle school and high school classrooms. Following each useof the rubric, the researchers conferred and made revisions to clarify items’ wording and scoring. After revising theinstrument several times, we sought the assistance of seven TPACK researchers from different universities to providefeedback regarding its construct and face validity. The reviewers examined the rubric, then provided focused writtencomments addressing seven free-response questions about the instrument. We revised some of the rubric’s items, alongwith several aspects of its structure, according to the experts’ suggestions.We then asked 11 experienced technology-using teachers and district-based teacher educators (described in Table 1below) in two different geographic regions of the United States to each test the reliability of the instrument by using
Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Observation Instrument 41it to assess six preservice and six inservice teachers’ videorecorded lessons. The lessons were taught in elementary,middle and high school classrooms in a variety of content areas, including mathematics, language arts, science,and social studies. They were taught as part of either student teaching for preservice teachers or a professionaldevelopment initiative for practicing mathematics and science teachers. The two groups of educators (“scorers”) metat the researchers’ two universities during either July or August of 2010 for a three-hour training and scoring practicesession to learn to use the rubric in preparation for the actual scoring of each of the 12 videotaped lessons. Years Ed Tech PD Ed Tech Years Grade Levels Teaching Hours: Scorer Content Specialty Expertise Taught Taught w/ Digital Previous 5 Self-Assess. Techs. Years A 8 Science, Math 7-8 6 400 Advanced B 20 Math, Statistics 9-12, University 10 450 Advanced C 10 Elementary, Science 5-6 6 300 Advanced Elementary, Educational D 5 6, K-6 Tech. 5 500 Advanced Technology E 6 Elementary K, 3, 5, 6 5 200 Advanced F 4 Elementary reading 2 4 50 Intermediate Special Education, G 12 6-11 8 200 Advanced Educational Technology Language Arts, Social H 14 K-6, 8 12 100 Intermediate Studies, Library Science Elementary, Educational I 30 K-12, University 20 300 Expert Technology English, Educational J 22 6-10, University 18 150 Advanced Technology K-2, 6-8, K 10 Math, Gifted Education 8 52 Advanced UniversityTable 1: Study participants working at pseudononymous Midwestern and Southeastern (shaded) Universities.After the scorers used the rubric to assess each of the 12 videotaped lessons independently, they answered the sameseven free-response questions about their experiences with and thoughts about the rubric to which the experts hadresponded earlier. We asked each educator to re-score three of the lesson recordings from a “check set” (Novak,Herman & Gearhart 1996) of the classroom videos — three recordings that the researchers had agreed representedcomparatively strong, average, and weak demonstrated TPACK — via email one month after scoring them for the firsttime. We used these data to calculate the instrument’s test-retest reliability.Validity Analysis The validity of the instrument was examined using two strategies that are recommended for rubric validation(cf. Arter & McTighe 2001; Moskal & Leydens 2000). Construct validity reflects how well an instrument measures aparticular construct of interest, which in this study was TPACK as represented in observable teaching. As explainedabove, seven expert reviewers examined the rubric’s construct validity. Face validity, or whether an instrument appearsto informed observers to measure what it is supposed to measure, was examined using feedback from the teacherswho scored the set of 12 videorecorded lessons–specifically, responses to the seven open-ended questions to whichthe expert reviewers also responded. Construct validity was a particularly important aspect of validity to examine, since the rubric instrument wasdeveloped with TPACK as a central and unifying construct. The seven experts consulted had strong qualificationsfor this review process, which included extensive experience with the TPACK framework as both researchers andteacher educators. These researchers were asked to gauge how well technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK),technological content knowledge (TCK) and TPACK were represented in the rubric, how well technology integration
42 Hofer, Grandgenett, Harris, and Swanknowledge might be ascertained overall when using the rubric to evaluate an instructional episode, and what changesmight be made to the rubric to help it to better reflect evidence of TPACK in observed instruction.The experts provided a broad range of comments and suggestions in their reviews. Overall, they received the instrumentquite positively. We considered all of their feedback carefully, sifting through it to identify ideas relevant to the specificTPACK-based intent and focus of our work. Many of the ideas offered were outside the scope of the instrument. Forexample, two reviewers suggested including a measure of the “student-centeredness” of the instruction observed, andtwo others suggested the addition of an item estimating student engagement. While these ideas are valid for assessinginstruction in general, we realized that including them in this particular rubric would divert from our intent to developan instrument measuring TPACK-based technology integration, irrespective of pedagogical approach observed. Basedupon other feedback from the expert reviewers, we revised some of the rubric’s text to clarify intent and/or to make itmore uniform. For example, rather than using “learning activities” and “instructional strategies” interchangeably, weopted to use the latter throughout the rubric for consistency.Four of the reviewers expressed concern that the rubric draft did not incorporate items addressing the instructionaleffectiveness and technical success in the enacted (rather than intended) use of technology during instruction. Theseconcerns were particularly helpful for us to consider, since the version of the rubric that was reviewed was comprisedof four rows that provided assessments of TCK, TPK, and two forms of TPACK related primarily to the intended useof technology in the lesson. The reviewers suggested that even a well-selected technology may not be used effectivelyby the teacher in the classroom setting, representing one aspect of the teacher’s technological pedagogical knowledge(TPK). To help to address this concern, we added a fifth row to the rubric that addresses “Instructional Use,” whichwe describe as “using technologies effectively for instruction.” Similarly, the reviewers suggested that we add anassessment of teachers’ proficiency in operating the technology used during the observed lesson. To include thisaspect of teachers’ demonstrated technological knowledge (TK), we added a sixth row entitled “Technology Logistics,”which we describe as “operating technologies effectively.” The rubric’s face validity was determined by reviewing the scorers’ feedback on both the process of using therubric and its perceived utility. All of the scorers’ written comments supported the instrument’s ability to help teachereducators to assess the quality of TPACK-based technology integration as demonstrated in observed instruction. Whilethe scorers suggested only one small change of wording in the rubric, several noted challenges encountered whenscoring lessons, and others identified limitations of using videotapes as data sources. The teachers also expressed aconcern about how to differentiate assessments between two of the rows: “Instructional Strategies and Technologies”and “Instructional Use.” In response, we created a scoring guide that will be described below.Reliability Analysis The reliability analyses for the observation rubric were conducted in July and August of 2010 with 11teachers participating: six at Southeastern University and five at Midwestern University. The same rubric was used ateach of the two locations. Teachers/scorers at both locations were chosen purposively, based upon their experience inintegrating use of digital technologies into their teaching and their diverse professional backgrounds in both contentareas and grade levels. Using the data generated, reliability across both locations was calculated using four differentstrategies: 1) interrater reliability, computed using the Intraclass Correlation Coeficient (ICC), 2) interrater reliability,computed using a second percent score agreement procedure, 3) internal consistency within the rubric, computed usingCronbach’s Alpha, and 4) test-retest reliability as represented by the percent agreement between scorings of the samevideos examined one month apart by the same teachers. The reliability procedures used in this observation rubric studywere similar to those used to validate our TPACK-based rubric for lesson plan review (Harris, Grandgenett & Hofer2010). The procedures were selected in consultation with three expert statisticians specializing in psychometrics. Each statistical procedure was selected for its particular advantages in the analysis of rubric (or similarinstrument) reliability. For example, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient flexibly examines relationships amongmembers of a class (Field 2005; Griffin & Gonzalez 1995; McGraw & Wong 1996) and is becoming comparatively well-known in instrument validation studies. In this particular study, the educators scoring the observation videorecordingswere essentially designated as a class, with rubric scores considered to be random effects, and the educators considered
Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Observation Instrument 43to be fixed effects for the ICC procedures. Percent agreement was used to further document the extent of interraterreliability, systematically pairing scores from two different judges at a time on each video, then computing the meanpercent of agreement across all judges. Adjacent scoring was used to represent agreement, and was defined as twoscores with no more than one rubric category difference. In this way, rubric scores of 3 and 4 would be considered tobe in agreement, while scores of 2 and 4 would be identified as out of agreement. Percent of agreement has long beenused for criterion-referenced scoring (Gronlund 1985; Litwin 2002), and it was found to be a useful way to furthercheck interrater reliability in this study. The rubric’s internal consistency was examined using the well-established and commonly used Cronbach’sAlpha procedure (Allen & Yen 2002; Cronbach, Gleser, Nanda, & Rajaratnam 1972). In this procedure, the rubricscoring data set was transposed to permit an examination of the consistency of participants’ scores between each ofthe six rows of the rubric. To analyze the rubric’s test-retest reliability, a percent of adjacent agreement strategy was used again. Theeducators’ scores for three of the videos were compared to their scores for the same three videos scored one month later.Each individual row’s score, as well as the rubric’s total scores, were compared, and an average percent agreementscore was computed. As described above, the three videos selected for a second scoring process were identified as apossible “check set” of videos that were expected by the researchers to be assessed by the scorers as representing high,medium, and low levels of demonstrated TPACK. The three videos also addressed a range of content that includedscience, mathematics, and social studies.Reliability Results To complete the Intraclass Correlation reliability procedure, the scores for each row of the rubric wererecorded individually, with a total score for all six rows computed by adding the scores for each of the individualrows. Using the ICC procedure incorporated in SPSS software, the resulting statistics for the 11 judges were: Row 1= .642, Row 2 = .661, Row 3 = .726, Row 4 = .729, Row 5 = .730, Row 6 = .834 and Total Rubric = .802. This was acomparatively strong finding for ICC, which is a statistical procedure that can produce rather conservative results forreliability computations. The percent of agreement among the scorers was also computed. This statistic is known to be less sensitive to the “direction” of how judges’ scores align. Instead, it considers exclusively how “close” judges’ scores are to each other. The percent agreement for the rubric scoring procedure across all scores was computed to be 90.8%, further supporting the reliability of the rubric as first calculated using ICC statistics. The computed internal consistency of the rubric was also quite promising, calculated as .914 (Cronbach’s Alpha) for the rubric as tested across the two participant groups. The rescoring of the three check set videos, which also used a percent agreement calculation, further supported the rubric’s reliability. The percent agreement between the two separate scorings of the check set videos one month apart averaged 93.9% in their adjacent agreement. Given the results of reliability testing across the 11 judges using ICC calculations, percent agreementcomputations, and the Cronbach’s Alpha measure, we conclude that this observation instrument has comparativelystrong reliability, and we feel confident in recommending it for further use. The rubric’s reliability calculations, alongwith its validity evaluations, suggest that we can now offer it to other researchers and educators. It has been releasedunder a Creative Commons License, and is available on the TPACK Wiki (http://tpack.org/).Discussion Our testing results suggest that this is a valid and reliable instrument to use to assess enacted TPACK inobserved lessons taught by either preservice or inservice teachers. We are aware of the complexities of classroomenvironments, however, and acknowledge that a video recording captures only what is visible in the frame, excludingimportant elements such as room configuration, students’ facial expressions, and school and classroom climate, to name
44 Hofer, Grandgenett, Harris, and Swanjust a few. We believe, however, that the ability to analyze technology integration evidenced in videorecorded lessonsprovides a myriad of advantages for researchers over physical presence in the classroom. In fact, the advantages ofvideo in the context of analyzing classroom behavior may well lie in a videorecording’s ability to provide a commonpoint of reference for viewers, focus the analysis on key observation elements, support multiple viewings as needed,and generally help to systemize the observation process (Brunvand 2010). Given these research-based advantages ofvideorecordings, however, it is important for researchers to remember that a video shows only the perspective of thecamera’s operator. What is observed may still omit important elements that are off-screen (Fishman 2003). In addition,video viewers are functioning in comparatively passive roles, without the ability for the kinds of onsite clarificationsthat are possible with live viewing (Barab, Hay, & Duffy 1998). Compared to what our previous instrument (Harris, Grandgenett & Hofer 2010) examines —evidence ofteachers’ TPACK in written lesson plans—the data from classroom instruction that this instrument helps to generateare richer and more complex. This could lead to more or less reliable scoring. Videos of teaching may provide abetter picture of enacted technology integration knowledge than a static document, and are perhaps easier to scoreaccurately than planning documents, since many educators are more accustomed to watching people teach than toreading lesson documents in their many formats. However, there is also a greater time demand for video scoring thatmay negatively impact reliability. Educators who used both instruments described the richness of data available fromobserved teaching, as compared with what can be discerned from a written lesson plan. The greater time demands forscoring the videos were not reported to be a significant limitation upon instrument use. Though we obtained similar validity and reliability results for both instruments, using similar statisticalstrategies for analysis, guidelines and training for use of the observation instrument need to be articulated clearly andcarefully, to ensure that scorers are assessing the TPACK-related aspects of the videotaped lessons upon which wewish to focus their attention. As with any rubric, there is subjectivity involved in scoring. We have thus developeda brief scoring guide to assist researchers with using the instrument in a consistent manner. The scoring guide isavailable, along with the rubric, on the Learning Activity Types Web site (http://activitytypes.wm.edu/). Using this instrument can help researchers and teacher educators to assess the quality of technologyintegration, envisioned as a teacher’s TPACK-in-action. To build a more nuanced and complete understanding ofenacted TPACK, however, researchers should consider using multiple data types and sources, as suggested in theintroduction to this paper. We suspect that analyzing a triangulated combination of planning documents, observations,and teacher interviews (optimally, conducted both before and after observed teaching) would provide a more completeand accurate assessment of a teacher’s TPACK. We invite our colleagues to use our instrument—in combination withother methods—to continue to build understanding of teachers’ technology integration knowledge.ReferencesAllen, M.J. & Yen, W.M. (2002). Introduction to measurement theory. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.Archambault, L.M., & Barnett, J.H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55 (4), 1656-1662.Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/ general/article2.cfmArter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.Barab, S.A., Hay, K.E., & Duffy, T. (1998). Grounded constructions and how technology can help. Tech Trends, 43 (2), 15-23.Brunvand, S. (2010). Best practices for producing video content for teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10 (2), 247-256.Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability of scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.de Olvieira, J.M. & Romero, M. (2010). Student teachers’ perceptions of knowledge and knowledge of perception. In J. Herrington & B. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 2351-2356). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Testing a TPACK-Based Technology Integration Observation Instrument 45Field, A.P. (2005). Intraclass correlation. In B.S. Everitt & D.C. Howell (Eds.). Encyclopedia of statistics in the behavioral sciences (pp. 1296-1305). Chichester, England: Wiley.Fishman, B. (2003). Linking on-line video and curriculum to leverage community knowledge. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Using video in teacher education (Vol. 10, pp. 210-234). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.Graham, C.R., Burgoyne, N. & Borup, J. (2010). The decision-making processes of preservice teachers as they integrate technology. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3826-3832). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Griffin, D., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430-439.Gronlund, N.E. (1985). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (5th ed.). New York: McMillian.Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3833-3840). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Hechter, R. & Phyfe, L. (2010). Using online videos in the science methods classroom as context for developing preservice teachers’ awareness of the TPACK components. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3841-3848). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Jaipal, K. & Figg, C. (2010). Expanding the practice-based taxonomy of characteristics of TPACK. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3868-3875). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Lawless, K.A., & Pellegrino, J.W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77 (4), 575-614.Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38 (1), 1-21.Litwin, M.S. (2002). How to assess and interpret survey psychometrics. The Survey Kit Series (Vol. 8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.McGraw, K.O., & Wong, S.P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients, Psychological Methods, 1 (1), 30-46.Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054.Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7, 71-81.Mueller, J. (2010). Observational measures of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in the integration of laptop computers in elementary writing instruction. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3907-3910). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Niess, M. & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2010). Advancing K-8 mathematics and science teachers knowledge for teaching with technology through an online graduate program. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3911-3919). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Northwest Educational Technology Consortium (2004). Observation protocol for technology integration in the classroom (OPTIC). Portland, OR: NETC. Retrieved from http://www.netc.org/assessing/home/integration.phpNovak, J.R., Herman, J.L., & Gearhart, M. (1996). Establishing validity for performance-based assessments: An illustration for collections of student writing. Journal of Educational Research, 89 (4), 220-233.Putnam, R.T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29 (1), 4-15.Robertshaw, M.B. & Gillam, R.B. (2010). Examining the validity of the TPACK framework from the ground up: Viewing technology integration through teachers’ eyes. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3926-3931). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Koehler, M.J., Shin, T, & Mishra, P. (2009, April). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Paper presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/unprotected_readings/TPACK_Survey/Schmidt_et_al_Survey_v1.pdfSchrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (KAB) approach: How to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43 (9), 8–15.Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1). 1-22.
46 Hofer, Grandgenett, Harris, and SwanStoilescu, D. & McDougall, D. (2010). Case studies of teachers integrating computer technology in mathematics. In J. Herrington & B. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 2944-2952). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Ward, G. & Overall, T. (2010). Pre-service teacher technology integration: The team-taught cohort model and TPACK. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3944-3951). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Williams, M.K., Foulger, T. & Wetzel, K. (2010). Aspiring to reach 21st century ideals: Teacher educators’ experiences in developing their TPACK. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3960-3967). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Zambo, R., Wetzel, K., Buss, R., Padgett, H. (2003). Measuring the integration of technology through observation. In C. Crawford, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis. (Eds.) Technology and Teacher Education Annual (pp. 3933 -3936).Charlottesville, VA: AACE.Zhou, G., Zhang, Z., Li, Y. & Zhao, Z. (2010). Are secondary preservice teachers well-prepared to teach with technology? A case study of a Chinese teacher education program. In J. Herrington & B. Hunter (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 2291-2300). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to express their gratitude to Dr. Margaret R. Blanchard at North Carolina State University for her helpfulcontribution of six of the 12 instructional videos used to test the observation instrument described above. These recordings weremade as part of Meg’s “SMART for Teachers” project in 2009-2010. We are indebted also to the seven TPACK researchers whoreviewed an early draft of the observation instrument described here.
Learning by Design: TPACK in Action Technology Integration Preparation for Preservice Teachers 47 Learning by Design: TPACK in Action Technology Integration Preparation for Preservice Teachers Liangyue Lu Instructional Design, Development & Evaluation, School of Education, Syracuse University, USA firstname.lastname@example.org Laurene Johnson Instructional Design, Development & Evaluation, School of Education, Syracuse University, USA email@example.com Leigh M. Tolley Instructional Design, Development & Evaluation, School of Education, Syracuse University, USA firstname.lastname@example.org Theresa Gilliard-Cook Instructional Design, Development & Evaluation, School of Education, Syracuse University, USA email@example.com Jing Lei, Ph.D. Instructional Design, Development & Evaluation, School of Education, Syracuse University, USA firstname.lastname@example.org Abstract: Effective technology integration requires teachers to construct technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). To help teachers develop TPACK, Learning by Design (LBD) is one promising instructional model for creating such a learning environment, addressing the situated nature and complex interplay of technology, pedagogy and content. In this article, we discuss initial efforts to apply TPACK and LBD in the design and development of a series of technology integration courses for elementary preservice teachers. We discuss the theoretical framework and instructional design theory behind the courses and how the research team applied LBD in preservice teacher technology preparation. We present examples from the courses to illustrate how TPACK and LBD are used as the basis of the course experiences. Applying TPACK and LBD in this context extends the understanding of the theoretical grounding for teacher technology preparation.Introduction Technology’s potential to provide and enhance high quality education (CEO Forum 2000; U. S. Department ofEducation 2004) cannot be fully realized without teachers who effectively integrate technology into instruction (CEOForum 1999; U. S. Department of Education 2000). Teacher preparation programs play a critical role by educatingtechnologically competent teachers. In the past 30 years, research has explored how to develop preservice teachers’knowledge and skills to integrate technology (e.g., Hargrave & Hsu 2000; Pope, Hare & Howard 2002, 2005). Despitethis, research continues to find that teachers feel unprepared to use technology in instruction (e.g., Hew & Brush 2007;NEA 2008). Teacher education programs are blamed for failing to prepare technologically capable educators (NCES2000; NEA 2008). One criticism of skill-focused technology training, a common practice in teacher preparation, is that theseexperiences develop teachers’ technological knowledge and skills, but fail to challenge their underlying beliefs aboutteaching and learning, which are more fundamental barriers to technology integration (Ertmer 1999). This criticismstems from the argument that technology knowledge and skills alone are insufficient for teachers to utilize technologyand initiate educational change. Meaningful technology integration is guided by content and pedagogy. Technological
48 Lu, Johnson, Tolley, Gilliard-Cook, and Leiknowledge is an integral part of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and beliefs, and technology preparation mustintegrate technology training with subject area and method teaching (e.g., Mishra & Koehler 2006). Preservice teachertechnology preparation also tends to lack a theoretical base (e.g., Issroff & Scanlon 2002; Zhao 2003), which isnecessary for it to be effective (Schrum 1999). Considering these challenges, what should teacher educators do to prepare technologically competentteachers? In the quest for effective and theory-grounded technology instruction, a research team at Syracuse Universitydesigned and developed a series of three technology integration courses for elementary preservice teachers. The goalof this initiative was to help preservice teachers become effective technology integrators by developing technologicalpedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler 2006). Koehler and Mishra (2005a) suggested thatLearning by Design (LBD), a project-based, learner-centered instructional approach, provided a promising theoreticalgrounding for courses intended to teach these skills. The team, therefore, applied LBD in the context of preserviceteacher technology preparation. In this article, we describe the theoretical framework and instructional design modelbehind the courses, how the team applied LBD in the context, the course organization, and the implications forpreservice teacher technology preparation.Guiding Framework: TPACK The discussion about teachers’ technology knowledge has transitioned from the compartmentalized viewthat technology knowledge alone is sufficient for effective technology integration in classrooms (e.g., Mishra &Koehler 2006; Wiebe & Taylor 1997; Zhao 2003). Recently, there is acknowledgement that a teacher’s technologyknowledge is an inseparable component of the overall knowledge base needed to effectively use technology forinstruction. Technology knowledge and skills alone are insufficient, as full integration of technology requires achange in teaching and learning (e.g., Clifford, Friesen & Lock 2004; Jonassen 1995). The most productive andmeaningful use of technology engages students in knowledge construction, conversation, articulation, collaboration,and reflection (Jonassen 1995). This requires teachers to develop technical skills and “pedagogical knowledge ofeffective instructional practices that incorporate meaningful uses of technology” (Ertmer 1999, p.48). The discussionand practice of teacher technology preparation must consider the rich context of the teaching profession and theconnection between technology, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and educational practices. Building upon Shulman’s (1986) concept of “pedagogical content knowledge” (PCK), Mishra and Koehler(2006) proposed a conceptual framework to capture the essence of teacher technology knowledge. They argued that“thoughtful pedagogical uses of technology require the development of a complex, situated form of knowledge” whichthey called “technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).” (p.1017) The TPACK framework identifies theessential knowledge needed in order for a teacher to effectively integrate technology in instruction. Because of its cleararticulation of the complex, dynamic nature of the knowledge, TPACK has provided the theoretical framework forscholars and practitioners in their studies and practices (e.g., Brush & Saye 2009; Bull & Bell 2009).Learning by Design (LBD) Mishra and Koehler (2006) stated that teachers must build TPACK in contexts that honor the dynamicrelationships of the three components, described by the researchers as learning technology by design (Koehler &Mishra 2005a, 2005b). Learning by Design (LBD) is a learner-centered instructional model that engages learners indesigning a real-world artifact requiring learners to construct understanding and meaning (Han & Bhattacharya 2001).In preservice teacher technology education, LBD allows teachers to use technology in authentic contexts to “learnwith the technology by being exposed to authentic, learner-centered activities that allow them to construct their ownunderstanding of the learning outcomes” (Pope, Hare & Howard 2005, p.574). In the design activities, teachers tackletechnological issues in the context of specific contents and instructional purposes. When teachers face ill-structurededucational problems in authentic contexts, the contexts and the learning environment become “a fundamental part ofwhat is learned” (Putnam & Borko 2000).
Learning by Design: TPACK in Action Technology Integration Preparation for Preservice Teachers 49Kolodner and her colleagues (2003) created an LBD model for middle school science classrooms that emphasizes theconnection between new and prior experiences. A person’s knowledge is extended as experiences are reinterpreted andre-indexed to solve new problems. Koehler and Mishra (2005a, 2005b) required teachers to apply prior knowledge aboutcontent and pedagogy when designing technological artifacts for instructional purposes. Previous experiences had tobe reinterpreted and re-indexed in the presence of technology. This can only occur when learners have opportunitiesto develop and implement their ideas and receive feedback, articulate their reasoning, reflect on previous experience,refine their ideas, and relate their prior experience in order to solve new problems (Kolodner et al. 2003). Kolodner’s (2003) LBD model is characterized by sequenced activities that are arranged into the design/redesign and investigation/exploration cycles (see Fig. 1). The cycles of activities connect design activities with contentby involving students in scientific investigations and exploration. There are seven key components that constitute anLBD environment: authenticity; multiple contexts for design activities; a balance of constrained, scaffolded challengeswith open-ended design tasks; rich, varied feedback for designers; discussion and collaboration; experimentation andexploration; and reflection (Koldner et al, 1998). LBD has been implemented in various settings including K-12 classrooms and graduate technology coursesfor inservice teachers (Fessakis, Tatsis & Dimitracopoulou 2008; Koehler, Mishra, Hershey & Peruski 2004; Kolodneret al. 2003). Using LBD for preservice teacher technology preparation requires discussing the affordances of the modelfor this context. Preservice teachers, however, have limited or no teaching experience, thus they may construct TPACKdifferently from inservice teachers. When teaching TPACK to preservice teachers, their technological understandingmust be built along with content and pedagogy. Secondly, as digital natives (Prensky 2001), who use technologydifferently than previous generations, the technology integration instruction for digital native preservice teachersneeds to “bridge the gap between their own levels of fluency and their ability to think like teachers” (Clifford et al.2004, p.157). In the next section, we will discuss how we apply the LBD model in the context of preservice teachertechnology preparation. Figure 1. Kolodner’s Learning by Design Model (Kolodner et al. 2003)The Design of an LBD Environment for Preservice Teacher Technology Preparation The series of technology integration courses at Syracuse University’s School of Education is structured asthree one-credit courses (IDE 200, IDE 300, and IDE 400). IDE 200 introduces basic technologies, such as MicrosoftPowerPoint, Excel, and Internet, with an emphasis on connecting students’ technology and learning experience withteaching tasks through hands-on, classroom-based technology activities. IDE 300 introduces emerging technologies,such as Web 2.0 technologies, emphasizing enhancing students’ understanding of technology integration by usingtechnology in real-world teaching. IDE 400 introduces more advanced technologies, such as video production, gamingand simulation, and distance learning technologies, with an emphasis on comprehensive and skillful integration oftechnology in PreK-12 teaching.
50 Lu, Johnson, Tolley, Gilliard-Cook, and Lei Based on Kolodner et al’s LBD model (2003), Table 1 lists the LBD steps, sample instructional activitiesin each step, and applications in the preservice teacher technology preparation context used in our courses. Eachtechnology integration course has six modules. The central tasks are projects, including one mini-project for eachof the first five modules, and a culminating course project for the sixth module. In mini-projects, preservice teachersare given a teaching scenario and use one technology tool to design an instructional product or solution based on thescenario. Preservice teachers also complete a course project to illustrate their ability to identify useful technologyresources, select appropriate instructional strategies, and use technology effectively for enhancing learning bydesigning and implementing a practice lesson in class with their fellow preservice teachers. Each module, therefore,is organized as one LBD cycle. Learning activities for the course project also represent one LBD cycle spreadingthroughout the course. LBD Steps Sample Instructional Activities Application in the Context - Frame project in context of classroom - Instructors model or demonstrate effective use of applicability/course goals. technology in classroom contexts, reflecting aloud on Understand - Reading discussion. teacher’s planning/implementation process. challenges - Model technology integrated lessons - Students experience lessons from PreK-12 student (preservice teachers take on student point of view. role). - Discussion with group members - Participants engaged in solving authentic instructional during mini-project planning/ tasks. Plan design creation. - Authentic scenarios require the integration of - Feedback from peers and instructor. technology and alignment with content and pedagogy. - Design and creation of the artifact. - Focus on technology use for instructional purpose in Construct / - Collaboration with group members. authentic contexts. design - Feedback from instructor. - Feedback from peers and instructors. - Focus on testing artifact based on appropriateness of - Peer artifact testing for instructional/ instructional solution. Test grade level appropriateness. - Focus on helping participants articulate the relationship between content, pedagogy, and technology. - Written feedback from instructor. - Focus on helping participants articulate the - Reflection on artifact’s application in relationship between content, pedagogy, and Analyze & a classroom setting and application of technology. explain instructional methods. - Reflection helps participants connect their in-class learning experiences with their future teaching tasks. Table 1. An LBD model for preservice teacher technology preparationThe Design of Learning Tasks In the LBD environment, preservice teachers are required to design technological artifacts for instructionalpurposes and use technology to teach content in real-world contexts. Preservice teachers have to consider the technology,the content, and the pedagogy to successfully complete projects. These project activities provide preservice teacherswith opportunities to develop and negotiate the relationship between their content knowledge, pedagogical knowledgeand technological knowledge. As the preservice teachers generally have positive attitudes toward technology and considerable technologicalknowledge (Lei 2009), the learning tasks focus on technology use for instructional purposes in authentic contexts.Many digital native preservice teachers learn technology skills independently; however, instructors provide assistanceto preservice teachers who are less technologically literate than their peers. As preservice teachers have little experience teaching with technology, learning tasks are scaffolded,providing a balance of constrained, scaffolded challenges with open-ended design tasks (Kolodner et al. 1998). Mini-projects represent preservice teachers’ first time using technology for instructional purposes, so challenges in the miniprojects are more structured than the course project challenges. After developing a moderate level of confidence andexperiences in technology integration from the mini projects, design challenges in the course project are more open-ended and preservice teachers work more independently. In the next section, we specifically describe how the steps inthe LBD model are applied in the instruction for preservice teachers.
Learning by Design: TPACK in Action Technology Integration Preparation for Preservice Teachers 51The Design of LBD Activities Understand challenges: Modeling helps preservice teachers understand the challenges inherent in usingtechnology in classroom applications. Modeling involves demonstrating effective technology integration by engagingpreservice teachers in hands-on, classroom-based activities. Many researchers indicate that examples of successfultechnology use are important (e.g., Brush & Saye 2009; Kay 2006) to help compensate for their lack of classroomexperiences. Being actively engaged in learner-centered model lessons, preservice teachers re-index their previouslearning experiences and index their experiences in the model lessons by thinking about teaching with technologyfrom a teacher’s standpoint, through reflecting on the audience, technology, content, and pedagogy of the modellessons. Plan design: In this step, preservice teachers work in teams to plan their design of the artifact. When preserviceteachers are planning their design, learning activities help them communicate their ideas within the team and withother project teams, and to receive feedback both from other teams and the instructors. Construct/design: Preservice teachers create the technological artifact or develop instructional solutions totheir assigned problem in project teams. Instructors provide in-class support to students and give immediate feedback. Test: In the context of designing an instructional artifact or solution, an ideal test involves a targeted audienceusing the instructional artifact or implementing the solution on a targeted audience. In mini projects, preserviceteachers informally test their artifacts by reviewing each other’s work from both a student’s and teacher’s standpoint.For the final project, preservice teachers formally teach the lesson they design either to their classmates or to studentsin classrooms and receive feedback both from their classmates and instructors. Analyze and Explain: Instructional methods are “probabilistic” (Reigeluth 1999, p.11), meaning methods donot guarantee the desired learning outcome, but increase “the probability that the desired result will occur” (Reigeluth1999, p.11). In an LBD environment, it is important for preservice teachers to argue the rationale of their design andthe likelihood that the design will produce the desired learning. Preservice teachers reflect on the relationship betweentheir design and the desired outcomes, which assists them in articulating their learning and connecting their learning totheir future classroom. Kolodner and her colleagues (2003) suggested that learners in an LBD environment should beencouraged to relate their old experiences, which must be indexed, to solve new problems. Through articulating theirlearning experiences in the course in a reflection, preservice teachers engage in conversations with themselves aboutthe complexity of using technology for real-world teaching tasks. This helps them develop a deeper understanding ofthe dynamic and complex relationships among technology, content and pedagogy.Implementation of LBD In order to illustrate how the LBD model is applied in this context, the course activities from IDE 200will be presented here. The operation and integration of six introductory technologies are covered over the fivedays of instruction in IDE 200: educational websites, Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, Microsoft Excel, electroniccommunication tools, and assistive technologies. The instruction in each class session consists of four key componentswhich are representations of the LBD steps: reading discussions, model lessons, mini-projects, and reflections. As a specific example, in Class 3 the technology topic is Microsoft Excel. Prior to class, students read anarticle that provides examples of how Excel can be used in classrooms. For the reading discussion, students share theideas they have for using Excel in their own learning. In the model lessons, students take on the role of fourth graders incompleting an Excel survey assignment that requires them to follow step-by-step directions for setting up a spreadsheetthat they use to collect, analyze, and display data that they gather from their classmates. Prior to the model lesson, theinstructors build students’ content knowledge by showing and discussing the state standards that the lesson addresses,and clearly stating the desired student outcomes with respect to the mathematical understandings involved. Duringthe model lesson, the instructors model appropriate pedagogical practices that make a lesson a success, includingproviding the directions, using research-based instructional strategies, and managing student movement throughoutthe lesson. At the end of the lesson, the instructors also reflect aloud on their own practices and instructional decisionsin order to help students understand the pedagogical considerations of implementing such a lesson with elementaryschool students.
52 Lu, Johnson, Tolley, Gilliard-Cook, and Lei After the model lesson, the instruction moves into the mini-project, in which students create step-by-stepdirections that are appropriate for fifth grade students that will guide them through using Excel to create their owngradebook. The students must also create a sample Excel gradebook that they can use as an example to show theirstudents as they create their own. Students work in pairs on this activity in order to provide opportunities for peercollaboration, discussion, and feedback as they complete the assignment. In this application of LBD, the scaffolding occurs as students begin by reading about the use of the tool inclassrooms, then participate in a classroom activity taking on the role of the elementary student, then move to theteacher role in creating instructional artifacts that they can one day use in their own teaching. Students often begin thisclass having little or no experience with Excel on any level, and leave having the ability to use it in several differentways with their future students. The students also receive feedback from the instructors throughout the process, as theyparticipate in the activities, as they complete their mini-project, and ultimately in the feedback they receive after theysubmit their assignment. They also receive feedback from their peers, as collaboration and discussion is encouragedthroughout the process. The five days of instruction in IDE 200 provide scaffolding for the students’ course project, which is to createand present a 15-minute technology-integrated lesson that could be used with elementary school students. Studentswork in groups of 3-4 on this project, and are assigned a grade level and subject area. The groups then select a statestandard that they will focus on for their lesson, and write a preliminary plan which they submit as their Statement ofIntent before Class 3. The instructors review these assignments, and provide feedback and additional scaffolding asnecessary to help students complete their projects. On the final day of class, the groups present their lessons to theirclassmates as model lessons, with their classmates taking on the role of the elementary school students. Each of thefive days of instruction is intended to prepare students for this presentation, as we have modeled how to begin with acurriculum objective to create a lesson that uses technology to enhance learning.Evaluation of LBD This series of courses was initially implemented in the Inclusive Elementary and Special Education Programat Syracuse University in the 2008 spring semester. The research team conducted an evaluation research study in IDE200 to determine the effectiveness of the LBD environment in helping preservice teachers develop TPACK (Lu &Lei 2011). Data were collected from 39 participating preservice teachers in three concurrent course sections in thespring 2010 semester. Pre- and post-surveys were administered to the participants before and after the course. Thesurveys measured preservice teachers’ self-assessed TPACK using the 46 items in the Survey of Preservice Teachers’Knowledge of Teaching and Technology developed by Schmidt and her colleagues (2009). A paired-samples T testwas conducted to compare each component of the participants’ TPACK before and after taking the course. The resultsshowed that there was a significant increase in preservice teachers’ TPACK, PK, PCK, TCK, and TPK, indicating thatthe LBD environment has a significant effect on preservice teachers’ TPACK development. The research team also analyzed the reflection journals written by the same group of preservice teachers(Lu, Lei & Suo 2011). To detect preservice teachers’ TPACK growth in their reflection journal, the researchers usedMishra and Koehler’s definition of each TPACK component to code each reflection journal. Coverage of a TPACKcomponent refers to the percentage of that component coded in the reflection journals. The results showed that TPK(57.4%), PK (14.64%), TPACK (12.8%), and TK (3.56%) have the most coverage in the reflection journals. Except forTPACK, the components that are related to content knowledge, TCK (1.35%), PCK (0.71%) and CK (0%) have leastcoverage in preservice teachers’ reflection journals. If we view the coverage of each TPACK component as an indicatorof preservice teachers’ knowledge growth, these results were generally consistent with the preservice teachers’ self-assessment of their TPACK growth in the study mentioned above. The results suggest that LBD can be effective in helping preservice teacher develop TPACK. However,not all components of TPACK increased significantly. Preservice teachers’ content knowledge did not grow in bothstudies. This may indicate that the development of each TPACK component may evolve differently. Future studies mayinvestigate whether and how LBD can help preservice teachers develop content knowledge.
Learning by Design: TPACK in Action Technology Integration Preparation for Preservice Teachers 53Implication and Significance In this article, we discussed our initial efforts to design and develop a series of three technology integrationcourses for elementary preservice teachers. We discussed the theoretical framework and instructional design modelbehind the courses and how the research team adapted the LBD model to suit the context. By presenting the theoryand model, we provided a picture of how TPACK and LBD can be used as the basis of technology integrationcourses. Applying TPACK and LBD in this series of technology preparation courses extends the understanding of thetheoretical grounding for the design of teacher technology preparation. With our efforts in improving instruction in alocal context and exploring the complex relationships that are bounded in the context, eventually we intend to improvethe development of LBD, the instructional model inherent in the context, delineate the principles that contribute tothe effectiveness of the theory, explain why and how this instructional model takes effect in the context that it serves,and inform the mechanism of preservice teachers’ technology learning. It is with such detailed understanding that aninstructional model can potentially be shared in a wider context with careful and informed adaptation. Moreover, withan in-depth insight into the theoretical grounding, the design of teacher technology preparation can be based on a solidground. Preservice teachers will benefit from improved technology preparation experiences. Ultimately, our preK-12school system will benefit from a workforce of technologically competent teachers who can effectively use technologyto enhance student learning.ReferencesBrush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers to integrate technology effectively: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 9(1). Retrieved March 18, 2010 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/socialstudies/article1.cfmBull, G., & Bell, L. (2009). TPACK: A framework for the CITE Journal. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved March 18, 2010 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/editorial/article1.cfm (The) CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (1999). Professional development: A link to better learning. Washington, DC. Retrieved November 10, 2008 from http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/99report.pdf.(The) CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2000). School technology and readiness report, year three: The power of digital learning – integrating digital content. Washington, DC. Retrieved November 18, 2009 from http://www.ceoforum.org/ downloads/report3.pdfClifford, P., Friesen, S., & Lock, J. (2004). Coming to teaching in the 21st century: A research study conducted by the Galileo Educational Network. Report for Alberta Learning. April 12, 2010 from http://www.galileo.org/research/publications/ctt. pdfErtmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.Fessakis, G., Tatsis, K., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2008). Supporting “learning by design” activities using group blogs. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 199–212.Han, S., and Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, Learning by Design, and Project Based Learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved July 9, 2009 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/Hargrave, C.P., & Hsu, Y. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303-314.Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Educational technology: The influence of theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved March 18, 2010 from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/6/issroff-scanlon-02-6.pdfJonassen, D. H. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with technology: A vision for integrating technology with learning in schools. Educational Technology, 35(4), 60-63.Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.Kay, R. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,38(4), 383-408.Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005a). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-102.
54 Lu, Johnson, Tolley, Gilliard-Cook, and LeiKoehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005b). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your students: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25-55.Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting Learning by DesignTM into practice., Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547.Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by Design from Theory to Practice. Proceedings of ICLS 98. Atlanta, GA, 16-22. Retrieved December 7, 2009 from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/ htmlpubs/lbdtheorytoprac.htmlLei, J. (2009). Digital natives as pre-service teachers: what technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87-97.Lu, L., & Lei, J. (2011). Learning by design for preservice teachers technology preparation: How effective is it and in what ways? Paper to be presented at the 2011 American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual conference, New Orleans, LA.Lu, L., Lei, J., & Suo, Y. (2011). Cultivating reflective practitioners in technology preparation: Analyses of preservice teachers’ reflection on their technology integration experience. Paper submitted to the 2011 Chinese American Educational Research and Development Association (CAERDA) annual conference, New Orleans, LA.Margerum-Leys, J. (1999). Teacher knowledge and educational technology: A conceptual mapping. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2003). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), What should teachers know about technology: Perspectives and practices. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J.(2006).Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. [online]. Retrieved March 14, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000102A.pdfNational Education Association (NEA). (2008). Access, adequacy and equity in education technology. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 14, 2010 from http://www.edutopia.org/files/existing/pdfs/NEA-Access,Adequacy,andEquityinEdTech.pdfPope, M., Hare, D. & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between what preservice teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 10(2), 191-203.Pope, M., Hare, D. & Howard, E. (2005). Enhancing technology use in student teaching: A case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 573-618.Prensky, M. (2001, September/October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.Reigeluth, C. M.(1999).What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Eds.),Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (vol. 2, pp.5-29) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83-90.Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.U. S. Department of Education. (2000). E-learning: Putting a world-class education at the fingertips of all children. Washington, DC: US Government Print Office.U. S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Wiebe, J. H., & Taylor, H. G. (1997). What should teachers know about technology? A revised look at the ISTE foundations. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(3), 5-9.Zhao, Y. (2003). What teachers need to know about technology: Framing the question. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), What should teachers know about technology: Perspectives and practices. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Using the TPACK Framework to Study a Sixth Grade Classroom with High Access to Technology 55 Using the TPACK Framework to Study a Sixth Grade Classroom with High Access to Technology Keith Wetzel Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College Arizona State University Keith.email@example.com Summer Marshall Ecker Hill International Middle School Park City, Utah firstname.lastname@example.org Abstract: This is a qualitative study addressing the question: In what ways does an experienced middle school teacher use the TPACK framework in her classroom? The researcher observed in this class, interviewed the teacher, and looked for evidence of the interplay between components of the model. This teacher’s class was particularly appropriate for this study because she was an experienced teacher who was selected by her school district to pilot a classroom with one computer for each student and many other technologies. This study applied the TPACK theoretical model to her classroom to help us better understand how the model is translated into reality. Evidence was found of the interplay between TPACK components. Recommendations were made regarding the need for additional cases to be used in professional development. This is a qualitative study of one teacher, Ms. Marshall, and her sixth grade students’ work with technology andtheir discoveries about the Renaissance. It is told through the lens of the TPACK framework while observing theimplementation of her six-week project and management strategies. TPACK is a new way of thinking about preparingteachers to teach and learn with technology. It stands for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Althoughmany educators helped to develop ideas that led to the framework, Mishra and Koehler (2006) formulated it in a clearand persuasive manner. In part, TPACK is a conceptual tool that may assist teachers in planning lessons that integratetechnology. When applied, the model requires equal attention to technology, pedagogy and content as they are usedin are used in learning. Leaders in teacher preparation for technology integration have helped educators gain a better understanding ofthe use of the TPACK framework in different content areas (SIGTE Leaders and NTLS Program Committee, 2008).But how does it help us understand the work of a sixth grade teacher and her students? These authors claim that theintegration of three areas is essential to the optimal use of technology in the classroom. Also, the TPACK frameworkcan provide a model for teacher preparation that leads to effective K-12 student learning in content areas (Schmidt, etal 2009). Finally, the TPACK framework may help professional developers and teachers make rich connections amongtechnology, the subject matter, and pedagogical choices. Highlights of each component of the TPACK framework follow: • Knowledge of Pedagogy involves classroom management, lesson planning and implementation, teaching methods and assessment. • Knowledge of Content is the knowledge of the subject matter including key concepts, facts, and procedures. • Technology Knowledge includes the working knowledge and skills needed to use technologies.However, the key is not just the individual areas, but also the interweaving of each part of the model (see TPACK VennDiagram in Figure 1).
56 Wetzel and Marshall Figure 1: Interweaving of Technology, Content and Pedagogy through the TPACK Framework When planning lessons, K-12 teachers who emphasize 21st century skills consider the thoughtful interplay ofall three. Another purpose of a good theoretical model is to guide observations and the interpretation of the findings(Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In this article, with the help of teacher collaborator Ms. Marshall, I hoped to observe the key qualities of teacherknowledge and practices necessary for technology integration in a sixth grade language arts classroom. Although bothauthors contributed to this study, for the purposes of clarity “I” refers to the first author.Purpose and Overview Despite its potential as a useful organizational device for teachers, the TPACK model has yet to be commonlyapplied in actual K-12 classrooms. This article aims to facilitate the transition from theory to application through acase study of Ms. Marshall’s use of the model. As I observed in this class and interviewed Ms. Marshall, I looked forevidence of the interplay among components of the model. Ms. Marshall’s class was particularly appropriate for thisstudy because she was an experienced teacher who was selected by her school district to pilot a classroom with onecomputer for each student and many other technologies. The school’s Renaissance project provided an opportunity to study the application of the TPACK model in a sixthgrade classroom. This article will highlight the methods that Ms. Marshall used to address language arts standards(content), within project–based learning (pedagogy), using technology tools and strategies (technology workingknowledge). My visit coincided with the culmination of a six-week cross-curricular project on the Renaissance. Ms. Marshallexplained the various student activities in the project including a newsletter, interview and poem. I observed Ms.Marshall’s classes when she taught students to write poetry about key innovations and figures of the Renaissance. TheRenaissance project was started five years ago by the reading teacher, Ms. Wadman, with an emphasis on a study ofShakespeare’s life and writing. Students studied lines from a play and wrote insults/ riddles to reflect the atmosphereof Shakespearean Theater. The final experience was a “Fair” held after school for parents. Students lined the halls asparents and friends roamed around to interact with individual students who performed their lines in costume and askedviewers to play a Renaissance game. Soon most other subject area teachers participated in the project. For example,in science, students learned about sound as part of their core curriculum and created Renaissance instruments. Insocial studies, they wrote a biography of period explorers and inventors. In art class they researched a piece of artand discovered why it was commissioned and they created a piece of period art. In math they created a Renaissance
Using the TPACK Framework to Study a Sixth Grade Classroom with High Access to Technology 57business. In language arts, the students wrote a newspaper article on one of the above ideas, developed questions foran interview with a Renaissance figure, and finally wrote a poem.Method This study sought to answer the research question: In what ways does an experienced middle school teacher,selected by the school district to lead a high access pilot, use the TPACK framework in her classroom? The key informant, Ms. Marshall, is an experienced sixth grade teacher who teaches six sections of language artsto 140 students in a high access pilot program with two laptop carts each with 15 laptops, 20 flip cameras, and headsetsfor each computer. I am the observer, a professor of educational technology at university in the Southwestern UnitedStates. I observed for a week in the sixth grade classroom of Ms. Marshall at a middle school in a small town in theMountain States, audio taped 10 interviews with Ms. Marshall before and after classes, during lunch and preparationperiods. Interviews ranged from five minutes between classes to an hour after school. Several classroom periodswere videotaped. To provide background for the infusion of technology at this site, two of the technology instructionalcoaches who worked at the middle school were interviewed. Finally, examples of student work were examined. Allinterviews and observations were transcribed and then analyzed using the constant comparative method (Strauss,1987). Teacher interviews were conducted with a set of questions for each setting. Examples of questions were: Whatlanguage arts activities were included in the Renaissance project? How did you integrate technology in each of them?Did you align each lesson with standards? What role did standards play in your curriculum? Teacher interview data was triangulated with classroom observation data and instructional coach data to confirmthe trustworthiness of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Transcripts were read and re-read. Guided by the purposeof the study and the TPACK components, the data were coded. Finally, member checking was employed as a draftof the manuscript was sent to the teacher to check the accuracy of the data and for feedback on the data analysis. Inresponse, Ms. Marshall clarified several points, but thought the findings accurately represented the situation.Findings To answer the research question (In what ways does an experienced middle school teacher, selected by the schooldistrict to lead a high access pilot, use the TPACK framework in her classroom?) findings are organized around theseinterwoven components of TPACK: knowledge of content and pedagogy, the interplay of all TPACK elements, andpedagogical technological knowledge.Knowledge of Pedagogy and Content Data were coded around knowledge of content (i.e., knowledge of subject matter including key concepts, facts,and procedures), and pedagogy, which includes teaching methods, classroom management, lesson planning andimplementation, and assessment. Although content and pedagogy were coded separately, the codes were consideredtogether because they were found to be interrelated in this classroom. For example, Ms. Marshall addressed themtogether. On the whiteboard she listed these objectives for a series of lessons: • Content Objective: I can write four articles reporting what I have learned including who, what, where, when, why, and how. • Language Objective: I can explain the writing process (used to write the newsletter) to a peer in my own words. The interplay between content and pedagogy was witnessed in the student work on their news articles. Ms.Marshall addressed the content objective as she taught newspaper article writing. However she also taught the writingprocess using the writer’s workshop model. Here she orally quizzed them about the sequence of activities they woulddo for pre-writing, drafting, and revising steps they would follow for news article writing. Students also addressed language arts content objectives by creating interviews. Students become journalists.They researched a character they selected in another class such as social studies. They develop the questions and theanswers for the interviews. They found another student to assume the character’s role and rehearsed their answers.
58 Wetzel and Marshall Finally, Ms. Marshall had students review the key ideas learned collectively about the Renaissance from theirarticles and interviews and to help them write a poem. Ms. Marshall called this “a treasure hunt for words.” Sheexplained: “You will create a poem from sources where poetry doesn’t seem to be there.” She elaborated “You willcreate a found poem by selecting and re-arranging words from the Renaissance newspaper headlines or article titles…. You will be finding interesting scraps of language … interesting words that you can eventually turn into a poem.” These three activities helped students focus on the essential content question for this project on the Renaissance:How did the rebirth of ideas allow for new inventions that would ultimately impact our society today?Pedagogy, Content, and Technology Knowledge The interweaving of pedagogy, content and technology were noted as students worked on three activities: newsarticles, interview, and poem. Students used technology as they conducted research, and created and shared their newsarticles. Students conducted research to answer the six questions (who, what, where, when, why, and how) using amodified web quest, a page with directions and a list of link to resource web sites. Students also used a commercialprogram, Brain Pop, to find information for their reports. Based on their research, students wrote four news articles using the presentation program, Keynote, to write,illustrate and present their articles to the class. Students also orally presented parts of their news article at the Fair. Students created interviews using technology tools. They video recorded their partners in costume. Ms. Marshalltaught them to do interviews by watching and critiquing the interviews of news anchors on TV. Ms. Marshall explained,“They spoke with their partners and they practiced their interviews many times before they put on their costumes.”They used Flip video cameras to do the recording and they edited the videos in iMovie. The first time they recordedthe interview, the sound did not come out clearly. They had to pay attention to background noise and the voice level ofthe character. At the Renaissance Fair students from different classes presented their class projects. One part of theirlanguage arts presentation was the interview. In the performance area, the school hallway, students set up their laptopson chairs and provided a headset so visitors could hear their interviews. Technology also played a role as student wrote their poems. Students had a choice in creating the draft of a poem.They could write and re-arrange by cutting out each word box and gluing them in order or they could use a wordprocessor and re-arrange them electronically. About half followed each path. They also had the choice of how theywould publish their poems. They could create a collage of words on paper or they could publish their poems orallyrecording their voice in Garage Band, adding music they created to accompany the oral and written presentations ofthe words. Once again about half of the students selected each path.Knowledge of Pedagogy and Technology For the coding of pedagogical technological knowledge I focused on two areas: 1) Ms. Marshall’s approachto teaching students to use computer applications, and 2) her classroom management related to technology use bystudents. First, Ms. Marshall used a pedagogical approach that was less teacher-directed and that involved more studentproblem solving. When students used a computer program for the first time, she allowed them to figure it out afterminimal direct instruction. This dialog illustrates the point:Setting: 10 minutes before class starts, middle school classroom Ms. Marshall – I’ve been thinking about whether we should have the students create a paper collage of found words for their Renaissance poems or should we have them use Garage Band. But I’ve never used Garage Band before. Can you help? Observer - I’ve used Audacity for pod casts and it seems like Garage Band would be similar. Let’s look at Garage Band together on the screen. [Pointing to the menus] Oh, they could choose the
Using the TPACK Framework to Study a Sixth Grade Classroom with High Access to Technology 59 podcast option. Add a track for male or female voices. Add or create music. I’m not sure that I could help a lot, but it would probably work. Ms. Marshall: That’s the way that I introduce all new technologies. I just try it and have faith that it will work. I know a little about it, but I don’t have all of the answers. Some students will figure it out first. I’ll ask them to help the others who need help. When I can’t answer the questions, I just send the students around to help each other. Let’s try it. Today, I’ll make it an option. Those who want to try it can. Those who want to create the paper collage version can do that too. Ms. Marshall expressed this pedagogical approach to introducing a new technology “Let’s try it … students willfigure it out.” She tried it by giving students a choice; allowing students who wanted to try it, do so. About half triedit; those figuring it out first showed other students how to use Garage Band and answered questions as they arose. The second example of pedagogical technology knowledge focused on specialized technology managementskills. Findings revolve around two sub-codes: classroom management techniques for student use of technology andthe arrangement of technology in the classroom. A few minutes after students entered the classroom, I looked up and the students had the laptops on their desks,opened and booting. How is this possible? No fuss. No oral directions on how to get the laptop from the cartwere provided. Here are seven strategies I found that Ms. Marshall used based on my classroom observations andinterviews with Ms. Marshall. 1) Students were ready at start of class. Many teachers write an assignment on the board that students begin asthey enter the classroom. Building on this strategy, when students entered Ms. Marshall’s classroom, they looked atthe white board to see if they were using computers and which programs were to be booted. For example, Ms. Marshallwrote these steps on the board when students were to use Keynote to write their newspapers: • Get your computer. • Open your Renaissance Newspaper. • Add any transitions you’d like so it is ready to share. • (Limit yourself to two transitions or less per page.) 2) Ms. Marshall focused student attention. She found that laptops had an advantage over her earlier use ofdesktops. She noted that with desktop computers you must work to gain student attention and keep it when you areleading class. Ms. Marshall explained: “I love the laptop [when it doesn’t distract students]. You can tell students toclose the lid and put them away.” Later I observed Ms. Marshall’s directions to students during class:“Lids down please. 5…4......3………2 and a half,………2…………….1 and a half…………….1!! oh man [you justmade it]! 3) She created aisle space for students to access the laptop carts. Ms. Marshall discussed issues with lost time dueto students crowding the aisle to reach the side-by-side computer carts. She repositioned the carts so students had twodifferent paths to the carts reducing the retrieval and put away time. 4) Students retrieved the same computer each period. Students had their own folders on shared computers. Soeach one needed to use the same computer each period. Every computer was numbered with a corresponding numberon a slot in the cart. Students from each section were assigned a number that was posted on the board so if they forgotwhich computer they were using they could look at the chart retrieving the same laptop each day. 5) She taught care of laptops. Ms. Marshall has not had a problem with students breaking or misusing a laptop.When she noticed a student who was not carrying the laptop carefully, she said “Remember, hold it like a baby. Youlove it.” [Both arms across chest.] 6) She minimized competing noise level in the classroom. When students anticipated they would use technology(such as Brain Pop with animated videos) that included audio, they would automatically pick up a headset. Ms.
60 Wetzel and MarshallMarshall explains: “The students, they just know - too much noise drives everyone nuts. They sense it at the door. Ifthey have to have noise, they just go and get the headphones and plug them in and move on. It’s very seldom that Ihave to tell students to go get their headphones.” Audio played an important role in the classroom. The teacher wrote a grant to get the headsets so she couldlimit the noise and help students who had difficulty reading. For example, she selected program that read the wordsto students so they could focus on understanding the text. She explains: “This is a writing class, and my focus isn’treading, but when you’re doing research and you’re on some of these website where they have the more difficult wordsand explanations, hearing it, they would understand it, while reading they won’t, so I had a few of them taking notesfrom a website while they’re plugged in … Some are not following, some are just auditory learners, the visual getsthem distracted.” When giving instructors, Ms. Marshall asked students to just wear them around their necks until they were readyto use them. Headsets were located in a box near the door. Although many students used their own headsets, otherswho forgot them used the provided headsets. Careful planning limited student noise distractions and focused thelearning of students with reading or focusing disabilities. Easy access and rules for use enhanced instructional time. 7) Playing music in background provided a classroom setting that allowed students to settle down quickly. Whenstudents were working individually in class, Ms. Marshall used the online program Pandora with selections from JackJohnson and other similar artists in the background. I noticed that students settled down quickly when the musicstarted and focusing more thoroughly on the academic tasks like writing. When students were rotating from desk todesk writing down words for their poem the music in the background was calming.Discussion and Recommendations This is an exploratory study, yet the findings appear to provide some evidence that elements of the TPACKframework were observed in Ms. Marshall’s classroom. The discussion is organized around the interweaving of keycomponents.Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy The discussion begins with content and pedagogy because they provide the foundational context for anyexamination of the implementation of the TPACK framework (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). The Renaissance projectset the stage for the integration of technology in the lessons. The pedagogy was project-based learning guided byessential questions, and using a writer’s workshop approach to teach language arts skills of pre-writing, writing,revising and editing. The content was cross-curricular, but for this study, the focus was the writing strand of languagearts.Knowledge of Pedagogy, Content and Technology Ms. Marshall was able to use project-based learning in ways that helped students meet the state middle schoollanguage arts standards. I asked whether the role of state standards hindered her use of project-based instruction withthe integration of technology. She replied: “Technology is one more thing I have access to …. I can meet much of mycore if I’m being creative in the way that I’m teaching. [In this school district] you are left to teach the core in the wayyou feel is best for your students …. I’ve been in schools where we’ve been expected to be on this page in this bookwhen the principal came by … There is an art to teaching and computers fit into that art.” Consistent with the TPACK model, technologies were not taught as isolated skills, rather students learned to usethese technologies within the project activities: • Operating digital video cameras (Flip) • Video editing software (iMovie) • Presentation software (Keynote) • Audio creating software (Garage Band) • Locating and uploading files
Using the TPACK Framework to Study a Sixth Grade Classroom with High Access to Technology 61 Although, technologies appeared to play an important role in the Renaissance project, the TPACK model suggeststhe critical nature of the interweaving among the components, rather than an emphasis solely on individual components.In this study the interplay between the language arts content and the technologies is evident. For example, Keynoteskills were learned in the context of writing a newspaper article title with an action verb and key words, selectingimages to convey the concept in an effective manner to go with text, and using references and giving credit to sources.Also, students learned video camera skills in the context of interviewing based on an analysis of newscaster interviewson TV. Content skills such as interviewing included learning the roles of the questioner and the expert or the responder,and practicing the questions and the answers. Technological content skills are illustrated by the video editing skillsthat were learned when choosing key information and reducing the interview from ten to two minutes.Knowledge of Pedagogy and Technology The findings provide evidence that Ms. Marshall developed special expertise in the management of students andthe technologies. Using her technological pedagogical knowledge, the students used technology in ways that allowedthe class to run smoothly without losing time to technology related distractions. The focus remained on learning thecontent area outcomes. Teachers must interweave technology with content in ways that help students meet state objectives and performwell on standardized tests. Under these circumstance teachers may be reluctant to use an approach involvingtechnology for several reasons. First they may fear they will lose time on task. Thus, the technology may not fit thepedagogical needs of the teacher. Ms. Marshall maximized time on task by establishing routines such as clearingaisles to the computers, posting technology use directions on the white board so students and laptops were ready whenthe bell range, and employing charts with names and computer numbers to remove questions and squabbles over whichcomputer to use. Even small steps like students remembering to plug them in when they put them away helps to keepthem charged and in use. In this classroom, the routines were clear and appropriate, and technologies appeared to bea smooth operation in the classroom. I observed that the teacher and students did not have extended down time due tocomputer use. For example, at the beginning of an observation, I noticed how readily and meaningfully students usedthe technology as a way of learning. Another interweaving of pedagogy and technology was evident in Ms. Marshall’s approach to teaching a newcomputer application: “Let’s try it … students will figure it out.” Her approach was consistent with other research; forexample, Burns (2002) found that teachers who were not experts, but were comfortable with technology did betterat integrating technology in the classroom than teachers with more technology expertise. Further, if they introducedthe technology to students, but did not teach the program step by step to students, but rather let students figure it outand struggle with it, students were more successful. Ms. Marshall expressed this pedagogical approach to introducinga new technology “Let’s try it … students will figure it out.” She tried it by giving students a choice; allowingstudents who wanted to try it, do so. About half tried it; those figuring it out first showed other students how to useGarage Band and answered questions as they arose. Mr. Thompson, a school district instructional coach, called thisapproach to technology infusion “jumping into the deep end of the pool.” This approach is a good example of the useof technological pedagogical knowledge. It may seem reasonable to assume that the teacher needs a high level oftechnical knowledge and employ a step-by-step approach to teach students, however, that strategy was not employedby Ms. Marshall and it appears that a problem solving approach and “just jumping in” worked better. Finally, and mostimportantly, the technology was employed to enhance student learning of the subject. Ms. Marshall’s lessons werealigned to content standards and technology was a tool used to enhance the learning both of the content and also thetechnology skills needed to be an effective learner. This study has limitations in regard to generalizing the findings to other schools. This school serves many studentsfrom families with professional occupations. Further, students came to Ms. Marshall’s class with prior experienceswith technologies for learning. The previous year the fifth grade teachers had participated in the enhancing Missouri’sInstructional Networked Teaching Strategies or eMINTS professional development program. Consequently, thesesixth graders had participated in eMINTS classrooms and came to middle school with many technology skills.However, the study appears to serves as another instance in which the TPACK model helps us identify importantteacher behaviors in the classroom. It allows us to focus on the factors that make contributions to effective teaching.Mishra and Koehler (2006) believed that simultaneously addressing content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and
62 Wetzel and Marshalltechnology knowledge provided a framework for substantive technology integration in the curriculum. The challengefor future research is to study and report many real implementation examples of the TPACK framework in teachertraining. These reports provide cases for discussion in teacher professional development.ReferencesBurns, M. (December, 2002). From compliance to commitment: Technology as a catalyst for communities of learning. PHI DELTA KAPPAN, 295- 302.Lincoln, Y, & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Shin, T. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2) 123 – 149.SIGTE Leaders and NTLS Program Committee (2008). Realizing technology potential through TPACK. Leading and Learning with Technology, 36(2), 23-26.Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.TPACK Venn Diagram. Wiki at http://tpack.org/ maintained by Matthew Koehler and Punya Mishra and last updated June 1, 2010.
Integrating an Open Textbook into Undergraduate Teacher Education 65 Integrating an Open Textbook into Undergraduate Teacher Education Terence Cavanaugh Educational Leadership, School Counseling, & Sport Management, University of North Florida, USA email@example.com Abstract: As K12 schools move to open textbooks it becomes important that teacher preparation programs also begin to integrate this text format. This paper presented how an introductory educational technology undergraduate course began to integrate the use open textbooks and apply associated strategies including a getting to know your digital textbook and follow-up activities concerning integration that were used to familiarize students with this new classroom format of an old tool. The use of open textbooks provided a cost effective strategy as well as a preparatory activity for future classroom applications.Background Textbooks seem to be one of the fixtures of education at all levels. It is estimated that “textbooks serve as the basisfor 75 to 90 percent of classroom instruction” (Stein, Stuen, Carnine, and Long 2001, p. 6). But, the future seemsdigital for textbooks. Textbook publishers, such as McGraw-Hill are seeing an increase in college and universitystudent selection of electronic textbooks, and while such ebooks currently only are a small part of the textbook market,it is growing and the publisher plans to have all of its textbooks available in digital format (Christman 2010). Thegrowing use of and plans for electronic textbooks is important to pre-service educational technology classes, sincethe design of such classes to prepare teachers to integrate technology for their own future classes whose use of suchtechnology seems eminent. The use an open source textbook, or open textbook, began as a response to students’ and instructors’ concernsabout textbook expense. Students were concerned about rising textbook costs. The instructor concerns were abouttextbook usefulness in a rapidly changing field and a desire to integrate a technology tool, which could exemplifythe educational technology concepts of the course. Previous classes had already used ebooks and open textbooksin activities, but had not integrated the books as part of the teacher candidates’ own learning. The previous classes’experiences with electronic books had been hands on experiences in the use of technology to enhance teaching andlearning. In these activities students work in areas concerning children’s reading and content area reading, usuallyusing examples from available ebooks for children’s and adolescent literature. Later classes had begun to experimentwith open source content area texts, such as the science and math textbooks. It was decided that students taking theintroduction to educational technology classes should experience classroom learning that integrated a virtual textbook,thereby making the existing learning environment more authentic for their future classrooms. A number of states already have requirements of digital components for their K12 programs’ textbook selection, withsome states now accepting open textbook as a school textbook alternative. For example Florida’s Board of Educationis currently proposing that all K12 students switch to using only “electronic materials” delivered by Kindles, iPadsand other similar technology by 2015 (FL DOE, 2011). As more students with digital text experiences come from K12systems to colleges then it is reasonable to expect a greater demand for digital texts at the college levels. Not only isthere state legislation relating to technology and textbooks, a number of schools and districts have already gone digitalwith their textbooks. A 2006 Project Tomorrow NetDay survey found 22% of middle and high school students werealready using electronic versions of textbooks (Evans 2007). Arizona’s Empire High School was one of the first U.S.public schools to change to electronic textbooks in 2004 (Murray 2004). The California’s Digital Textbook Initiativehas created digital textbooks that provide at no cost “high-quality, cost-effective options to consider when choosingtextbooks for the classroom” and estimates that when a school district with approximately 10,000 high school studentsuses these open textbooks, it can save up to $2 million dollars in just two subjects (science and math) (CAOG 2009).Because of financial, legislative, and changing population factors the use of digital open textbooks seems a likely toolfor schools in the near future. It is important to start integrating digital textbooks into a teacher candidate program andthe introductory educational technology classes may be an ideal location to start.
66 CavanaughProblem of Experience The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE 2001) states that teachers must recognizethat information is available from sources that go well beyond textbooks. They accept that a large part of what teachersdo involves assisting students to acquire information from textbooks and acting as an additional source of expertise(Wise 2001). The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) in their refreshed standards for teachercompetencies in technology use, states that teachers should “design or adapt relevant learning experiences thatincorporate digital tools and resources to promote learning” (ISTE 2008, 2. Design and Develop Digital-Age LearningExperiences and Assessments). An approach that aligns with the International Reading Association’s position thatteacher preparation programs provide experiences for teacher candidates in technology enriched teaching throughouttheir programs, prepare teachers to use the technology, and that programs infuse information and communicationtechnologies (IRA 2009). While these statements may not directly promote the use of digital text, digital textbooks dofit the description as being a digital information and communication tool. If electronically delivered textbooks are going to be part of the future classroom, then current student teachersshould have experiences with such texts, which would help prepare them as teachers for the classrooms that they willhave. This integration of digital texts though is not yet the standard. In a 2008 Ebrary survey of over 6000 collegestudents, it was found that less than half indicated they never use e-books. One reason for this lack of digital textbooksuse at the post secondary education level may rest with the course instructor, as awareness of digital versions of textavailability seems to be correlated to age, with students being more aware of ebook options than faculty (Rowland,Nicholas, Jamali & Huntington, 2007; Levine-Clark, 2007).Legislation Textbooks used in classes are often costly. Between 1988 and 2005, the cost to students for their textbooks andsupplies nearly tripled to approximately $900 per year (GAO, 2005). In response to these costs Congress passedin 2008 provisions in the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) that are now in effect in the U.S. concerningtextbook costs which include: price disclosure, unbundling, and textbook lists (US DOE, 2010). State legislation isalso responding to textbooks costs, for example in 2009 there were 45 proposed legislative bills in 14 states concerningtextbooks. Many of the state rules cover areas of textbook information posting, custom and single use textbooks,bundling, online texts, textbook rental, and faculty awareness (NACS, 2010). Within the author’s own state the collegesand universities are required to publish textbook lists online 30 days in advance of a class starting, and are to makeefforts to minimize the cost of textbooks for students (FL Statute §1004.085, 2010). While the use of open sourcetexts had already been in place for some time, it meets the new university legislation from the state legislature “Thatcourse instructors and academic departments are encouraged to participate in the development, adaptation, and reviewof open-access textbooks and, in particular, open textbooks for high-demand general education courses” (FL Statute §1004.085, 2010 4e). Moving to use the free open textbook met the legislative requirements for timeliness and access,and had no cost to the students, for which they loudly stated at the opening of class that they were most thankful.Integration As part of the requirements in teacher preparation, technology has become an important aspect. In the state ofFlorida the course, “An Introduction to Technology for Educators” is one of the three lower division courses requiredfor entrance into any of the state colleges of education. Current course topics range from evaluating and applyingeducational software, to ethical and social issues, to models for integrating technology into instruction. The courseprovides hands-on educational technology experience with the student along with design principles for the use oftechnology to enhance teaching and learning in the classroom. The description of the course now includes computertechnology and its role in the teaching and learning processes. Into this course, as their main course textbook, theinstructors have selected an open textbook on educational technology, which provides the student with personal digitaltext experiences and instruction on pedagogical approaches for using such texts. While not all schools are currently using digital versions of texts, the growing trend of digital textbooks ineducational areas, is one that can be easily adapted into educational technology courses, both at the graduate andundergraduate levels. To assist in judging the accessibility of open source (affordable and printable) texts a search of
Integrating an Open Textbook into Undergraduate Teacher Education 67appropriate books for the course was undertaken. For this course a number of open source or free digital textbookswere reviewed and found appropriate for the educational technology classes or other general education classes thatdiscuss technology including: • Education for an Information Age: Teaching in the Computerized Classroom: http://www.pitt.edu/~edindex/ InfoAge6frame.html • Educational Technology Open Source Textbook: http://integratetech.net/contents • Education for a Digital World: http://www.col.org/resources/crsMaterials/Pages/edDigitalWorld.aspx • Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wikis/etl/index.php/Handbook_ of_Emerging_Technologies_for_Learning • Introduction to Information Literacy in the K12 Classroom: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_ Information_Literacy_in_the_K12_Classroom • Utilizing Technology for Meaningful Learning: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Instructional_Technology/ Utilizing_Technology_for_Meaningful_Learning The digital textbook used, in this case the Educational Technology Open-Source Textbook for the Introduction toTechnology for Educators course, is integrated into the online course space, through links to text sections. In additionto providing direction to the text, students are also taught how to use the text during the semester. Throughout thesemester students complete activities about tools that can be used in the instructional process that are combined withtheir digital course textbook, or other content area open textbooks. For example, at the start of the semester during thefirst class, students participate in an activity similar to what occurs at most middle schools, such as in science classeswhere new students do an activity commonly known as “getting to know your textbook.” While this activity mayseem “elementary” in its appearance as an activity, it does provide a sound educational experience to introduce thestudent to their new textbook format. In the Introduction to Technology for Educators class, as students explore theirdigital textbooks through the “getting to know your textbook activity,” they start to see some of the ways that such atext can be used (see Appendix 1) and how it is different than other texts. As students are completing their textbookfamiliarization activity, additional instruction is provided that integrates the use of their open textbook, such as how tofind content. During the getting to know your digital textbook activity students are instructed to adjust display featuressuch as font size, using a page search function to find information instead of an index, using the hyperlinks to accessoutside sources, and ancillary materials available such as podcast audio files and videos. Strategies and additionalapplications for reading and studying that integrate a digital textbook, such as audio, note-taking, and versioning, areincluded in follow-up activities that occur later in the semester. Students are taught how to use note-taking softwarewith their digital textbook, to collect information, create notes, and then tag and organize that information. Duringanother activity, text from the open textbook is converted to audio using text-to-speech software and is adapted forpodcast by the students. Through these activities, students begin to see that digital versions of textbooks can havebenefits over print versions. Informal polling of students seems to show an increase of textbook reading since theintegration of these textbook activities. Today’s K12 classroom includes students with special needs. One of the most common accommodations done forstudents with disabilities is to obtain the text material as electronic text as it is considered to be more accessible than apaper version. In a versioning activity, using either their class open textbook or a content area open textbook, studentscopy a textbook chapter into Microsoft Word, and then use the auto summary tool to create differentiated instructionalversions of the text at the 25-33% and 50-66% size range, providing students with alternate versions of the textbookchapter from “just the facts,” or the facts and supporting material levels, but without the extra detail, to the full chapter. In a recent study, researchers found that students identified three fundamental criteria for a good digital textbooksolution: affordability, inexpensive printing options, and accessibility (Allen & Student PIRGs, 2008). The opentextbook used for this course is available for free, meeting the affordability goal. Depending on the volume needed tobe printed, costs can vary, but students can, if desired, print out the pages needed. Students were surveyed about thepossibility of having a printed version available for purchase, but students indicated that option would not be necessary,but that they would appreciate having a printed version available from the library. One of the initial elements inselecting the text was to find one that wasn’t too long in the overall length of sections, as that impacted some studentsneeding to print out the pages. The textbook is also highly accessible; it is linked by sections within the coursemanagement space, and is available in different formats, such as a downloadable version that will display on variousebook reading devices like the Kindle or iPad.
68 CavanaughExpanding the Concept Educational technology instructors are also working with subject area instructors to assist in the integration ofdigital textbooks in area methods courses. While subject area K12 textbooks have long been used in teacher education,teacher candidates can now easily also experience subject area digital textbooks at an affordable price. Consider thata recent high school core subject textbook costs approximately $100. A core methods class would then require anadditional book cost of $100 to the student for each student to have their own subject area textbook to work with.Another option would be for the college to purchase a class set of K12 appropriate textbooks, which would have amaterials cost of $2500-3000 for a class size of 25 to 30 students, and this textbook cost and storage would have to bereplicated for each subject area. Integrating open digital textbooks as grade level and subject area resource materialsfor teacher candidates then becomes an extremely cost effective strategy for implementation in current classes, as wellgood preparation for teaching in future classrooms that make use of digital texts. For example, the CD-12 Foundation(http://www.ck12.org/flexr/) provides downloadable customizable digital textbooks at the middle and high schoollevels that conform to national and state textbooks standards in the areas of science, math, and social studies that couldbe used as example textbooks in area methods classes.Conclusion While many K12 schools may not yet have classroom resources and infrastructure to meet the 21st CenturyModel of the National Educational Technology Plan (Atkins, 2010), many college students do have sufficient accessto the necessary technologies. Colleges of education need to be preparing their students for the classrooms that willsoon exist. Karen Cator, director of education technology for the U.S. Department of Education, said U.S. schoolsmust “ensure that students have in their backpacks not a stack of textbooks, but a mobile device that has a wealthof information,” (Devaney, 2010, eTextbooks for a new learning generation). Integrating digital open textbooks intoclassroom applications can be a tool to help current students prepare for that future. While most university classroomsmay not have sufficient technology resources to provide all students access to digital textbooks, such rooms do exist.Computer lab classroom can provide the one-to-one computer access and by using ebook display programs all studentscould access digital textbooks. Introductory educational technology classes are usually taught in or otherwise usecomputer labs with one-to-one access, providing an ideal location to being integrating open textbooks into the teachereducation program. Another option for use of the open texts is for universities to publish the books themselves and sellthrough the campus book store. Self-publishing of open textbooks into print form is a cost effective option for schoolsthat don’t have the necessary technology to support digital texts to the student or classroom. Teacher educators need tostart the process of integrating digital texts into classroom experiences, and they can begin this process by searchingfor available digital open textbooks and finding appropriate versions that can be used now in their classes. That wouldmake entire sets of free textbooks available for teacher candidates to start using for their intended subject areas,and giving them access to textbooks that can prepare them for their future classroom model. Applying open sourcetextbooks into teacher education programs provides an affordable implement for breaking the “I teach as I was taught”cycle. Integrating such texts into the learning process today, will help upcoming teachers see the uses, adaptations, andaccommodations possible with a digital open textbook, progressing beyond the paper-bound paradigm.ReferencesAllen, N. & Student PIRGs (State Public Interest Research Groups). (2008), Course correction: how digital textbooks are off track and how to set them straight. Retrieved September 9, 2010, from http://www. maketextbooksaffordable.org/course_correction.pdfAtkins, D. E. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National educational technology plan 2010. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010CAOG (California Office of the Governor). (2009, June 8). Leading the nation into a digital textbook future. Retrieved September 21, 2010, from http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/12455/Christman, A. (2010, September 20). More students buying ebooks instead of traditional texts. Citizens Voice. Retrieved September 21, 2010, from http://citizensvoice.com/news/more-students-buying-ebooks-instead- of-traditional-texts-1.1021249
Integrating an Open Textbook into Undergraduate Teacher Education 69Devaney, L. (2010, September 21). Panelists: Digital tools expand learning opportunities. eSchool News. Retrieved September 22, 2010, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/09/21/panelists-digital-tools-expand-learning- opportunities/3/?Evans, J. (2007). K•12 students speak up about technology and learning: Are we listening? Educause 2007. Retrieved September 6, 2010, from http://connect.educause.edu/blog/Carie417/eli2007podcastk12students/16792FL Statute. (2010). The 2010 Florida Statutes: 1004.085 Textbook affordability. Retrieved September 21, 2010, from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_ Statute&Search_String=1004.085&URL=1000-1099/1004/Sections/1004.085.htmlFL DOE (Florida Department of Education). (2011). Budget Subcommittee on Education Pre-K-12 Appropriations, 2011 Session. Retrieved February 18, 2011 from http://www.flsenate.gov/committees/show/BEAGAO (Government Accountability Office). (2005). College textbooks: enhanced offering appear to drive recent price increases. Retrieved August 20, 2010, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05806.pdfIRA (International Reading Association). (2009). New Literacies and 21st-century technologies: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Retrieved August 5, 2010, from http://www.reading.org/Libraries/ Position_Statements_and_Resolutions/ps1067_NewLiteracies21stCentury.sflb.ashxISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers (Refreshed). Retrieved January 5, 2010, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_T_Standards_Final.pdfLevine-Clark, M. (2007). Electronic books and the humanities: a survey at the University of Denver. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Publish ed/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/1710260102.html#1710260102001.pngMurray, C. (2004) Textbooks dumped in favor of laptops. eSchool News. Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http:// www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=35971&CFID=18569998&CFTOKEN=86704796NACS (National Association of College Stores) (2010). State Bills 2010. Retrieved September 26, 2010, from http:// www.nacs.org/advocacynewsmedia/LegislativeUpdates/state/2010.aspxNCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education). (2001). Technology and teacher education. Retrieved September 28, 2010, from http://www.ncate.org/public/techCurrent.asp?ch=113Rowland, I., Nicholas, D., Jamali, H. R., and Huntington, P. (2007). What do faculty and students really think about e-books? Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 59(6), 2007: 489-511.Stein, M., Stuen, C., Carnine, D., & Long, R. (2001). Textbook evaluation and adoption practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17, 5-23.US DOE (U.S. Department of Education). (2010). Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) (Public Law 110-315). Retrieved September 21, 2010, from http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.htmlWise, A. E. (2001). A message to NCATE institutions, board members, constituent organizations and friends. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from http://www.ncate.org/public/technology21.asp?ch=113 Appendix 1: Getting To Know Your Digital TextbookOVERVIEW: Familiarize the student (teacher candidate) with the digital textbook. Once they are familiar withdigital text it should enable them to be better prepared for more efficient learning and better prepared for when theywill teach with digital texts.PURPOSE: Familiarize the students with the textbook for more efficient learning and teaching.OBJECTIVE(s): 1. Identify structures and abilities related to digital textbooks 2. Identify the reading and learning components in the textbook. 3. Provide practical experience in using the structure, design, and tools of digital textbooks for more effective learning.RESOURCES/MATERIALS:Teacher materials: Digital textbook, computer, digital projectorStudent Materials: Digital textbook, worksheet (digital or hard copy – if hard copy then also pen, and/or pencil)
70 CavanaughACTIVITIES AND PROCEDURES: 1. The students will review the standard features as well as the features unique to Educational Technology Open Source Textbook (http://integratetech.net/contents). 2. Discussion question (Project on the overhead and save the answers.) Possibly use concept mapping software to record answers. Question: What are the standard features found in MOST printed textbooks? Possible answers: a. Table of Contents b. Captions c. Title pages d. Chapter introductions e. Glossary f. Index g. Headings h. Chapter Review or Summary 3. Distribute Activity Sheet “Getting to Know My Textbook” or access the question set though online form or quiz tool. This will be an in class assignment. 4. While students are working on the assignment have students pause and provide instruction concerning: a. Changing the display size of text (ctrl +) b. Searching within the page (ctrl f) 5. Closure Discussion Question: This is to be done after the worksheet questions have been answered (Project the list of standard features on the overhead.) Question: What features did you find that are unique to this digital version of a textbook? 6. Review the questions and answers the students have completed.Answers1. answers will vary2. answers will vary3. differentiation of instruction4. ISTE, International Society for Technology in Education5. analysis, synthesis and evaluation6. online site that teaches ABCs7. hinder the learning process8. audio, podcast, or mp39. Technology rubric10. Exemplary or Proficient, but answers may varyActivity: Getting To Know My Digital TextbookTextbooks are a special kind of publication. Teachers use textbooks directly to teach their classes and a good teacherwill use a textbook and create or find new information to supplement the text. Everyone is usually familiar with atextbook for their class, but textbooks exist in a number of different forms, so while you may be very familiar withthe printed version, you may have had limited experience with digital textbooks.DIRECTIONS: You are going to take a quick exploration through your digital textbook. Read each statement andfollow the directions.1. Look at the CONTENTS page (http://integratetech.net/contents) and select your LEAST favorite section. (Writethe name down.) _______________________________________________________________________________2. Look at the CONTENTS page (http://integratetech.net/contents) and select a CHAPTER or Section that youwould like to know more about. (Write the name down.) ________________________________________________
Integrating an Open Textbook into Undergraduate Teacher Education 713. Go to the Technology for Meaningful Learning section in the book, and locate the subsection on What isMeaningful Learning. What reason is given for why there should be a use of technology in elementary schools? ________________________________________________________________________________________________4. Next travel to the Middle school section and find the link for the National Educational Technology Standards.Follow the link and find out who is responsible for the National Educational Technology Standards: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________5. Next, return to the textbook and search the chapter (ctrl-f) for the term “Bloom” and then visit each occurrence.What are three of the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Go to the bottom of the page and select the link to go to the next chapter Information Literacy. What is“Starfall”? ____________________________________________________________________________________7. When choosing technology to use in the learning process, teachers need to be certain that the technology doesnot do what? __________________________________________________________________________________8. Find the link for the Education Pod Network; follow the link and what kind of files are available for playing? ________________________________________________________________________________________________Go though the menu list on the left side of the EPN and play one of the grade level or subject specific files foryourself.9. Return to the Information Literacy chapter and go to the section on Choosing Appropriate Technology Tools forteaching and Learning. What did Professor Bell create to assist teachers?_____________________________________________________________________________________________10. Looking at the tool that Professor Bell created, look at the Technology Integration section, at what level do youfeel that this activity that you are doing is? ___________________________________________________________
Web Video Project as an Instructional Strategy in Teacher Education 73 Web Video Project as an Instructional Strategy in Teacher Education Denys Lupshenyuk York University, Canada firstname.lastname@example.org Martha M. Hocutt University of West Alabama, USA email@example.com Ron Owston York University, Canada firstname.lastname@example.org Abstract: The advent of Web 2.0 has metamorphosed the landscape of the Internet from a static “depository” of multimedia data into a dynamic and participatory “habitat” of individuals. Web video, epitomized by YouTube, is particularly suited to student-centered design of learning where students make their own choice of video they want to use to enhance their learning. User-generated web video can be created and shared freely and openly over the Internet by anyone and its value lies in its content and the way it is authored rather than in its delivery method or the media player used to display it over the Web. This paper discusses the qualities of this emerging type of web video, offers a conceptual framework for the integration of user-generated web video into student learning, and shares practical experience of web video application in the teacher education curriculum in a regional university in Alabama.Setting the Context With the spread of broadband Internet access, the use of streaming video has grown rapidly in the field ofteacher education. One of its key advantages is that it is accessible to students anywhere, whether on campus or not,and opens up new possibilities for their learning. User-generated web videos, along with video sharing websites, havebeen widely adopted by mainstream education. This emerging type of video – best epitomized by the popular websiteYouTube – presents a new way to represent knowledge that lies in the de-centralized production of video narrativeand the way this narrative is authored by embedding the ideas of bottom-up collaboration, user-generated content, andcommunity building. YouTube is the fourth most visited website in both Canada and the United States, and the thirdglobally (Alexa Internet, 2010). Teacher education cannot disregard the potential of web video to influence the waystudents acquire knowledge and negotiate its meaning. Web video can only be effective if the educational goals areclearly defined in terms of its application to the learning process. In this regard, teacher candidates are urged to revisittheir teaching and learning philosophies regarding the nature of knowledge and how knowledge is created within thelearning process (Dede, 2008). Current research has demonstrated that university students highly appreciate and take advantage of videocontent streamed over the Web, as it allows for greater flexibility in studying the subject matter compared to videocontent delivered via CD-ROM (Bracher, Collier, Ottewill, & Shephard, 2005; Wu & Kao, 2008) or lecture contentpresented in a classroom (Bassili, 2008). Other findings (Leijen, Lam, Wildschut, Simons, & Admiraal, 2009; Wu& Kao, 2008) imply that streaming video supports students in taking a more active role in the evaluation of theirown learning performance or that of their peers. A shortcoming of these studies is that most researchers investigatestreaming video produced by universities (Bracher et al., 2005), faculty members (Bassili, 2008), or media productioncompanies. Despite a high level of content reliability and academic rigor, these videos are seen as a form of authorizeddiscourse, often stripped of situational contexts and, sometimes, give a one-sided and/or outdated account of thesubject matter students explore. The reliability of video content is contingent on the knowledge and experience ofparticular individuals (e.g., instructors, experts) whose expertise is based on “what they have learned from reading
74 Lupshenyuk, Hocutt, and Owstonand thinking, from listening to and observing others, and from their own experience” (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003, p.5). Moreover, the choice of video is often prescribed by course instructors, rather than students. All these aspectsof the production and use of streaming video suggest that producers and instructors “clear a path” to knowledge bydetermining which information is included or disregarded in the video segment, as well as which part of the video isrelevant to be integrated into the curriculum. In this regard, students are exposed to the video that represents “filtered”information and favors only one side of a matter or a problem. The instructional strategy discussed in this paper focuses on user-generated web video and video sharingwebsites which provide students with a broader sampling of video content that help them explore a complex concept.In particular, by browsing the volumes of web video on video sharing websites, such as YouTube, students are able toview multiple and diverse perspectives on the same topic which provides the potential to advance their understandingabout the subject matter and to further their breadth and depths of knowledge in the discipline. In this paper, we intendto share our experience of utilizing web video in the teacher education curriculum while applying the principles ofsituated and distributed cognition theories. This is an aspect of e-learning and digital pedagogy that has received littleattention in the extant teacher education literature.Web Video and Its Benefits for Student Learning The advent of Web 2.0 has metamorphosed the landscape of the Internet from a static “depository” ofmultimedia data into a dynamic and participatory “habitat” of individuals. Under an umbrella of Web 2.0, a number ofapplications and online services have appeared. These Web 2.0 applications hold promising possibilities for “bottom-up” interactivity and collaboration while producing, organizing, re-using, capturing, storing, or indexing a wide rangeof multimodal content that is open and accessible to anyone connected to the Internet (Bonk, 2008; Caladine, 2008;Dede, 2008; Richardson, 2006). In line with these new capabilities afforded by the Web, the launch of YouTube in2005 with its “broadcast yourself” motto has become an important milestone in the evolution of video technology. TheYouTube platform and its combination with wireless mobile devices, video annotations (i.e., interactive commentaries),screencasting software (i.e., devices used to record activities on the computer screen for demonstration and trainingpurposes), video capture applications, and video editing software (i.e., devices used to capture existing video andrecombine it with original material to produce a new value-added video) have transformed the essence of streamingvideo. In this paper, we use the term user-generated web video, or just web video, in preference to online streamingvideo. The underlying logic upon which the term user-generated web video is used arises from the user-generatedconcept of social media that re-conceptualizes the production of digital content and redefines the functions of producersand viewers of digital content. Web video can be created and shared freely and openly over the Internet by anyone.In contrast, the value attached to professional or enterprise streaming videos is embedded with the authority of theproducer (e.g., university, instructor, or mass media industry), who filters to some extent the content of information,script, and footage. Web 2.0 applications “may destabilize the structures that filter information flow and knowledgeconstruction on the Internet” (Macfadyen, 2006, p. 288). Therefore, web video can be characterized as an Internet-based user- or community-generated video, as second generation of online streaming video, or as a mainstream (i.e.,open, free) online video on demand. In other words, the value of web video lies in its content and the way it is authoredrather than in its delivery method or the media player used to display it over the Web. Web videos are uploaded, shared, and viewed within video sharing websites, such as YouTube, TeacherTube,ForaTV, ScieVee, and others, where individuals can interact with others and discover videos on the basis of theircommon interests, and can communicate with each other through vlogs or vidcasting (i.e., video blogs) and “broadcastthemselves” (Burke & Snyder, 2008; Trier, 2007). Web video can be described as “collective intelligence” whichcontains “the aggregate knowledge that emerges from the decentralized choices and judgments of groups of independentparticipants” (Tapscott & Williams, 2006, p. 41). The associative organization of videos (through the use of tags,search, related videos, and the like) in video-sharing networks is similar to that of human memory, and informationretrieval from the video sharing networks reveals similarities to human cognitive abilities (Kulkarni, 2007). Because of the possibility of personalization web video can encourage and facilitate learners’ activeengagement in critical viewing or authoring content in the forms of vlogs (Ullrich, Borau, Luo, Tan, Shen, & Shen,
Web Video Project as an Instructional Strategy in Teacher Education 752008). Through collaborative filtering (e.g., use of related video) predicated on the viewing habits of “the crowd,”video sharing websites make immediate suggestions on other videos relevant to the students’ initial search (Ullrichet al., 2008). Thus, it opens up opportunities for personalization (Bonk, 2008) and customization during students’knowledge construction and learning. Wireless mobile devices, such as smart phones or tablet computers, in combination with web video sharingwebsites, microblogging, and social networks, accelerate potential approaches to engaging students in creatingimmediate digital video content. With a mobile device in hand, learners can record authentic practice that takes placein a real-life context and then share, with minimal technical difficulty, the video segment with others by uploading itto any video sharing environment (Ullrich et al., 2008). The use of web video provides access to the diversity and multivoicedness of knowledge and its meaning.It allows students to observe and reflect on real-world content, produced by real people in authentic situations andrepresenting different viewpoints and meanings in understanding various aspects of the topic they study (Caladine,2008; Ullrich et al., 2008). According to Bonk (2008), web videos help students understand complex concepts (e.g.,artificial intelligence or behaviorism) and heighten their curiosity about aspects of the subject matter by providingvaluable ideas and insights. Web video offers great potential to creative and artistic learning because of its enormous possibilities forremixing and transforming multimodal content. Easy-to-use and lightweight formats of web video create a potentialnot only for embedding them into other websites outside the video sharing social network (e.g., blogs, wiki, Facebook,etc.) (Burke & Snyder, 2008), but also for creating conditions for higher level usage, such as mash-ups or remixingof various videos, audio, screencast, and other modes of representation for the purpose of creating a new digitalcomposition (Bishop, 2009; Ullrich et al., 2008). Clearly, web video bears potential to be integrated into the learning process in higher education. It isparticularly suited to student-centered design of learning where students make a choice of what video they need towatch to support their learning. In a video sharing network, students are able not only to view a broad sample of user-created content, but they are also provided with the opportunity to interact with creators of video and other membersof the network and to share their own video content with a broader audience.Theoretical Foundation With the emergence of “participatory” Web 2.0 technologies, educators and scholars have begun to re-thinkwhat it means to learn in this kind of world. Our pedagogical model for infusing web video into teaching and learningis largely informed by the theories of situated cognition and distributed cognition. A situated cognition theory highlights two categorizations of the learning process relevant to this research –context-driven knowledge and authentic experience. Proponents of situated cognition argue that knowledge is dynamic,contextually situated, and the understanding of its meaning is continuously constructed through its application to newsituations (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Observation of knowledge in a context and participation in authenticsettings help students construct useful knowledge and make sense of expert’s experience embedded in authenticpractice (Brown et al., 1989; Barab & Duffy, 2000). In addition, knowledge construction is highly contingent on“contextual noise” (i.e., situated meanings and tacit knowledge), embedded or “hidden” in the fabrics of the authenticdiscourse and cannot be explicated fully (Brown et al., 1989; Bereiter, 1997; Lave, 1991). In contrast, students’interaction with decontextualized knowledge, such as textbook examples, descriptive explanations, and other abstractrepresentations inherent in classroom discourse, leads to the development of misconceptions of domain knowledgeand weak relations between what is taught and the life-world experience (Brown et al., 1989; Lave, 1990). A distributed cognition theory posits that learning is enabled by students and their cognitive skills and takesplace through collaborative activities, where multiple students participate, interact, and share their knowledge andexperience (Cole & Engeström, 1993; Pea, 1997; Salomon, 1994). While participating in a learning activity, students’engagement is mediated by artifacts (e.g., tools or symbolic representations), regulations and procedures governingtheir interaction, and by a “division of labor” intended to assign tasks and roles to the students (Cole & Engeström,
76 Lupshenyuk, Hocutt, and Owston1993). Knowledge, therefore, is embedded in the activity and the dynamics of interaction, rather than in students’minds, communities, or objects. The pedagogical goal of a distributed cognition framework is to shift learningby rearranging knowledge construction from an isolated (i.e., tool-free) and self-directed activity to “facilitatingindividuals’ responsive and novel uses of resources for creative and intelligent activity alone and in collaboration”(Pea, 1997, p. 81). The pedagogical model utilized in this study infuses web video into student learning and is based uponsituated cognition and distributed cognition theories. The situated perspective assumes that information cannot beconsumed and converted into knowledge in isolation. In our instructional design of the web video project, situatednesswas fostered by the creation of videos representing the emergent and fluid concept of individual students’ knowledge,as well as their desire for freedom to deliver the authentic message directly to the public without formal approvalmechanisms. In this regards, it bears the potential to challenge students’ thinking, for instance, while evaluating videocontent from a critical vantage point. The theory of distributed cognition views learning as an interaction betweenstudents and video that carries the intelligence of the producer and has the capacity for facilitating deep and reflectiveunderstanding. In our project, the validity and relevance of the video content created by students was evaluated through“collaborative filtering,” in the forms of peers’ commentaries, ratings, and the number of views.Model for Infusing Web Video into Student Learning Web 2.0 developments provide today’s students with more opportunities to enhance their learning, includinginteraction, knowledge creation, and cultivation of innovative thinking and higher-order cogitative skills. With theincreased popularity of the “participatory” Web and its tools in education, researchers have argued widely over theparadigm shift occurring in the learning process which entails significant changes in the different areas of learning, suchas the development of shared, bottom-up, and context-dependent knowledge, adoption of active learning strategies,and the emergence of collective intelligence (Dede, 2008; Tapscott & Williams, 2006). Drawing on the discussion of situated cognition and distributed cognition theories, as well as the findings ofcurrent studies on the impact of streaming video, we have developed a conceptual model which provides a methodologyfor incorporating web video into student learning. This “Learning with Web Video” model, LWV model in short, isgrounded on the following premises informed by the constructivist school of thought and theories of situated anddistributed cognition: • Learning is an active and ongoing process of constructing knowledge and new understandings, developing skills of reasoning and of learning, and shaping attitudes, including beliefs and values. • Knowledge construction is an emergent “bottom-up” process supported by situational activities, collaboration, and exposure to multiple perspectives. • Knowledge and thinking is distributed physically, socially, and symbolically (i.e., across the minds, media, artifacts, groups of individuals, and space and time). • Learners take active part in validating their knowledge construction and evaluating their learning performance. In the context of the LWV model, web video is brought to provide situatedness and multiple perspectivesto the learning process occurring either at home while preparing an assignment or in the classroom while engagingin small group discussions. However, it is the influence of web video on the practice of student learning that is ofinterest. Web video is characterized as a learning means for knowledge construction and gaining new understandings.Students, through the use of web video, observe diverse and decentralized viewpoints on the subject matter studied anddevelop new understanding of knowledge by establishing relationships between their prior knowledge and experience,“authoritative” knowledge prescribed by the instructor through a syllabus, and the “contextualized” (i.e., observed,emergent, or bottom-up) knowledge inherent in web videos. The key instructional components of the LWV model are as follows: • Self-directed knowledge building is predicated on the coordination of three sources of knowledge: (a) “authoritative” knowledge (e.g., scholarly articles, textbook chapters, and instructor’s expertise);
Web Video Project as an Instructional Strategy in Teacher Education 77 (b) “contextualized” knowledge (e.g., authentic practices or others’ perceptions and understandings embedded in web videos); and (c) learners’ existing knowledge and prior experiences. At this stage, learners make their own choice of relevant web videos that will help them gain an understanding of “authoritative” knowledge. In personal reflective conversations with themselves, learners establish connections between “authoritative” knowledge, “contextualized” knowledge, and their prior knowledge resulting in building new or modified constructs of their own knowledge (i.e., self-directed knowledge building). • Collaborative knowledge building is carried out through active engagement in small group discussions and presentations of group’s collective intelligence in the classroom and constructive peer commentaries to learners’ weblog entries or learners’ own video clips. • Production of Digital Video by learners, either individually or in small groups, as the contribution to the collective accumulation of knowledge on the Web. • Self-evaluation and peer assessment are essential in assessing learning performance. Evaluation criteria for learning activities, co-developed with learners, are devoted to enable students to carry a holistic analysis of their learning performance, knowledge construction, and thinking processes. Self-evaluation and peer assessment give students an opportunity to reflect on the processes of learning and analyze the changes in the state of their approaches to learning (metacognition) and their understanding of knowledge. The process of incorporating web videos into academic discourse and student learning has two significantfunctions. First, it has the capacity of situating student knowledge construction within a broader contextual environmentembedding authentic cultural and social situations. Secondly, web video sharing networks, such as YouTube,TeacherTube, TED.com, or Fora.tv, “distribute” various artifacts of collective intelligence which have been createdbased on other individuals’ conceptions of the world and their cultural experiences. That being said, web videos canbe viewed as supplemental learning resources which expose learners to a multiplicity of diverse perspectives andmultivoicedness of discourses/meanings. Web videos, thus, enable students to develop new understanding about thesubject matter they are learning.Web Video Project and its Implications for Teacher Candidates In spring 2010, we designed a Web Video Project, applying the LWV core principles and instructionalcomponents. The project was embedded into a graduate teacher education course on technology and education. Thismarked the first time that the LWV model was tested in an actual teacher education classroom environment. Thepurpose of the web video project was to introduce teacher candidates to Web 2.0 and to provide them with opportunitiesto inquire collaboratively into the areas of Web 2.0 technology and its pedagogy, theories, discourses, and researchapproaches through the application of three sources of knowledge (i.e., scholarly, Web 2.0, and personal experience).Students were expected to engage with the readings of scholarly articles and share their own responses to the readingsthrough a web video enhanced weblog; to participate in classroom small-group discussions; and to produce their ownweb video compositions integrating multiple modes of representations (i.e., video, image, audio narrative, animation).In particular, the project included the following assignments: (a) personal philosophy about the use of web video incurrent learning and future teaching; (b) video enhanced blogging exercise; (c) participation in classroom small-groupdiscussions; (d) production of a digital video and sharing it over the YouTube website; and (d) self-evaluation of videoenhanced blogging and web video production activities. At the beginning of the project, students were asked to write a statement of what they thought about theeducational potential of web video for themselves as learners and for their students as future teachers. Then, at the endof the project they were asked to revisit their views. By the end of the project, an overwhelming majority of teachercandidates came to a solid agreement in considering web video as indispensable for their learning and stressing thevalue of its distinctive qualities, such as: easy access and varying degrees of video content oversight, representation ofmultiple perspectives on the issue, and the possibility to link to or embed web video into other websites. During the video enhanced blogging assignment, students were provided with a Blogger space, in whichthey could think in virtual proximity to others with similar ideas, explore multiple perspectives, and explore their own
78 Lupshenyuk, Hocutt, and Owstonunderstanding. Importantly, participation in this activity provided teacher candidates with an opportunity to engagein an authentic Web 2.0-based experience. Before weblogging, students first engaged with the assigned readings andthen searched for at least one relevant web video using video sharing websites. It should be noted that no commercialor professional (i.e., with copyright restrictions) video clips were allowed to be used either for weblogging or in-classcollaboration. Then, students composed a weblog entry consisting of the following elements: (a) a summary of thereadings; (b) their individual reflections; (c) a relevant embedded video and the rationale for using it; and (d) a thought-provoking question that would be used for in-class small group discussions. In addition to posting their own blogs,teacher candidates were asked to comment on their peers’ entries in a constructive way. Also, we began each classwith collaborative classroom discussions where teacher candidates formed small groups for discussing the assignedreadings, related thought-provoking questions posted on teacher candidates’ weblogs, and relevant web videos foundby teacher candidates themselves. Active engagement of every teacher candidate in small group discussion wasencouraged. After four class sessions, teacher candidates started creating their own digital videos representing theirunderstanding of the subject matter (i.e., assistive technology). The “video composition” process comprised thefollowing stages: (a) selecting a topic; (b) scripting the design; (c) collecting own video footage or remixing/reusingother videos; (d) editing the video footage using MS Movie Maker , a video-editing software; (e) uploading the videopodcast to the YouTube network and embedding it into their personal weblogs. As active participants of the learning process, teacher candidates were asked for their input into the developmentof the scoring rubrics for weblog entries and video podcast production. Such rubrics were used as guidelines to carry aholistic analysis of their performance and to prevent learners from getting lost in the whole new experience and courseexpectations. The rubrics helped teacher candidates concentrate on assigned articles and relevant videos and, thus,facilitate their reflection processes and become more precise in reasoning. The embedding of Web 2.0 into teacher candidates’ reflective blogs, as well as the production of their ownvideos and sharing them via Blogger were found to have a positive effect on students’ commitment to learning. Theanalysis of teacher candidates’ self-evaluations suggests that teacher candidates’ overall Web 2.0 skills improved,particularly web video searching strategies, creating a video podcast, using video-editing software, and uploading avideo to the website. We believe that teacher candidates’ anxiety and lack of knowledge about web video before theproject launch were overcome and developed a higher level of concerns about the learning value afforded by the newformat of the video. Furthermore, teacher candidates showed intense interest in the use of web video in their learning.Conclusions The emerging type of web video presents a culturally new video format of knowledge representation whichlies in the de-centralized production of video narrative and the way this narrative is authored, embedding the ideas ofbottom-up collaboration, user-created content, and community building. Video sharing websites provide students witha broader sampling of video content that helps them explore the subject matter from more than one way of representingit. In particular, by browsing the volumes of web videos on video sharing networks, such as YouTube, students are ableto view multiple and diverse perspectives on the same topic that has the potential to advance their understanding aboutthe subject matter and to further their breadth and depths of knowledge in the discipline. The proposed model of web video mediated learning can be an effective means of enhancing students’understanding of concepts and ability to construct new knowledge. End of course evaluation documents indicated thatone-hundred percent of the teacher candidates believed they were more competent in the subject area as a result of thecourse activities. Evidence also suggests that teacher candidates were more inclined to the learning activities whichwere enhanced with the use of Web 2.0 technologies. A number of project participants even suggested that web videoshould be mandatory for all students at their university. Additionally, when asked what the most beneficial aspect ofthe course was, several teacher candidates commented on the ability to learn in an authentic setting.
Web Video Project as an Instructional Strategy in Teacher Education 79ReferencesAlexa Internet (2010). [The Web Information Company] Traffic Ratings. San Francisco, CA: Alexa Internet, Inc. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youtube.comBarab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Bassili, J. N. (2008). Motivation and cognitive strategies in the choice to attend lectures or watch them online. Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 129-148.Bereiter, C. (1997). Situated cognition and how to overcome it. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 281-300). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Bishop, J. (2009). Pre-service teacher discourses: Authoring selves through multimodal compositions. Digital Culture & Education, 1(1), 31-50.Bonk, C. J. (2008, March). YouTube anchors and enders: The use of shared online video content as a macrocontext for learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association 2008 Annual Meeting, New York, NY.Bracher, M., Collier, R., Ottewill, R., & Shephard, K. (2005). Accessing and engaging with video streams for educational purposes: Experiences, issues and concerns. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 13(2), 139-150.Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.Burke, S. C., & Snyder, S. L. (2008). YouTube: An innovative learning resource for college health education courses. International Electronic Journal of Health Education, 11, 39-46.Caladine, R. (2008). Enhancing e-learning with media-rich content and interactions. Hershey, PA: Information Science.Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dede, C. (2008). How Web 2.0 tools are transforming learning and knowledge. FETC 2008 Podcasts from the 2008 Florida Educational Technology Conference held January 23-25 in Orlando, Florida. Retrieved September 20, 2009, from http://edcommunity.apple.com/ali/item.php?itemID=14552Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Kulkarni, A. (2007). Content-based image retrieval using associative memories. Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Telecommunications and Informatics (pp. 99-104). Dallas, TX.Lave, J. (1990). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural Psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 309-327). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressLave, J. (1991). Legitimate peripheral participation. In J. Lave & E. Wenger, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (pp. 27-43). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressLeijen, Ä., Lam, I., Wildschut, L., Simons, P. R. -J., & Admiraal, W. (2009). Streaming video to enhance students’ reflection in dance education. Computers & Education, 52, 169-176.Macfadyen, L. P. (2006). In a world of text, is the author king? The revolutionary potential of Wiki (open content) technologies. In F. Sudweeks, H. Hrachovec, and C. Ess (Eds.), Proceedings Cultural Attitudes Towards Communication and Technology, Murdoch University, Australia, 285-298.Pea, R. D. (1997). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressRichardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Corwin Press.Salomon, G. (1994). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80 Lupshenyuk, Hocutt, and OwstonTapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York, NY: Portfolio.Trier, J. (2007). “Cool” engagements with YouTube: Part 1. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(5), 408-412.Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., & Shen, R. (2008, April). Why Web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: Principles and prototypes. Paper presented at the International World Wide Web Conference 2008, Beijing, China.Wu, C. -C., & Kao, H. -C. (2008). Streaming videos in peer assessment to support training pre-service teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 45-55.AcknowledgementsWe would like to extend our special appreciation to Dr. Laurie Fowler, Assistant Professor, who taught one of thecourse sections where the study took place, for her incredible understanding and support in delivering the web videoproject in her course.
YouTube Annotations: Reflecting Interactive, Web based Hypervideos in Teacher Education 81 YouTube Annotations: Reflecting Interactive, Web based Hypervideos in Teacher Education Thomas Winkler1, Martina Ide2, Michael Herczeg1 Institute for Multimedia and Interactive Systems, University of Luebeck, Germany1,2 Institute for Quality Development of Schools in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany1 email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Abstract: The aim of this paper is to discuss the pertinence of experience of hypertext structures regarding the development of perceptual patterns when using contemporary time based interactive media. Therefore we discuss first the idea of time based hypermedia and related works in arts and education. Then we describe the design and implementation of the pilot project WeHype1, where hypervideos were created at school using YouTube Annotations. Then we focus on the transfer of the experiences at school into teacher education. Results of a comparative evaluation verify that, due to the fact that youngsters communicate and interact more in social nets, they are more famil- iar with hypermedia spaces than their teachers. Furthermore the evaluation shows, that teachers as well as students think that the easy-to-use tool YouTube Annotations is suitable for understanding hyper-structures and leads to sustainable learning. This leads us to reflect about the importance of artistic approaches for understanding non-linear narrative structures using video. Finally we dis- cuss why teaching with interactive time based hypermedia should be transferred into teacher edu- cation.Introduction Media have always influenced our learning, whether as a linguistic or non-linguistic (i.e. hypervideo) com-munication media or as media which (pre-)structure the interactions with the objective world. In the beginning of the21st century, the significance of the mediated reality of human life changed fundamentally. These changes must beincorporated into teacher training programs. Communication and interaction (between people and between peopleand digital media, i.e. hyperlink structures) have developed a symbiosis with highly complex information processingsystems, both in post-geographical environments (Fassler, 2009), as well as in mixed reality. Teacher training has toreflect and honor these social changes in modified teaching scenarios, so that students are prepared adequately for fu-ture challenges in the 21st century. One of the main interests of the KiMM initiative2 in co-operation with the IQSH3 isthe concentration on the design, development, testing and evaluation of digitally enriched interactive learning environ-ments for children and teenagers (K-12). We have worked for more than ten years in this field to bring a constructivistpedagogical methodology into new, contemporary scenarios of teacher education. It is important that the learning scenarios are created and evaluated with children and youngsters in mind andcan easily become part of daily practical teaching at schools. This means appropriate use of available technology; i.e.,it must be inexpensive and easy to handle. Additionally, the technology and the associated learning scenarios are meantto be directly incorporated into teacher education. A prerequisite for the design of up-to-date teaching scenarios is acurrent understanding of structures of learning processes. Therefore, it also allows for the planning of a model projectwith students at school, considering changing societal, cultural and social needs in terms of a new learning culturein the 21st century. The novel, unprecedented forms of perceiving and interacting (i.e. hypervideo), have mediatedentirely new modes of construction of knowledge (in other words, of learning processes). For the education and training of teachers it must be stated that young people especially acquire skills outsidethe educational system (appropriation (construction out of fragments) of other/new scripts (schemata) of perception),which are nonetheless introduced into the educational situation (school). Hyper-structures of the Internet have a strong WeHype is the name of an arts project in the 11th grade of the Carl-Jacob-Burckhardt Secondary School, UNESCO Associated School in Luebeck, Germany.  Kids in Media and Motion, Initiative of the University of Luebeck, Germany. http://kimm.uni-luebeck.de Institute for Quality Development of Schools in Schleswig-Holstein (Teacher Education, Germany). http://www.iqsh.de
82 Winkler, Ide, and Herczegeffect on patterns of perception in young people. Located in all processes of the Internet (chat, blogs, YouTube etc.)hyper-structures are evidence of the change in the communication culture of young people (JIM Studie 2009). Ac-cording to Franz Josef Roell (Roell, 2003) this is appropriation of reality in the sense of self made crossmodal skillsof children and young people. This way of thinking is supported by the culture of media, which de-linearizes severallevels of perception of information while simultaneously pursuing several sources. This perception does not usuallycorrespond to the scripts still prevalent in mono-causal forms of teaching in school and demonstrates the need to thinkabout new approaches in education to prevent educational problems. The principle of Internet communication leads tochanges in organization and modes of thought and time-space perception and demonstrate “... The relevance of hyper-media experience in the development of perception-script development ...” (Röll, 2003): Information transfer takesplace by fragmentation and connection. That these forms of hyper-structures are not fundamentally new, is shown byVannemar Bush (Bush, 1945), Douglas Engelbart (Engelbart, 1962) and Theodor Nelson (Nelson, 1965). It is not onlyessential but possible to navigate with hypertext; indeed, it has become the central principle of appropriating reality ofInternet communication, because it breaks the prevailing thinking (sequential thinking) in linear structures.What is Hypermedia? Conceptually close to branching-type interactivity (in which elements are connected using a branching treestructure), hypermedia reveal the principle of variability: “We can think of all possible paths through a hypermediadocument as being different versions of it. By following the links, the user retrieves a particular version of the docu-ment.” (Manovich, 2001) Branching-type interactivity means menu-based interactivity. That means programs in whichall the possible objects the user can visit are accessible from a branching tree structure (Manovich, 2001). The hyperstructure is reticular, comparable to associative thinking (cluster development). Links from and to objects lead to aview of the document which yields meaning according to associative semantic connotation to it. The advantage ofa hyper-structure is that no categorical, tree-like planning systems for appropriation of the terms are necessary. Thedesign of a hypertext structure is now much more than another form of display level; it is the ability to see sets ofinformation in their interactions with each other in linked contexts. It also implies a playful mind, does not engendermono-causal solutions regarding the explicability of a material property, but uses the navigation potential of userinteraction for a variable perspective. In interactive videos hotspots are an example of enabling a non-conceptualinteraction. Today, we are able to change the nature of a story by the computer by making it an interactive experience(non logical composition). The recipient becomes the producer; the idea of the absolute text, image, etc. no longerexists. “An interactive narrative is a narrative in which the audience can effect a significant change on the narrative.Navigation means that the audience is able to direct the story, choose different point-of-views (engagement, empathy,and desire to know what happens next). An open structure leaves the narrative creation up on the user – it’s all inter-action” (Manovich, 2001).Related Work in Arts and Education Lew Manovich describes within his work Soft Cinema: Navigating the Database how a story develops byselecting scenes from a given collection. In contrast to traditional cinema, which prizes narrative as the key form ofcultural expression in the modern age, digital media lack this strong narrative component. Using a database, the usercan start or stop at any point. “As a cultural form, database represents the world as a list of items and it refuses to orderthis list. In contrast, a narrative creates a cause-and-effect trajectory of seemingly unordered items (events). There-fore, database and narrative are natural enemies. Competing for the same territory of human culture, each claimsan exclusive right to make meaning out of the world.” (Manovich, 2001) In his work Soft Cinema Manovich shows apossibility for representing subjective experience living in a global information society. In contrast to a linear Narra-tion, there is a random algorithm, which combines images again and again in real time. Soft Cinema breaks the screeninto a number of frames; possibilities of simultaneous multiplicities of perspectives are reflected. In an analogy withhypertext, Manovich (Manovich, 2001) names an interactive narrative “hyper-narrative”. It can be understood as thesum of multiple trajectories through a database. For this reason traditional linear narrative can be seen as a particularcase of a hyper-narrative. The fictional art work Portrait One (1990) by Luc Courchesne focuses interactivity in the context of a hyper-narrative structure. An installation enables a user to encounter a virtual character named Marie. Courchesne reflects
YouTube Annotations: Reflecting Interactive, Web based Hypervideos in Teacher Education 83upon the meaning of the concept of portrait and uses current media while extending the principle of the portrait of clas-sical painting. The user must “wait for the magic moment in complicity” at the chance to communicate interactivelywith the portrait. “I use hypermedia to make portraits. … In my portraits, the entire encounter is recorded, and mate-rial is extracted to construct a mechanics of interaction that will allow visitors to conduct their own interviews. As thishappens over time, the conversations will evolve toward more intimate considerations.” (Courchesne, 1994) Similarlyto Manovich, later Luc Courchesne puts video in a database which can be accessed via text blocks. Due to the freenavigation of the user in a hyperspace, it opens pluralistic methods of communication with the virtual counterpart.The anticipated contents of the dialogue, annoying in its complexity to our consciousness, raise questions about theportrait. Thus, the user is a co-author of work, he can choose the path to follow; he creates the language of interactionin an active and vital way. New cognitive demands occur for the viewer. For several years, the relevance of Hypervideo in education has been discussed regarding learning scenarios.The conception of what characterizes a Hypervideo assumes that a video will be provided with links (hotspots) foradditional information to explore other related or complementary media. So Carmen Zahn et all. (Zahn, 2005) sum-marize that “in school-based education of today, video is normally utilized as supplement to teacher lectures, in orderto enrich regular lessons,…to visualize knowledge for a better understanding of a topic at hand.” It is undisputed thatin educational and learning processes video technology is mostly used for collaborative video analyses to understandand reflect one’s behavior in relation to the behavior of others, and/or to analyze the lesson’s structure, content or aimof a learning scenario. As a meaningful development, the authors refer to the tool DIVER4. It is “based on the notionof a user “diving” into videos, creating new points of view onto a source video and commenting on these by writingshort text passages or codes” (Pea, 2004). This digital tool makes it possible to readily create an infinite variety ofnew digital video clips from any video record (Zahn, 2005). Diving into videos with a virtual camera, it is possible torecord a path through the video to create a dive (Pea, 2004), to represent the viewer’s point of view. This tool mainlydescribes how to “structure” processes of understanding (to trace a path of individual understanding about something),while noticing, selecting or pointing out details. The Hypervideos annotated by WebDiver are not a complex hyper structure; they are not reticularly struc-tured, in fact they remain in a sequential arrested mental model. In our daily life we do not react only to the reality, butinterpret things with the help of mental models. They are constructed when they are needed to cope with a learningsituation (Halford, 1993). While the learners have to form a mental model to understand the idea of “hyperstructures”,they do it crossmodally, using multifunctional intelligence (Gardener, 1999). The construction of non-linear, verbal,visual, and acoustic hyper-learning-structures, as they are implemented in WeHype, systematically use the differentsymbol systems of our different regions of intelligence while constructing dynamic, interactive representations ofcomplex issues.Concept and Realisation of the Project WeHype The concept of the project WeHype (2009) was carried out in an arts course at 11th grade in a sec-ondary school in Luebeck, Germany. It focused a de-linear structure and no longer represents the traditionalfunction of storytelling of a whole which has a beginning, a middle and an end; exposition, rising action, crisisclimax, falling action, denouement, so that the author no longer has the most narrative control (determination).Within new media, the recipient is co-author of the story space; he has the opportunity to join at any node in thehyperspace and to navigate in any direction he chooses. For the conceptual planning of WeHype the above namedmodes of reception and perception scripts of teenagers were central. The design of the hypervideos integratedthe form and content of everyday media, aware of the forms of communication of the young people: the cell phone.It is available for everyone, situationally flexible, primarily by the possibility, as an extension of the body, of re-flecting each adapted perspective (e.g. persons located in motion) on the world. While the project “Your Food isYour Mood” (Winkler, 2007) already enables the experience of four simultaneous perspectives via video on thetheme “Food and digestion” (by linking the physical space to the digital using physical objects with barcodeswithin a walkable cube), thus providing facets of the theme in a multiperspective and interactive way. But inWeHype web-based videos are linked via “hotspots” (one highlighted, sensitive points in the video). DIVER is a Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning project initiated in 2001 but with its roots in earlier work by Roy Pea, Jeremy Roschelle (Institute for Research and Learning) and Randall Trigg (Xerox PARC) in 1990-91 on VideoNoter. DIVER is a project devoted to creating and integrating tools for enhancing the activities of exploring and reflecting on digital video records of learning and teaching.
84 Winkler, Ide, and Herczeg Since the hyper-videos can and should be found via search engines on the internet, a de-linear cross-linkingis embedded and enables an x-anywhere access to the hyper-structure for the recipient. In the thematic direction ofthe project, all the content, documented by the students in teams, focus on facets of life regarding the city of Lue eck b(northern Germany). They focused on places and encounters, to visualize personal, social or educational perspectives.For the aesthetic process it was important to reflect and integrate the quality of cell phone video: in particular the infe-rior image quality of cell phone video, so conceptually the blur, the amateur-like, and the sound. In WeHype, a collec-tion of hyper-structures are glued together giving the user options to choose from. This makes the plot flexible enoughbut still substantial. This visual representation of diverse, interconnected story lines requires the ability of multiple,associative thinking on the part of students. Similar to Soft Cinema, in which a random algorithm plays scenes froma database, in WeHype it is not possible to see all the possibilities of perspective at any given time. But in contrast toSoft Cinema, the user of WeHype has to navigate actively to open up the complexity of the content gradually. Introduc-tion to the topic of the project WeHype at school was initially to deal with changing forms of reception and principlesof composition (departure from cause-and-effect relationships) of various film productions: In TimeCode5 a screen isdivided into four quarters and the four shots are shown simultaneously. The sound mix of the film is designed so thatthe most significant of the four sequences on screen dominates the soundtrack at any given moment. Deine Wahrheit(Melzer 2004) shows a non-linear perspective-movie on DVD. The introduction in the subject matter of WeHype wasfirst the analysis of modified forms of reception and principles of composition of different film productions (renuncia-tion of causal mechanism). It follows the principle of a tree structure. The user is able to choose between competingperspectives at various times. Memento (Nolan, 2000) visualizes two approaches, marked by color and black and whiteillustrations indicating chronological and non-chronological elements of the plot. The recipient is situated in the storybut without knowing the prehistory. So he feels wrong in a way. With the possibility of navigation through the interac-tive DVD of the installation Lorna, the recipient is able to open up details of past, present and personal conflicts ofLorna dynamically (Hershman, 1984). In WeHype, seven teams (Figure 1) of students each worked on a topic with 9 video clips 20 seconds inlength. These clips formed the basis of an initial internal linking, in addition to a superior one linking all existing sin-gular projects into a hyper-structure. The smallest semantic units acting as a liaison between all topics are the visualelements of shoes and stairs, those provided with the link (hotspot) “change topic”, enabling perspective changesregarding the whole subject (Figure 2). The navigation within a topic is enabled by two hotspots on each video, namedgo here and go there. The medium of the link is therefore only an option, without evidence of underlying information,focusing the image as a medium of information.6 In comparison, the project art-portrait, 20107 (also built in the 11thgrade arts course) put a clear focus on the aspect of visual communication and language. Depending on the selection ofan interaction-text (link option via text) by the recipient, the encounter occurs with a virtual portrait, multiple areas ofthought are opened up. The structurally high choice of textual hyperlinks for the user increases the density of naviga-tion and represents forms of complex thought patterns. Figure 1: Main structure of WeHype. Links between topics/projects: red = shoe, blue = steps Figure 2: Hotspots in a hypervideo of WeHype on YouTube, 2009 Timecode at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timecode_(film) WeHype on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNKiDutaSng Art-Portrait on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=KunstPortr%C3%A4t&aq=f
YouTube Annotations: Reflecting Interactive, Web based Hypervideos in Teacher Education 85 The potential of hypervideo-based learning in the classroom is to draw the pre-selected non-linear video-scenes, as an endless collection of individual items, into one’s interpretation of these. Developing learning spaces increating new hypervideo structures influence processes of learning in a specific way: Hyperstructures are non-linear;they include multiple ways of “decryption”, because the order of the presentation is not fixed. As an appropriate tool tocreate a web-based hyper-structure, characterized by “non-hierarchically” linking structure of videos to create storieswith multiple possibilities, the free tool YouTube Annotations (open source since 2008) was used. This tool challengesthe tradition of the screen (frontal viewing) by fragmenting in nodes (scenes) and linking them into a screen of “non-hierarchical linked videos”. Thus, while the production processes were realized in groups producing hypervideos (asa collection of fragments), with different perspectives on the general topic among the groups, students develop a deepelaboration of content (visual, acoustic, etc. codes) and reflect on intermediality as well.Transfer into Teacher Education A multiplicity of workshops focusing an interdisciplinary approach was accomplished within teacher educa-tion and further teacher education regarding all subjects and different kinds of schools.8 Therefore a module for teachereducation was derived from the results of the evaluation of the pilot project WeHype. This teaching module structuresworkshops regarding the use of non-linear hyper structures in pedagogical processes, concerning the special field“Learning with Digital Media” within teacher education. The scaffolding of the teaching module is developed out ofan understanding of hypermedia structure in an arts project context. The content includes comprehensive material oninnovative pedagogical processes in schools.Comparative Evaluation of WeHype and Teacher Education The pilot project took place in the 11th grade arts class with 16 (7 female and 9 male) students at a secondaryschool (average age 16.5 years). The transfer in further teacher education took place with 17 (12 female and 5 male)teachers (average age 42 years). Concerning the answers to the questions two scales were used. One scale with yesand no answers show the results in percentage of yes-answers. The other scale reaches from 1 = does not apply at allto 6 = applies fully and completely. The mean (arithmetic average), the standard deviation (measure of the statisticaldispersion), and the median (relative frequency, not influenced by extremes) were calculated. The whole evaluationquestionnaire consists of more than 50 questions. Here we present only the most important findings regarding theresearch questions of this paper. The survey of the students shows clearly, that the design and implementation of the project WeHype withYouTube Annotations was motivating. All have worked with pleasure on it (Figure 3). Figure 3: Fun and motivation by students at school using YouTube Annotations The evaluation clarifies the difference between students and teachers in using social ware and their respec-tive experience using and constructing hyper structures. While the surveyed students communicate mostly throughsocial portals, like SchülerVZ (Germany), this behavior is poorly developed among teachers. Only in regard to watch-ing movies on YouTube, the group of teachers shows a distinct usage pattern (3.7 vs. 4.8 of students). In contrast tothis result, teachers are less familiar with loading up videos on YouTube or Vimeo than the students are. But the mostindicative fact is that students have previous experience annotating videos (27% of students vs. 6% of teachers). Thisevidence of the high emersion of young people in processes of the Internet points to the changing structures of appro-priating reality. It is obvious that these structures differentiate teachers from students (Figure 4). In the state Schleswig-Holstein, in northern Germany
86 Winkler, Ide, and Herczeg Figure 4: Communication with social ware and experience using and constructing hyper structures Also the number of students and teachers creating photos and videos using cell phones confirm the divergentbehavior of the two groups, although at least 35% of the teachers are creating video using cell phones. More than 53%of them use the photo feature of the cell phone. Almost all of the students as well as the teachers said that YouTube Annotations is easy to handle. Both groupspointed out clearly that the tool is suitable to illustrate the complexity of topics. They believe that interactive linking ofcontent promotes the understanding of hyper-structures. Both teachers and students express that visualizing und link-ing videos leads to sustainable learning processes. Compared to the teachers, it is less important for students to workwith YouTube Annotations at school, probably because young people already have much more competent behavior indealing with contemporary media (Figure 5). Figure 5: Handling and assumption of emerging value added by learning with YouTube AnnotationsAdditional Evaluation of Pre-Teachers In a further evaluation with 13 (10 female and three male) pre-teachers (average age 31 years) in realation tothe results of the comparative evaluation, the following issues were considered (Figure 6).
YouTube Annotations: Reflecting Interactive, Web based Hypervideos in Teacher Education 87 Figure 6: Building up new mental models based on crossmaodal perception leads to reflection of complexityConclusions and Further Work As we briefly mentioned at the beginning of the paper, digital media of the 21st century, e.g. YouTube An-notations, are more than just practical tools. They have the opportunity to create new learning scenarios. Those en-courage key competencies such as the ability to build up new mental models based on crossmodal perception, reflect-ing reality and new options of structures of behavior (Röll, 2003). For this reason, focal points should be newly shapedand implemented in the education of arts teachers. State of the art teaching scenarios must be forward-thinking and in-tegrate the potential usages of digital media into teaching modules. Finally, we believe that the teaching modules makeit possible for teachers to capture the interest of high school students, since they penetrate the world of the DigitalNatives and offer them an environment in which they can critically explore their world. The high volume of requestsfor workshops about YouTube Annotations and the positive feedback demonstrate the importance of the interdisciplin-ary (arts and computer science) offering for the teaching of pre-teacher and teacher in service.ReferencesBush, V. (1945) As We May Think. In: Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, V. 176, Nr. 1, p. 101–108Engelbart, D. (1962) Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework. Summary report f the SRI Project No. 3578 at Stanford Research Institute. http:// loan.stanford.edu/mousesite/EngelbartPapers/B5_ F18_ConceptFrameworkInd.htmlFassler, M. (2009) Nach der Gesellschaft. Infogene Welten – anthropologische Zukünfte, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Pader- born, Germany.Gardner, H. (1999) Intelligence Reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st century, New York: Basic Books.Halford, G.S. (1993). Children’s understanding. The development of mental modals. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USALuc Courchesne L. (1994) Family Portrait : The Art of Portraiture. Luc Courchesne : Interactive Portraits (Ottawa : National Gallery of Canada.Pea, R., Mills, M., Rosen, J., Dauber, K., Effelsberg, W., Hoffert.E. (2004). The DIVER Project: Interactive Digital Video Repurposing. IEEE Multimedia, 11 (1), Jan-March 2004. pp 54-61.Manovich, L. (2001) The Language of New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.Manovich, L. (2006) The Poetics of Augmented Space. Visual Communication, Vol.5, No.2, London. pp. 219-240.Melzer, A. (2004) The Interactive and Multi-protagonist Film: A Hypermovie on DVD. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Entertainment Computing, ICEC 2004, LNCS 3166, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York. pp 193-203.Nelson, T. (1965). Complex information processing: a file structure for the complex, the changing and the indetermi- nate. ACM/CSC-ER Proceedings of the 1965 20th national conference.
88 Winkler, Ide, and HerczegWinkler, T., Ide-Schoening, M. & Herczeg, M. (2007). Sustainable Teaching through the use of Media Art Technol- ogy - Creating Biological Knowledge by Designing a Multimodal Interactive Tangible Media Installation. In Carlsen, R., Mc Ferrin, K., Price, J., Weber, R. & Willis D.A. (Eds.) Proceedings of the SITE 2007.Chesa- peake, USA: AACE. pp. 2155-2162.Zahn, C. at all. (2005) Advanced digital video technologies to support collaborative learning in school education and beyond, Proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years! International Society of the Learning Sciences, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 737 – 742. ___JIM Studie 2009 (Basic study in Germany on youngsters age 12 to 19 handing media):www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/JIM-pdf09/JIM-Studie2009.pdf
Identifying Affordances and Barriers to Student-centered Collaborative Learning 89 Identifying Affordances and Barriers to Student-centered Collaborative Learning in the Integration of Interactive Whiteboard Technology Cesar C. Navarrete Instructional Technology University of Texas at Austin United States firstname.lastname@example.org Abstract: In a case study involving the integration of IWBs in a small elementary school, two teachers were interviewed for their perspective on student-centered, pedagogical transformation efforts in their personal integration efforts. The interview transcripts were analyzed using a grounded- theory approach to identify salient themes of discourse for categories of concern that supported or constrained transformative teaching and learning. The text analysis indicated four systematic barriers to transformative technology integration: 1) need of time for professional learning, 2) need leadership involvement, 3) usability issues, 4) lack of supplemental resources.Introduction Interactive whiteboard (IWB) technology is being integrated into classrooms with the expected promise of enhancedstudent learning. When compared with the revolutionary impact of the traditional blackboard, “the IWB exhibits thesame capacity to fundamentally change—and indeed revolutionize—the nature of teaching” (Betcher, 2009, p. 1).Betcher lists a number of factors that make the IWB different to other teaching technologies: designed primarily forteacher use, able to use in everyday teaching, readily, securely and inexpensively installed for teacher and student use,accommodates all teaching styles, facilitates the integration of other technologies, and receiving global support. Asargued, IWB integration might afford students with interactive, student-centered classroom learning. As a computer-mediated technology, the integration of IWBs into classroom practice is not merely about the technology tool but moreabout facilitating the use of digital, Web 2.0 affordances by learners in student-centered collaborative environments(Bennett & Lockyer, 2008; Glover, Miller, Averis, & Door, 2007; Kennewell, Tanner, Jones, & G. Beauchamp, 2008).Young students require preparation for the modern demands; they need to be better prepared for the challenges of aglobalized economic system that requires innovation and inventiveness (Friedman, 2007). The modern worker cannotjust simply know facts; they must be able to work with Web 2.0 tools collaboratively in innovative ways (Jenkins,2006). However, procedural knowledge, undervalued in schools, is what allows learners to be creative and inventive;students are only required to demonstrate discrete, cursory knowledge for standards-based exams (Shaffer, 2006).Students require technology-based learning that goes well beyond the standards so that they can participate in the fast-paced, innovative-driven, global economy (Friedman, 2007; Jenkins, 2006; Shaffer, 2006). However, effective technology integration into schools for transformative learning has been seen as problematic(Cuban, 1999; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). For example, teachers may use computers for email and presentations,but students have not been involved in technology use in schools or may only use computers in reproduction of learningand not for student-centered, collaborative applications. Although there has been a noted increase in technology usein teaching practice, three levels of technology adoption have been identified: the replacement of existing pedagogicalresources; the amplification of the existing practice; and the pedagogical transformation of instructional practice(Hughes, 2005). Therefore, teachers may have to significantly change their instructional approach, their use oftechnology cannot simply be replacement of textbooks with website content. They must transform pedagogical practicefor greater student engagement in the direct use of Web 2.0 affordances with technology integration. The paucity ofempirical studies on IWB technology integration for student-centered learning suggests that further research is neededto identify the affordances and barriers to these technology integration efforts.
90 NavarreteReview of the Literature Numerous significant barriers to technology integration into K-12 US schools have been identified and may becategorized as: (1) lack of resources that include time and support, (2) lack of technology supported pedagogicalknowledge and skills, (3) lack of school leadership in technology integration, (4) limiting teacher attitudes and beliefstowards technology, (5) standards-based high-stakes assessment forcing didactic focus on instruction, and (6) longhistory of existing subject culture inhibit innovative instructional approaches (Hew & Brush, 2007, p. 226). Thisresearch suggests formidable obstacles to technology integration initiatives unless specific steps are taken to mitigatethese issues. From a pedagogical perspective, the current education focus on standards driven high-stakes testing hasfurther complicated curricular orientations as shifts to focus content on discrete fragmented information and an increaseof teacher-centered focus on direct instructional methods, e.g. lectures, direct test-related teaching (Au, 2007). Infacilitating this learning process for effective engagement, the students need to collaborate with others in constructingknowledge and explore possible solutions to real-world problems (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Wilson, Parrish, &Veletsianos, 2008). By involving the students in real-world problems, learner self-efficacy is enhanced, thereby leadingto increased motivation (Tobias & Duffy, 2009, p. 66). A learner’s inclination to acquire new understanding is criticallyimportant to the process of learning. Learner motivation is intrinsic to the learning activity (Kuhn, 2007). For learner-centered environments, the learner’s active engagement is required. Current studies have failed to show clear evidence of meaningful change in educational practice (Bennett &Lockyer, 2008; Higgins, Beauchamp, & Miller, 2007). The multiple uses, variety of tools and applications, suggesta complexity in educational technology integration that can take many directions when many other factors such aslearning goals, pedagogical approaches, content area, student age, tool complexity, etc. further confound the finding inthis research (Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011). The need for definitive research on the impactof IWBs is clearly needed (Marzano, 2009, p. 80). Although one study described a 16-percentile point gain in studentachievement associated with the use of interactive whiteboards, the study was conducted for an IWB vendor and maybe potentially biased (Marzano & Haystead, 2009). Furthermore, Marzano and Hayseed argue that several issues maydegrade the effective use of IWBs, as 23 % of the cases showed better results without the use of the boards. The IWB has been found easy to use with the Internet media adding another engaging dimension to teaching inthe classroom setting (Bennett & Lockyer, 2008; Glover et al., 2007; Higgins et al., 2007; Kennewell et al., 2008).However, this literature suggests that teachers can bypass the transformation of their practice and integrate the IWBinto their usual classroom lessons without effectively changing their existing teacher-centered approach that actuallylimits student use of technology. Additionally, the classroom teacher may be reluctant to allow children access totechnology tools such as IWBs, due to their perception of equipment fragility (Mildenhall, Swan, Northcote, &Marshall, 2008, p. 10). Some critical characteristics of interactive lessons have been identified that support the learners’ experience formore autonomy and opportunities for collaborative discussions (Kennewell et al., 2008, p. 63). While the IWB penand student response devices provide a level of interactivity in the classroom, the student-to-student collaborativeparticipation in the exchange of ideas and the empowerment of the learners as they negotiate understanding of theinformation is the essential transformative application of technology. The teacher’s perception of this interactivity,shaped by attitudes and beliefs, plays an important role in how interactive lessons are developed and employed inthe IWB equipped classroom; if the teacher does not understand or believes in the transformative potential of thetechnology, it probably will not happen and teacher-centered approaches will persist (Ertmer, 2005; Inan & Lowther,2010). Consequently, the adoption of IWB using a teacher-centered approach may not be far from existing values andbeliefs (Bennett & Lockyer, 2008; Gray, Pilkington, Hagger-Vaughan, & Tomkins, 2007; Kennewell et al., 2008). In understanding the complexity of IWB technology integration, the recognition of the synergistic quality of thetechnology, pedagogy and content knowledge—TPCK, is critical; technology use must support inquiry, collaborationand reformed practice that effectively integrates content and pedagogy (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009; Mishra &Koehler, 2006). The teacher must coordinate the complexity of developing and applying integrated and interdependentunderstanding of technology use with pedagogy and content. For each learning event, the teacher must weave thesethree different areas of knowledge into a seamless interactive, collaborative, and meaningful activity (Fig. 1).
Identifying Affordances and Barriers to Student-centered Collaborative Learning 91Figure 1: The TPCK model adapted from Harris, Mishra & Koehler, (2009). Content knowledge of the subject matter is critical to the understanding of the disciplinary practice of a givensubject. This knowledge should include the key concepts, theories, ideas, organizational frameworks, methods ofevidence etc., for established practices and approaches (Shulman, 1986). Pedagogical knowledge is steeped in theprocess and practices of teaching and learning, which includes the educational purpose, goals, values, strategies,etc. with an understanding of cognitive, social, and developmental theories (Harris et al., 2009, p. 397). However,technological knowledge is arguably more difficult to acquire as it involves a diversity of tool, skills, applications, etc.;it’s ephemeral quality, that changes with upgrades and constant innovations, poses a serious challenge in educationalenvironments (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The intersection of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge, orTPCK is the critical assembly that a teacher must hone in on in order to implement transformative educational practicewith IWB integration (Harris et al., 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Consequently, transforming teaching in theclassroom through IWB use may be a daunting prospect to a teacher who must contend with the obstinacy of reluctantlearners, demanding parents, exigent administrators and high-stakes assessment schedules. Furthermore, elementaryteachers are required to teach multiple subjects such as mathematics, science, social studies and language arts. Asteachers need to be knowledgeable in a wide range of subjects, this describes a much more complex intersection ofprofessional skills in content, pedagogy and technology in a classroom setting (Fig. 2).Figure 2: Extension of the TPCK model to four core subject areas adapted from Harris, Mishra & Koehler, (2009). The complexity of teaching multiple subjects requires a high degree of professional development that demandsthe teacher maintain a current, in-depth knowledge of several disciplines, develop the pedagogical acumen in each
92 Navarreteof these areas, and stay on the technological cutting edge within each of these contexts. The continuously evolvingtechnological affordances, versions, upgrades, etc. poses an overwhelming cognitive load to the classroom teacher.Methodology Two of the ten teachers who had the IWBs installed into the classroom participated in the study. The two teachers,who integrated IWB technology into the classroom lessons, recorded their perspective by responding to an open-ended, unstructured interview. The interview transcripts were analyzed for common themes through a grounded theoryapproach using a constant comparative method using open coding to identify salient themes that emerged (Strauss,1990). The teacher’s views were audio recorded in individual, semi-structured interview sessions, guided by IRB protocols.The guiding questions in this study were: What IWB technology features support student-centered collaborativelearning activities? What IWB technology features are barriers to the teacher’s development of student-centeredcollaborative learning activities? What other factors, exterior to the IWB tools provide affordances, or barriers toeffective integration of IWB technology student-centered activities? In effect, this study attempts to take a snapshot ofwhat transpires with the teacher as the IWB technology is integrated into classroom practice and what affordances orbarriers they perceived in their efforts.Findings The purchase and installation of eight IWBs was funded through a federal grant at a small elementary charter schoolin the southern US. The teachers in this school had not volunteered to have the IWB installed and had not receivedany technology training prior to or after the installation. Some of the teachers had participated on a 90-minute, self-guided, online fundamentals training session. Due to the established ongoing duties, that included standardized testing,fundraisers and community outreach programs, administrators postponed professional development sessions until thefollowing year. Following IRB protocol, pseudonyms are used for confidentiality of the participants’ identity. Jane taught fourthgrade and had four years of teaching experience with substantial technology ability. She was well respected by thestudents, parents, administration and her peers. Carol, with three years of teaching experience, taught second gradeand was likewise, highly prized by her colleagues and is subsequently pursuing a doctoral degree in education. Jane was interviewed in her classroom and described the multimedia enhancement, “with the video, they’reengaged.” She further elaborates on the student interaction with, “one person can actually take the notes up there andthe other kids could write them down.” While Carol described her experience with, “terrific, because it makes it reallyeasy to… refer back to and edit the language chart.” She further elaborates on her use of, “Graphs, I use it a lot forgraphs.” Both of the teachers found the graphics and media effective for student engagement and elaborated on thereusability of the digital files in support of student learning. Seeing potential in the student response devices, she said,“I haven’t used it [student response system] but I was very excited…” and looked forward to “use the clicker becausethey [students] like doing that.” Carol described her potential use with, “I’d like to be trained on the student responsesystem…I had professor in grad school, who did really interesting surveys.” Actual use of the clickers by the studentwas not realized. In discussing barriers, Jane described the shortage of time for technology training with, “there was not room onthe calendar. And there really isn’t.” Carol, interviewed in a local coffee shop, reflected, “I think, dedicate time to it.I think that’s the biggest problem that people have.” Despite the need for training and support, no time was allottedfor the teachers. Jane further perceived that, “if it’s [technology training] required of the teachers, I think it shouldalso be required of administration.” Carol described the administrative triaging of the IWB initiative with, “there are12 different initiatives… I don’t think that this [IWB] is necessarily high priority…and so far they haven’t wanted todo technology.” The administrators were not perceived as being involved in educational technology use. In describingclassroom usability experiences, Jane said, “when I tap with that stupid pen, it sometimes doesn’t write all the waythrough so it makes it like, the kids are, what is that?” In discussing usability, Carol specified that, “There’s only onestudent pen,” and “they’re very little people so they only reach half way up to the board.” Common glitches along with
Identifying Affordances and Barriers to Student-centered Collaborative Learning 93difficulty of use were seen as problematic to classroom use. In discussing the resources Jane felt that, “having a backupwould be nice, like having an extra of everything, like the one extra desk.” Carol elaborated on the resources, “I’m alittle scared that they will break it, cause it’s… so sensitive.” The limited resources for IWB integration were seen asa potential problem for the rigorous use in the classroom. The IWB features that both of the teachers detail as useful for student engagement and achievement were the displayplatform for lessons and visual media. The ability to save lessons and the supplemental online resources provide foreffective reinforcement of learning in the form of repetitive delivery of key information and the capacity for review.The other feature that both of the teachers identify as potentially pedagogically supportive was the student responsedevices—the clickers. However, as neither teacher had implemented them, this assumption is unwarrantable in thisstudy. The first issue identified in IWB technology integration was the time factor. Both teachers described the full scheduleof teaching, meetings, and extraneous curriculum initiatives as a serious detractor to IWB integration. Although theinitiative did include some funding for basic professional development training and teacher support, the administratorsallocated no time for this training or support. A second issue identified that inhibited IWB integration was the lackof leadership support; the teachers’ perceived that the administrators were not disposed to technology integration,classroom technology use or engaging the needed training. A third issue of concern was the usability of the IWBsystem that may not have the robust capacity for rigorous use by young students. Only one IWB pen could be usedat a time and younger students had trouble reaching the board. Technical tool complexity and glitches were of notedconcern. The fourth issue that limited integration was the lack of resources such as digital teaching materials, extrastudent response devices, batteries, projector bulbs, etc.Discussion The critical importance of this study is the classroom teacher’s view of the IWB integration effort (Ertmer,2005; Zeichner, 1996; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). The participation of only two teachers suggests thelimitation on the transferability of this study. The voices of other teachers might have added more facets or depthto the understandings. However, the limited teacher participation may also ‘speak’ with its silence. In this study,the existing classroom teaching environment in which standardized educational demands arguably inhibit innovativetechnology trends (Hew & Brush, 2007). As an example, the passing standardized test scores in the previous year ledto staff perceptions that IWB use was not required for student learning. This obstacle to the IWB integration in thisstudy concurs directly with the implication that the pressure of high-stakes testing “can be a barrier to technologyintegration” and that it “gave the teacher little time to attempt new instructional methods involving technology” (p.230). In this study, maintaining the previous years scores was seen as significantly more important than the grantfunded IWB initiative. Moreover, the overt concern, within the existing school culture, e.g., the existing demandsof teaching, e.g. literacy, math, community outreach initiatives and fund-raisers, resulted in a systematic lack oftechnology leadership support. In the integration of technology, “Institutional barriers may include: (a) leadership,(b) time enabling structure and (c) school planning,” (p. 228). The school administrators who do not see the valueof the technology or transformative pedagogical implications may determine not to dedicate time to the technologyintegration and prioritize for other competing goals, and thus fail to plan for the technology learning. “Training andongoing support is required for teachers to appropriately use IWBs” (Armstrong et al., 2005, p. 468) and in this study,the training was postponed and the support was severely limited. The lack of training and support for the teachersin this study suggested a serious detriment to their integration process as the teacher found the display capacityuseful to continue teacher-centered approaches (Kennethwell et al., 2007). The lack of time for technology trainingor enthusiasm for this initiative coincides with the existing culture of systematic didactic practice for standards-basededucation. The perceived IWB usability concerns, specifically with the IWB placement height concurs with Higgins’ et al.,(2007, p. 215) observations that “there were difficulties in placing them at the right height for both children andadults.” The perceived lack of robustness of technology for use by young students was also a problem as identified byMildenhall et al, (2008). While durability is highly debatable, this issue overlaps into perceived lack of supplementalresources that are required to keep the all of the various technology components involved with the use of the IWB
94 Navarretefunctioning. Projector lamps, student response devices, batteries, as well as the ongoing maintenance of the computerthrough software upgrades, etc. may pose a significant challenge. As suggested, “peripherals and software” and“technical support” may not be available to the classroom teacher on demand (Hew & Brush, 2007, p. 226). The teachers were willing to integrate the IWB into classroom use for effective teaching and learning. Both Janeand Carol worked through the hardware and software “on the fly,” despite the severe time limitation and deficientprofessional development (Hew & Brush, 2007). The teachers in this study have perceptibly proactive attitudes andmay not have posed as a barrier (Ertmer, 2005; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010). However, dispositionand attitudes alone are only part of the context in the existing school culture. The complexities of teaching multiplecontent areas, along with the required development of the appropriate pedagogical approaches, with the integrationof technology, as illustrated in the four subjects TPCK model (Figure 2), suggest an overwhelming prospect to theclassroom teacher (Harris et al., 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Professional training and real-time technologysupport for the elementary classroom teacher is critically necessary. That is, the teacher may require subject specifictechnology training as well as technology integrationist support for effective pedagogical development (Armstronget al., 2005; Dave Glover, Derek Miller, & Doug Averis, 2004). Furthermore, a systematic approach that maximizesthe educational benefits of pedagogically transformative technology integration in K-12 education is posited (Dede,Honan, & Peters, 2005; Fullan, 2007; Fullan, Cuttress, & Kilcher, 2005). While teacher attitudes and beliefs play asignificant role in technology integration as suggested by Etmer (2005), the complexity of teaching multiple subjects,with the required appropriate pedagogical knowledge and the emerging technological knowledge of Web 2.0 skills,suggests a potentially overwhelming load to the elementary classroom teacher. The lack of time for training, the lackof leadership initiative toward the technology integration, the IWB usability limitations and the lack of supplementalresources, are well out of the teachers’ control. Positive teacher attitude alone is arguably insufficient in transformativetechnology integration. The voice of the classroom teacher is central to this study as they “bring a perspective tounderstanding the complexities of teaching that cannot be matched by external researchers” (Zeichner, 1996, p. 5).Teachers, as a technology innovator, have a ‘ground level’ view and working knowledge of the interactive dynamics ofthe classroom (Zhao et al., 2002). The classroom teachers have a substantial voice of experience in classroom practice. Conclusions The participating teachers inform us on their particular perspectives as several critical categories for analysissurfaced in the interviews.The IWB affordances to IWB integration: •The good quality of display of lessons and supplemental media resources •The capacity to save and reuse the items for review or reinforcement of lessons was noted •The student response system—was of noted potential to the teacher but unverifiable in this studyThe four critical barriers to IWB integration: •Time is severely limited for teachers to learn the technology and subsequently teach it •The leaders need to engage with the technology for equitable and systematic integration •Usability issues suggest that hardware and software may require redesign classroom interactivity •Additional resources for repair, replacement, and maintenance are required The affordances identified by the teacher in this study suggest replacement and possible amplification of the existingpractice; transformation of pedagogical approaches is not evident (Hughes, 2005). Positing the complexity in teachingmultiple subjects with pedagogically appropriate technology integration for the teacher, these questions surfaced: Howcan time be allotted for teachers to learn and integrate technology in transformative ways? How can administrators,as instructional leaders, be encouraged toward a greater capacity for technology integration? How can we assure thatthe students and teachers receive the best tools and support for transformative learning? How can technology usabilityissues be evaluated and addressed for a more streamline integration of technology for transformative student learning? In view of the barriers identified, the actual systematic capacity for student-centered use of IWB technologyin the classroom suggests critically study. For example, the IWB affordance of reusable multimedia presentationsmay enhance instruction, but existing, teacher-centered approaches may be perpetuated and preclude pedagogicaltransformation (Bennett & Lockyer, 2008; Kennewell et al., 2008). While IWBs do offer interactive use by the learners,
Identifying Affordances and Barriers to Student-centered Collaborative Learning 95this interactivity may not lead to student-centered approaches. Therefore, despite the optimism from some authors,more research on this critical issue is required for clearer understanding of the affordances and barriers. Further research on IWB use for effective student-centered integration is clearly needed. Although ubiquitoustechnology affordances provide valuable resources for the classroom teacher, the actual pedagogically transformativeintegration requires considerable time allotment and dynamic, systematic development. Arguably, not all technologytools may support transformative learning and their evaluation is critical. Pedagogically transformative teachingthrough technology integration is not likely to happen without the deliberate building of systematic capacity. If timeis of the essence in transformative technology integration, time must be given to these issues for improved learning.ReferencesArmstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469.Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: a qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258 -267.Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers’ integration of interactive whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media, & Technology, 33(4), 289-300.Betcher, C. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Camberwell, Vic: ACER Press.Cuban, L. (1999). High-tech schools, low-tech teaching. Education Digest, 64(5), 53.Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813 -834.Dede, C., Honan, J. P., & Peters, L. (2005). Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational improvement (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 25-39.Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat: a brief history of the Twenty-first Century (1st ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Fullan, M. (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal of Staff Development, 28(3), 35-6.Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005). 8 forces for leaders of change. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 54-64.Glover, D., Miller, D., & Averis, D. (2004). Panacea or prop: the role of the interactive whiteboard in improving teaching effectiveness. Presented at the Tenth International Congress of Mathematics Education, Copenhagen. Retrieved from http://www.icme-organisers. dk/tsg15/Glover_et_al.pdfGlover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: an empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32(1), 5-20.Gray, C., Pilkington, R., Hagger-Vaughan, L., & Tomkins, S. (2007). Integrating ICT into classroom practice in modern foreign language teaching in England: Making room for teachers’ voices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(4), 407- 429.Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(3), 223-252.Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32(3), 213-225.Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experience in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(2), 137-154.Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. The MacArthur Foundation.Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61-73.Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109-113.
96 NavarreteLawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.Marzano, R., & Haystead, M. (2009). Evaluation study of the effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on student achievement. Marzano Reseach Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.marzanoresearch.com/documents/ finalreportonactivclassroom.pdfMarzano, R. J. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 80-82. doi:ArticleMildenhall, P., Swan, P., Northcote, M., & Marshall, L. (2008). Virtual manipulatives on the interactive whiteboard. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(1), 9-14.Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.Shaffer, D. (2006). How computer games help children learn (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.Strauss, A. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park u.a.: Sage Publ.Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28.Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.Wilson, P., Parrish, P., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Raising the bar for instructional outcomes: Towards transformative learning experiences. Educational Technology, 48(3), 39-44.Zeichner, K. M. (1996). Reflective teaching: an introduction. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482.AcknowledgementsI wish to express my supreme gratitude to the classroom teachers participating in this study for the forthright and candid answersin their support of this research study. I wish to also thank Dr. Paul Resta and Dr. Joan E. Hughes for their ongoing support andinvaluable advice.
Poetry in Motion: Using VoiceThread to Prepare 21st Century English Teachers 97 Poetry in Motion: Using VoiceThread to Prepare 21st Century English Teachers Leanna Archambault Arizona State University USA email@example.com David Lee Carlson Arizona State University USA firstname.lastname@example.org Abstract: Although there is a vast research base on the literacy practices of adolescents, and on the is- sues surrounding technology integration, little research has been completed on the attempts of teacher educators to integrate technology within a specific content to prepare future classroom teachers (Boling, 2010; Bruce & Hogan, 1998; Koehler, Mishra, Yahya, & Yadav, 2004; Pang & Kamil, 2004). The cur- rent study explores how technology can be used to improve teaching within the content area of English/ language by examining the artifacts and reflections of 21 pre- and in-service secondary English teachers at a large university in the southwestern part of the United States. It explores how the digital medium, VoiceThread, could support their efforts to teach poetry. Results indicate that these future teachers found VoiceThread to be an effective tool to prepare, implement, and teach poetry to secondary students.Introduction Historically, poetry has been a significant part of the secondary English curriculum, helping students toconsider the world differently and to develop their reading and thinking skills. However, as times change, the teachingof poetry must also evolve. The emergence of technology and digital media provides teachers, students, and researcherswith an opportunity to examine the extent to which technology can facilitate the teaching of poetry. Recent researchhas begun to focus on pre-service and in-service teachers in this area. McVee, Bailey, and Shanahan (2008) concentrateon how PowerPoint can be used by pre-service teachers to construct, interpret and represent poetry. Stuart (2010)illustrates that technology can be a valuable resource to use with pre-service and in-service teachers to help ease theiranxieties and alter attitudes about teaching poetry. Other studies document the advantages of increasing interest andconfidence in teaching poetry among student teachers (Warburton & Camp, 2001). This body of literature illustratesthe value that technology can have with pre-service teachers as they prepare to teach poetry to secondary students. While schools often provide access to technology to the extent that they are able, teachers need the skills tobe able to make use of tools to improve student learning. Preparing teachers to implement technology in the classroomwithin their content area is a complex undertaking. Even though teachers have the necessary technology in theirschools to use in their classrooms, many of them employ traditional means in doing so (Archambault & Crippen,2007; Bruce & Hogan, 1998). Teachers are using technology often an instrument for personal use and not necessarilyas part of a strategy for learning. Part of the problem that researchers have discovered is that teachers’ conceptions oftechnology influences whether they use it and how they use it (Agee & Altarriba, 2009). As Boling (2010) recentlyargued, “In order to help teachers acquire a new understanding of technology and the ways in which it can be used tosupport children’s literacy learning, it is important to understand the kinds of situations and experiences that mightshift, and possibly change, teachers’ understanding of the role of technology in literacy education” (p. 75). While a considerable amount of research has been done on the literacy practices of adolescents, little researchhas been documented concerning teacher educators’ efforts to integrate technology within a specific content with pre-
98 Archambault and Carlsonand in- service teachers (Boling, 2010; Bruce & Hogan, 1998; Koehler, Mishra, Yahya, & Yadav, 2004; Pang & Kamil,2004). This study attempts to provide teachers and teacher educators with an example of how technology can be usedto improve teaching within the content area of English/language arts. Described is a research project conducted at alarge university in the southwestern part of the United States with 21 pre- and in-service secondary English teachers.The current study investigates the integration of VoiceThread, an interactive digital media web-based application, intoa pre-service secondary English methods course to help future educators build their efficacy with teaching poetryand to introduce them to the benefits of technology-use in the 21st century classroom. In addition, the goal of thisproject was to examine how future teachers used media to design a lesson to teach poetry and how this impacted theirconceptions of use technology to teach poetry.Theoretical Framework To frame this study, two related conceptual frameworks are useful, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). The notion of pedagogical content knowledge wasintroduced by Lee Shulman (1986) to describe what teachers should know and be able to do. In 2005, Koehler andMishra updated and built upon the notion of pedagogical content knowledge and described technological pedagogicalcontent knowledge (TPACK) as an understanding of the complexity of relationships among students, teachers, content,technologies, practices, and tools. According to the researchers, “We view technology as a knowledge system thatcomes with its own biases, and affordances that make some technologies more applicable in some situations thanothers” (Koehler & Mishra, 2005, p. 132). Using Shulman’s framework, and combining the relationships betweencontent knowledge (subject matter that is to be taught), technological knowledge (computers, the Internet, digitalvideo, etc.), and pedagogical knowledge (practices, processes, strategies, procedures and methods of teaching andlearning), Koehler and Mishra defined TPACK as the connections and interactions between these three types ofknowledge. According to Mishra and Koehler (2006), “Although technology constrains the kinds of representationspossible, newer technologies often afford newer and more varied representations and greater flexibility in navigatingacross these representations. Teachers need to know not just the subject matter they teach but also the manner in whichthe subject matter can be changed by the application of technology” (p. 1028). In examining how teachers should be prepared to teach in online environments, TPACK addresses each ofthe three major components needed to ensure quality instruction. This developing construct offers a way for teachereducation programs to begin looking at how these elements are currently covered and how they should be addressedto meet the needs of teachers. Niess outlined four components that offer a framework for the development of TPACKin teacher education programs: (1) an overarching understanding of teaching a particular subject using technology tofacilitate student learning; (2) knowledge of instructional strategies and representations for teaching a particular topicthrough the use of technology; (3) knowledge of students’ misconceptions, understandings, thinking, and learning ina particular subject matter and how these might be represented using technology; and (4) knowledge of curriculummaterials that implement technology to enhance learning in a given content area. The use of TPACK as a framework for quality instruction in teacher education is effective because it allowsthe instructor to concentrate on helping future educators plan to leverage the affordances of technology to mosteffectively teach their curriculum. Tools such the incorporation of VoiceThread to teach poetry allow for additionalsocial interaction as well as interactive media that works to extend learning beyond the traditional school day. Thismakes it possible for future teachers to capitalize on the social aspects of learning, moving beyond the acquisitionof foundational knowledge to a depth that enables implementation in teaching and learning. This kind of learningrequires active participation that binds participants together in meaningful ways (Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998).This ties closely with the notion of TPACK, working to take advantage of the power of technology to transform thepedagogy and content in order to provide a richer, more meaningful learning experience for students. It is in thisway that the content of a lesson, the pedagogy or methods used to teach it, and the use of technology to capitalizeon its affordances for learning, can be melded together to create meaningful learning opportunities. It is importantfor teacher educators to construct and model instructional units that embody the spirit of TPACK and allow futureeducators to experiment with using the affordances of technology to improve their instruction. As Mishra, Koehler,and Kereluik describe, “We wonder how far current teacher preparation programs are telling pre-service teachers whatan educational technology is rather than empowering them to experiment and create their own. A new focus needs to
Poetry in Motion: Using VoiceThread to Prepare 21st Century English Teachers 99take root, one characterized by creativity and flexibility of thought and experimentation by educators with their owneducational technology designed to meet specific, immediate needs” (p. 52). Polly, Mims, Sheperd, and Inan (2010) analyzed findings from the U. S. Department of Education reporton Preparing Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) initiatives and found that pre-service teachers would benefit fromtechnology integration in their university methods courses. Creating technologically rich, pedagogically soundmethods that are modeled and taught in their teacher-education courses increases the likelihood that teachers will usetechnology in their classrooms when they teach, and it also increases how often teachers use technology in their dailyteaching practices. Successfully integrating technology into teaching a specific topic within a content area requirescareful understanding of the learning affordances a specific tool has to offer. While poetry has always been a staple inthe secondary English curriculum, research on implementing technology to teach poetry is scarce.Methodology This study focused on how digital media technology like VoiceThread could help secondary English teachersprepare to teach a poetry lesson. Specifically, the researchers investigated how 21 pre- and in- service undergraduateand graduate students utilized the pedagogical strategies they learned in their Methods of Teaching English course withVoiceThread to teach a specific poem in a secondary classroom. Additionally, teachers’ perceptions of technology afterusing VoiceThread to teach poetry were examined. Specific research questions included: 1. How do pre- and in-service teachers implement technological pedagogical strategies when constructing VoiceThread projects to teach a poetry lesson to adolescents? 2. What affordances and/or hindrances do they identify in using digital media such as VoiceThread to teach poetry? VoiceThread is an interactive web-based collaborative tool incorporating the use of multimedia includingimages, text, audio, video, and hyperlinks that allows viewers to comment on any given slide by either typing, recordingaudio, uploading a video, or drawing on a specific image. It was selected for this unit for two reasons: 1) to expandpre-service teachers’ technological skills, as most were already proficient with PowerPoint, and 2) to allow for theuse of multimedia including voice, text, video and/or audio. Additionally, VoiceThread encouraged communicationbetween and among the teacher and students. For example, an image representing a specific part of a poem, alongwith the narration of the poem, could be included, and then students could be asked to comment on the image in oneparticular slide. The use of VoiceThread gave pre-service teachers the ability to design lessons that would engagestudents in multiple ways to improve their understanding of a poem, allowing the future teachers the opportunity toemploy strategies they learned in the Methods course including chunking and scaffolding. VoiceThread was a strong match to aid pre-service teachers in planning and organizing a poetry lesson. Thecreation of the VoiceThread projects was a part of a three week unit in the Methods of Teaching English course onthe teaching poetry. Prior to this unit, students studied such topics as lesson planning, the teaching of writing, and theteaching of literature. Additionally, students learned teaching strategies such as frontloading, questioning strategies,developing graphic organizers, image making, and modes of reflection. These strategies shaped the content analysisof the completed VoiceThread projects. Students received multiple teaching strategies for teaching literature and non-fiction texts. Many of these same strategies were reiterated in the teaching of the poetry unit with a greater examinationof literary terms and poetic forms. This study employed both qualitative and quantitative instruments to measure the impact of using VoiceThreadon the preparation to teach poetry. Quantitative data included a self report survey asking students to share a variety ofinformation including their experiences with poetry, the amount of instruction they had had with poetry, their viewsabout teaching poetry to secondary students, and how useful they thought VoiceThread was in the teaching of poetry.This data set was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The qualitative measures included a content analysis of everycompleted Voice Thread project using constant comparative analysis and open and axial coding of the short answerresponses (Strauss & Corbin, 1997). Students in their Methods of Teaching English course completed a VoiceThread lesson project as one oftheir required assignments. Twenty-one students completed their projects and thus participated in this study. Of therespondents, 33% (n=7) were graduate students, while 67% (n=14) were undergraduate students. All 21 participants
100 Archambault and Carlson were pre-service secondary English teachers in a teaching certification program. Methods of Teaching English is the final course they take prior to student teaching. In addition, during their methods course, pre-service teachers were placed in a secondary English classroom in a local school to observe an expert teacher. Participants had had an average of four college courses that covered the content of poetry in some form or fashion prior to taking Methods of Teaching English. Students completed this assignment during a two week period during the course of the semester. All students finished the project as it was a required project for the class. Students completed this assignment during class time at the university’s technology lab. The first data source was a self-report measure which consisted of a brief post-survey designed by the researchers. The intention was to capture students impressions regarding the effectiveness of the VoiceThread poetry unit as well as student conceptions of teaching poetry and using technology to do so. The survey contained 12 Likert- type closed items related to TPACK constructs implementing the scale “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (4). (Table 1). Open-ended items asked students, “Describe your overall experience using VoiceThread to teach poetry,” “What benefits/drawbacks are there to using VoiceThread to teach poetry?” and “Do you think that using technology to teach poetry is an effective method? Why or why not?” The second data source consisted of the created VoiceThread projects. Results and Analysis At the conclusion of the unit, students completed the web-based survey outside of class time and their responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics including mean and standard deviation (Table 1). Item Number of Mean Standard Responses Deviation I believe that studying poetry is valuable. (Content) 17 3.47 .717 I understand the importance of teaching and learning about poetry. (Peda- 17 3.47 .624 gogy) I am familiar with elements of poetry, including different types of poems, 17 3.29 .588 rhyme schemes, and poetic devices (Content) I feel comfortable teaching poetry. (Pedagogy) 17 3.12 .781 Teaching how to write poetry is easy for me. (Pedagogy) 17 2.47 .874 I am familiar with different methods of teaching poetry in the classroom. 16 3.00 .612 (Pedagogy) Poetry can be an effective way to teach other important skills in the English 17 3.35 .606 classroom. (Pedagogical Content) I am familiar with different technology tools that could be used to teach 17 2.81 .655 poetry. (Technological Pedagogy) Using various media through the use of technology would help students’ 17 3.24 .752 understanding of poetry. (TPACK) The use of technology would be an effective way to represent students’ 17 3.12 .485 understanding of a specific poem. (TPACK) Implementing technology is an effective way to teach elements of poetry, 17 3.06 .748 including different types of poems, rhyme schemes, and poetic devices. (TPACK) Teachers should use technological representations (i.e. multimedia, 16 3.25 .683 visual demonstrations, VoiceThread etc.) to teach poetry. (TPACK) Table 1: Descriptive Statistics from Student Survey
Poetry in Motion: Using VoiceThread to Prepare 21st Century English Teachers 101Content Analysis of VoiceThread Projects Using the TPACK framework proved to be a useful guide to helping students know what to focus on whencreating their projects. The notion of TPACK was addressed to help the future teachers understand how to use Web2.0 media to incorporate sound pedagogical strategies situated within the context of teaching the elements of poetry toadolescent learners. To comprehend the ways in which the use of VoiceThread influenced the technological pedagogicalstrategies used to teach the content (in this case, elements of poetry), the researchers examined the strategies studentswere taught in their Methods of Teaching English class to analyze their VoiceThread projects. These methods includedways to frontload, prepare to read, help students as they read, review-reinforce literacy skills and content, developmeta-cognitive prompts, and design a project for students to show what they have learned from the lesson. Eachproject was first coded individually, and then the authors met to reconcile their codes. The focus centered primarilyon students’ technological pedagogical choices within VoiceThread because the researchers were most interested inlearning about how technology could aid pre-service teachers prepare to teach a poetry lesson. The results indicatethat pre-service teachers generally found VoiceThread to be an effective tool to prepare, implement, and teach poetryto secondary students. In conducting a content analysis of the poetry lessons created by students in an English Methods course, theresearchers found that because of the VoiceThread format, photographs were used predominately as the front-loadingactivity for the lesson. This was followed by quick-writes (having students respond to a writing prompt as part ofthe lesson), the use of popular media linked to the poem, and listening to music (Figure 1). These strategies supportlearners to be able to comprehend the poem, relate it to prior knowledge, and learn necessary literacy skills associatedwith elements of poetry. Figure 1: Frontloading Activities Contained within VoiceThread Lessons Students most frequently used background knowledge (63.6%, 14) and an activation of students’ backgroundknowledge (59%, 13) as elements of preparation when introducing the VoiceThread poetry lesson. They alsoincorporated the use of specific vocabulary (50%, 11) and pointing out how students might interact with the poem(45.5%, 10) as other elements of preparation. Finally, the vast majority of students (95.5%, 21) used questioning asa form of keeping students on track throughout the VoiceThread lesson. They also frequently used Wilhelm’s textconnections (Text-Text, Text-Self, Text-Itself, Text-World) (81.8%, 18) as another method of guiding students, inaddition to breaking the poem into small, workable chunks (68%, 15) (Figure 2)
102 Archambault and Carlson Figure 2: Forms of Assistance Contained within VoiceThread Lessons From the open-ended responses on the survey instrument, a variety of themes were identified using open and axial coding. First, engagement was a major theme when pre-service teachers considered the use of VoiceThread to teach poetry to adolescent learners. This was for a number of reasons. They felt that the use of VoiceThread 1) would lead to direct interaction with the poem, 2) would encourage students to learn important skills related to poetry, 3) would activate multiple medias/modalities including audio and visual by allowing students to hear the poem as the text appeared, together with reinforced images, and 5) would allow for potential access of poetry instruction beyond the confines of the allotted class time. Future teachers also stated that they thought VoiceThread would encourage students to interact with the poem as well as with each other. For example, one participant stated, “VoiceThread can make poetry more interactive, and it also opens the door to poetry assignments that can be completed outside of the classroom if students have access to the Internet. VoiceThread also is a medium that supports encounters with poetry. Poems are personal, and great poetry is a dialogue and a personal relationship between the author and the audience. I feel Voice Thread does this better than full classroom readings and discussions of poetry.” Another reported, “The students can interact with VoiceThread and with each other to better understand and analyze the poem.” Still others felt that technology was a motivating factor: “Using it (technology) to teach poetry can help students pay more attention to an otherwise dull poetry lesson.” In addition to the positive influence on engagement that was perceived, another theme was the use of VoiceThread as a tool to support learning. In fact, participants claimed that teaching poetry with VoiceThread would allow adolescent students to learn important academic skills. A common sentiment among these pre-service teachers is summarized by the comment, “I consider VoiceThread to be an effective tool to teach poetry because students can comprehend a poem in small chunks,” while another one asserted, “The format of VoiceThread lends itself well to literary analysis by focusing on small bites and unpacking them without staring at a large page full of text, which can be intimidating for many students” and “It (VoiceThread) allows for more mental connections as students see and hear items related to the text”. These statements seemed to suggest that VoiceThread’s format (i.e. slide show, audio, visual, text, and links) would support adolescent learner’s comprehension of a poem because it has the capacity to break a poem into small parts as well as the ability to encourages students to interact with the text. This was confirmed in the content analysis of the VoiceThread projects themselves in which 68% of students used the designed their lessons to use include chunking.
Poetry in Motion: Using VoiceThread to Prepare 21st Century English Teachers 103 Despite these identified advantages, participants also identified potential pitfalls with the using of the web-based technology. One student argued, “I would rather have a face-to-face discussion in class because then studentscan ask questions and get immediate feedback.” Another major theme was accessibility in which a concern was raisedregarding whether or not students would be able to use VoiceThread at home: “If the link is down, students don’t havethe equipment, or students do not perform well without human guidance and encouragement, the lesson may not work.However, the majority of pre-service teachers agreed that VoiceThread was an effective medium to engage studentswith poetry, and it encouraged them to interact with the technology, the poem, and with each other.Implications Through the use of VoiceThread to create visual representations of poetry, pre-service English teachers wereable to capitalize on the affordances of technology, particularly by breaking their lessons into parts that would beeasier for students to comprehend. While they recognized the value in doing this, including the ability to representpoetry with media, and the potential to be able to communicate more efficiently and effectively with their futurestudents, participants also recognized their lack of experience and knowledge to be able to confidently do so. After theproject, pre-service English teachers expressed confidence through their open-ended comments regarding the valueof incorporating VoiceThread to improve student understanding of poetry through a variety of pedagogical methods.They identified the technological pedagoical advantage of using VoiceThread to extend learning beyond the confinesof the one period class in addition to the benefit of being able to implement specific strategies to enhance learning,including the use of chunking, pacing, and activating prior knowledge. The use of VoiceThread to teach poetry gets at the complex and interwoven nature of technology, pedagogy,and content as suggested by the TPACK framework. This has implications for the way that teachers and students interact,both in and outside of the classroom. Because Web 2.0 tools such as VoiceThread allow for greater representation,access, and communication, secondary students can receive more immediate and ongoing feedback through their use.This use of formative feedback is important for supporting learning (Higgins, Hartley & Skelton, 2002). The increaseof communication with students, coupled with a more student-centered approach to teaching, are important benefits ofleveraging the capabilities of web-based tools for educational purposes. Despite these implications, limitations to this study exist, particularly the fact that all participants were pre-service teachers who created a hypothetical lesson to be used in their future teaching. Although participants hadfield experiences in secondary schools, it would be interesting to see the lessons implemented. Also, this study didnot measure learning or experiences on the part of the intended adolescent audience. A useful study could be doneexploring how high school students responded to the poetry projects examine how well the project impacted studentlearning and experiences with poetry. In fact, one participant in the current study commented, “I think the greatestbenefit can come from allowing students to create their own Voice Thread for a published poem. They would get anopportunity to deepen their understanding of the poem as they searched for pictorial representations…” This is anexcellent point, and one that the researchers would like to explore in future scholarship.Conclusion The use of VoiceThread to create visual representations of poetry is uniquely suited for engaging an interactivediscussion about poetry in order to take advantage of the affordances of the technology and to spur conversationoutside of the regular classroom. It also affords the teacher to ability to chunk the content into parts that can be guidedusing both text-based and audio commentary as well as visual imagery. Future teachers recognized the technologicalpedagogical benefits of being able to incorporate specific cognitive-based strategies for increasing learning, includingthis use of chunking, pacing, and activating prior knowledge. They also experienced and recognized the advantage ofusing VoiceThread to extend learning beyond the restricted time of a 50-minute English class. Through this study, the complex and inter-related nature of technology, pedagogy, and content described bythe TPACK framework were made readily apparent. As such, the increase of communication with students, coupledwith a more student-centered approach to teaching, are important benefits of leveraging the capabilities of web-based
104 Archambault and Carlson tools for educational purposes. The advantages of integrating these tools in a meaningful way, mindful of how they fit within specific content areas, including methods of teaching, are important considerations, especially for teacher education programs who are preparing teachers for the challenges of the 21st century. References Agee, J. & Altarriba, J. (2009). Changing conceptions and uses of computer technologies in the everyday literacy practices of sixth and seventh graders. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4), 363-396. Archambault, L.M., & Crippen, K.J. (2007). The sites teachers choose: A gauge of classroom web use. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss2/general/article1.cfm Boling, E. C. (2010). Learning from Teachers’ Conceptions of Technology Integration: What Do Blogs, Instant Messages, and 3D Chat Rooms Have to Do with It? Research in the Teaching of English, 43(1), 74-100. Bruce, B.C., & Hogan, M.P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M., C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R.D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post- typographic world (pp. 269-281). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Higgins, R., Hartley, P. & Skelton, A. (2002). The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the Role of Assessment Feedback in Student Learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53-64 Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Yahya, K., & Yadav, A. (2004). Successful teaching with technology: The complex interplay of content, pedagogy; and technology. In Ferdig, R., & Crawford, C. (Eds.), Information technology and teacher education annual: Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education 2004, (pp. 2347-2354). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article1.cfm McVee, B., Bailey, N.M., & Shanahan, L.E. (2008). Using digital media to interpret poetry: Spiderman meets Walt Whitman. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(2), 112-143. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends 53(5), 48-53. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523. Pang, E.S., & Kamil, M.L. (2004). Professional development in the uses of technology. In D.S. Strickland & M.L. Kamil (Eds.), Improving reading achievement through professional development (pp. 149-168). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C.E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26(4), 863-870. Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3-36). New York: MacMillan. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stuart, D.H. (2010). Cin (E) Poetry: Engaging in digital generation in 21st Century response. Voices in the Middle, 17(3), 27-35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Warburton, J. & Camp, R. (2001). Finding the Poetic in a Technological World: Integrating Poetry and Computer Technology in a Teacher Education Program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4), 585-597. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Improving Student Science Knowledge and Skills: 105 Improving Student Science Knowledge and Skills: A Study of the Impact of Augmented-Reality Animated Content on Student Learning Scott Elliot SEG Measurement United States email@example.com Cathy Mikulas SEG Measurement United States firstname.lastname@example.org Abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore learning growth associated with the use of an inte- grated science instruction tool, 3D Library, incorporating both traditional books and augmented-reality animated content. We investigated the following question: Do fourth grade students using both the books and augmented-reality animated content achieve greater increases in science knowledge and skills than a comparable group of students who use only the books or a comparable group of students using nothing at all? Additionally, the study explored the results by gender and ethnicity. Using a quasi-experimental, pre-post design, this study compared growth in science knowledge and skills. The findings indicate that students who used both the books and augmented-reality animated content show greater learning gains than students using just the books or nothing at all.Background and Purpose Recent advances in technology now support instruction that integrates traditional text with computer-delivered,animated content using augmented reality. This integrated technology allows educators to enhance student learning,by capitalizing on neurological research suggesting that students learn better when presented with content deliveredthrough multiple channels (i.e., text/auditory and visual). This research is often summarized as the fundamentalmultimedia principle: Words and pictures are better than words alone (Mayer, 2005). The fundamental multimediaprinciple has been well established through numerous experimental studies (Betrancourt, 2005). However, this studycompares the academic achievement of multimedia users to non-users in actual school settings using this new, andlargely unresearched, technology. This study explores student learning growth associated with the use of a science instruction tool, 3D Librarythat integrates books with computer-delivered, augmented-reality animated content. We compared a group of studentsusing both the books and augmented-reality animated content to a group of students using only the books and to agroup of students using neither the books nor the augmented-reality animations using a quasi-experimental design. During the fall of 2010, we conducted a six-site study of fourth-grade students to examine the growth inlearning among students using this integrated text and augmented-reality animation tool. The findings indicate thatstudents in classes using both the 3D Library books and the accompanying augmented reality animated content(Treatment Group One) show greater growth in science knowledge and skills than a comparable group of studentswho used the books only (Treatment Group Two) and a comparable groups of students using neither the books northe augmented reality animated content (Control Group). Students using the books and augmented reality animatedcontent made significantly greater gains in science knowledge and skills over a period of five weeks than students inclasses that used only the books or nothing at all.Research Questions We investigated the following two questions: 1) Do students using both books and augmented reality animatedcontent show larger gains in science knowledge and skills than a comparable group of students who use only the books
106 Elliot and Mikulas or a comparable group of students using nothing at all?, and 2) Do students of different gender and ethnic backgrounds differ in their science learning gains when using this integrated instructional tool incorporating books and augmented reality animated content? Student Sample In the fall of 2010, 329 students in 17 classrooms in six different schools located in five different regions of the United States participated in a controlled study of an instructional tool incorporating both traditional books and augmented reality animation. Students were divided into three treatment groups. Treatment Group One students used both the 3D Library books and augmented-reality animated content; Treatment Group Two used only the 3D Library books; and the Control Group used neither the books nor the animated content during the course of the five weeks of the study. The initial ability level (science knowledge and skills) of the Treatment Groups and Control Group were compared using Analysis of Variance. While there was a statistically significant difference among the three study groups (F = 5.617, df = 1/329, p < .01), the observed differences between each pair of groups were within one half of the total group standard deviation (total group standard deviation = 4.25; Difference between Treatment Group One and Treatment Group Two = .48; Difference between Treatment Group One and the Control Group = 2.01). Further, Levene’s test of Equality of Error Variances showed no significant differences among the error variances of the three groups (F = 3.85; df = 2/326; p > .01) supporting the use of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) (Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1990). Description of the Pretest and Posttest An assessment of science knowledge and skills was created to measure students’ science ability at the beginning and at the end of the study. A 30-item, multiple-choice measure of science knowledge and skills covering the content in the topic areas addressed by the five books, was created for use as the pre and post measure for the study. Students took the pretest early in October 2010 before the treatment was introduced and again in November 2010 after use of the treatment ceased. For each of the five topic areas covered by the books, national science standards and two state science standards were consulted to create the science assessment. For each book, test questions were written to reflect topics covered by the book and covered by common national and state science standards. The tests contained six items written for each topic area (as defined by book titles). The only exception to this was the Dinosaurs book. Since dinosaurs are not typically covered in depth in the elementary science curriculum, questions were written to reflect the content covered in the book and two other widely available children’s books on dinosaurs. The internal reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the 30-item pretest was .87 and the 30-item posttest was .88. Description of the Treatment The Treatment in this study was the use of an integrated science instructional program, 3D Library, composed of a combination of books and augmented reality animated content. For this study, the augmented reality component allowed students to view additional animated content and to listen to the material presented in the books. Five of the fourth grade science books were included in this study. The book topics included dinosaurs, energy, ecosystems, and the solar system. The program is designed as a supplemental instructional tool designed for use by students in grades one through six in the school or home environment. While this study only included fourth-grade science content, the complete set of materials contains a full range of science and social studies titles aligned to grades one through six; plans call for adding additional content areas in the future. The program consists of two components: • A set of books, 24 pages in length, containing age-appropriate content aligned to the title including
Improving Student Science Knowledge and Skills: 107 extensive illustrations and photographs where appropriate. (Five books for fourth grade science were used for this study.) • A computer equipped with a camera (or dedicated device) with software driving the augmented reality animated content, voiceovers, music, etc. To use the program, the student reads the book directly in front of the computer/device where the webcam canclearly recognize the page content. As each two-page spread is opened, the program software automatically recognizesthe page and launches the aligned animation on the computer screen along with narration and music. The animationsare presented using augmented reality; augmented reality presents a visual image along with an actual image beingpresented (in this case, a 3D animation with the actual book and the student reading the book). Students can move the book from left to right, turn it and tilt it and the image will move and change positionwith the book. For example, an image of the solar system can be seen from different perspectives simply by turningthe book. Additional animated content can be launched by the student, by placing his or her hand over one or moreicons that appear on each two page spread. These additional animations provide additional information about thecontent being presented. For example, an additional animation for dinosaurs might demonstrate the environment inwhich dinosaurs lived and how they interacted with their environment.Treatment Group One Six classes were included in Treatment Group One. Teachers in Treatment Group One were provided withsix sets of the books for the program and six dedicated computer devices equipped with a camera and containing theprogram software. In five of the classes, the machines were deployed directly in the classroom; for the sixth class, thecomputers and books were deployed in the science lab. Teachers were asked to have students read one of the books perweek for five weeks using both the books and the augmented reality animations on computer. Teachers were instructedto have students use the technology for a minimum of one hour per week. The results of both teacher and studentsurveys show that the typical student used the program one to two hours per week.Treatment Group Two Six classes were included in Treatment Group Two. Teachers in Treatment Group Two were provided withsix sets of the books for the program. In five of the classes, the books were made available directly in the classroom;for the sixth class, the books were made available in the science lab. Teachers were asked to have students read oneof the books per week for five weeks. Teachers were instructed to have students use the books for a minimum of onehour per week. The results of both teacher and student surveys show that the typical student read the books one to twohours per week.Control Group Five Classes were included in the Control Group. The Control Group did not use any of the components inthe 3D Library program.Study Design The goal of this study was to compare the growth in science knowledge and skills between students who used acombination of traditional books and augmented-reality animated content and students who used the books alone ornothing at all. Students’ growth in science knowledge and skills was measured by comparing their scores on the 30-item science pretest at the beginning of the study to their scores on the 30-item science posttest administered at the endof the study. Students in the two Treatment Groups used the instructional materials for five weeks (while the ControlGroup did not use the instructional materials during this period.). The results were then compared statistically usingAnalysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) using the science pretest score as the covariate. The study employed a pre-post,
108 Elliot and Mikulas Treatment-Control Group design. Since the students were not randomly assigned to the groups, this is considered a quasi-experimental design. Data Collection Teachers participating in the study were provided with the science pretest booklets and administration manuals in October 2010, and administered the pretests according to the administration instructions provided. In November, 2010, at the conclusion of five weeks of instruction teachers administered the science posttest. The science pretest and posttest results were compared as a basis for evaluating the growth reported in this study. Findings The growth in science knowledge and skills for the two Treatment Groups and the Control Group was compared using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using the science pretest score as the covariate. Only students for whom matched pretest and posttest results were available were included in the analysis. The analysis looked only at those students who had taken a pretest at the outset of the study and those who had taken the posttest at the conclusion of the study. Students who left the class during this period or who joined the class during this period were not included in the growth comparisons. Comparison of Growth ANCOVA was used to evaluate the difference in science posttest scores (dependent variable) between the three study groups (independent variable) controlling for the initial Science knowledge and skills of the students (covariate). The pretest scores were used as the covariate to place students in all three groups on the same baseline. The comparisons were based on 123 Treatment Group One students, 129 Treatment Group Two students and 77 Control Group students for whom both the pretest and posttest scores were available. The results show a significant difference in the science knowledge and skills posttest scores among the three study groups (F = 20.87; df = 3/329; p < .001) when initial science skills are controlled. Which study group a student was in accounted for approximately 11% of the variation in the science postttest scores. (Eta squared = .11). This means that about 11% of the growth in science skills can be explained by whether or not students used the books and augmented reality animation content. The results are summarized in the tables below. Partial Type III Sums Mean Source df F Sig Eta of Squares Square Squared Corrected Model 3788.548 3 1262.849 121.026 0.001 0.53 Intercept 1129.482 1 1129.482 108.244 0.001 0.25 Science Pretest 2922.812 1 1129.482 280.109 0.001 0.46 Study Group 435.433 2 217.716 20.865 0.001 0.11 Error 3391.233 325 10.435 Total 82773 329 Corrected Total 7179.781 328 Table 1: Analysis of Covariance Comparison of Adjusted Science Post Test Scores For All Three Study Groups (Science Pretest Score is the Covariate)
Improving Student Science Knowledge and Skills: 109 Group N Mean Standard Deviation Treatment Group One (Books and 123 16.65 4.65 Computer Use) Treatment Group Two (Books 129 14.44 4.4 Use Only) Control Group (No Product use) 77 13.99 3.96Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for the Science Posttest Scores For All Three Study Groups (Adjusted for SciencePretest Covariate) Pairwise comparisons show that while Treatment Group One significantly differed from both TreatmentGroup Two and the Control Group (p < .001), there was no significant difference between Treatment Group Twoand the Control Group (p > .001). (The significance level was corrected using the Bonferroni procedure to adjust formultiple comparisons.) To better understand the magnitude of growth for students using the books and augmented reality animatedcontent we looked at the “effect size,” a common metric that can be used to evaluate results across studies, whendifferent measures are used. The effect size, in this case, measures the difference in amount achieved by one ofthe study groups in relation to the other. The effect size for the difference between Treatment Group One (Booksand Computer Use) and Treatment Group Two (Books Only) was .47. The effect size for the difference betweenTreatment Group One (Books and Computer Use) and the Control Group (No Use of the Product) was .56. Theseeffect sizes indicate that students in classes that used the books along with the augmented reality animated contentshowed substantially greater growth in science knowledge and skills than either those using just the books or who didnot use the instructional material at all from the beginning to the end of the study. We analyzed the results by gender to determine whether boys and girls using the 3D Library program showeddifferent levels of growth. Similarly, we analyzed the results by ethnicity to determine whether students of differentethnic backgrounds using the 3D Library program showed different levels of growth. In both the gender and ethnicityanalyses, we used only those students who provided demographic information (N = 287). To determine if there were any differential effects by gender, we examined an ANCOVA model evaluatingthe difference in science posttest scores (dependent variable) between the three study groups (independent variable)and gender (independent variable) controlling for the initial science knowledge and skills of the students (covariate).The pretest scores were used as the covariate to place students in all three groups on the same baseline. The interactioneffect between study group and gender was of primary interest. The results in Table 3 show no significant differences in adjusted posttest scores among study group andgender (Study Group by Gender interaction term) (F = 1.13; df = 6/287; p > .001) when initial science skills arecontrolled. In short, there appears to be no difference in the level of growth achieved by boys and girls. 3D Libraryappears equally effective for both genders.
110 Elliot and Mikulas Partial Type III Sums Mean Source df F Sig Eta of Squares Square Squared Corrected Model 3604.770 6 600.795 56.334 < 0.001 0.547 Intercept 999.075 1 999.075 93.679 < 0.001 0.251 COGPRE 2602.118 1 2602.118 243.991 < 0.001 0.466 GROUP 479.026 2 239.513 22.458 < 0.001 0.138 GENDER 12.883 1 12.883 1.208 0.273 0.004 GROUP * GENDER 24.049 2 12.025 1.128 0.325 0.008 Error 2986.15 280 10.665 Total 73405 287 Corrected Total 6590.92 286 Table 3: Analysis of Covariance Comparison of Adjusted Science Post Test Scores for all three Study Groups and Gender (Science Pretest Score is the Covariate) To determine if there were any differential effects by ethnicity we examined an ANCOVA model evaluating the difference in science posttest scores (dependent variable) between the three study groups (independent variable) and four categories of ethnicity (Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Mixed Race or Other; independent variable) controlling for the initial science knowledge and skills of the students (covariate). The pretest scores were used as the covariate to place students in all three groups on the same baseline. The interaction effect between study group and ethnicity was of primary interest. The results in Table 4 show no significant differences in adjusted posttest scores among Study Group and Ethnicity (Study Group by Ethnicity interaction term) (F = 0.997; df = 15/287; p > .001) when initial Science skills are controlled. In short, there appears to be no difference in the level of growth achieved among students of different ethnicities. 3D Library appears equally effective for students of all ethnic groups examined. Partial Type III Sums Mean Source df F Sig Eta of Squares Square Squared Corrected Model 3798.287 15 253.219 24.573 < 0.001 0.576 Intercept 369.818 1 369.818 35.888 < 0.001 0.117 COGPRE 2365.01 1 2365.01 229.503 < 0.001 0.459 GROUP 209.744 2 104.872 10.177 < 0.001 0.07 ETHNICITY 140.074 5 28.015 2.719 0.02 0.048 GROUP * ETHNICITY 71.917 7 10.274 0.997 0.434 0.025 Error 2792.632 271 10.305 Total 73405 287 Corrected Total 6590.92 286 Table 4: Analysis of Covariance Comparison of Adjusted Science Post Test Scores for All Three Study Groups and Ethnicity (Science Pretest Score is the Covariate)
Improving Student Science Knowledge and Skills: 111Conclusion Students enrolled in classes using both the 3D Library books and computer-delivered animations for theprogram achieved signiﬁcantly greater gains in science than students enrolled in classes that used only the books andthose who did not use any component of the program. The magnitude of the differences as shown by the large effectsizes (.47 for books and computers versus just books; .56 for books and computers versus no use of the product)suggests that the program is very effective. Combined with the strongly positive perceptions of the teachers andstudent found in the qualitative study, these results suggest that the program is a very effective supplemental tool forinstruction. These ﬁndings are particularly signiﬁcant for three reasons: First, the study was conducted for only fiveweeks. The level of growth seen is particularly significant in light of the fact that it reflects the effects of five weeksof instruction. Second, the study included a comparison of students using the entire program with those using theprogram books only. The findings show that use of the books and accompanying software is more effective than nouse of the books or program, but more importantly the findings show that use of the program is more effective thanusing just the books. This shows the effectiveness of the multiple modes of delivery included in the program. Third,the results are supported by both quantitative and qualitative study components. The statistical analyses and the teacherfeedback provided support for the effectiveness of the program.ReferencesBetrancourt, M. (2005) “The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning.” In R. E. Mayer (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Mayer, R.E. (2005) “Introduction to multimedia learning.” in R. E. Mayer (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. (1990). Applied Linear Statistical Models. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
Lessons Learned from Teaching in Hybrid Learning Environments for In-Service Mathematics Teachers 115 Lessons Learned from Teaching in Hybrid Learning Environments for In- Service Mathematics Teachers Heng-Yu Ku Educational Technology Program University of Northern Colorado United States email@example.com Chatchada Akarasriworn Educational Technology Program University of Northern Colorado United States firstname.lastname@example.org Lisa A. Rice Science and Mathematics Teaching Center University of Wyoming United States email@example.com David M. Glassmeyer School of Mathematical Sciences University of Northern Colorado United States firstname.lastname@example.org Bernadette Mendoza Applied Statistics and Research Methods Program University of Northern Colorado United States email@example.com Shandy Hauk Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Program WestEd United States firstname.lastname@example.org Abstract: This article presents middle and secondary in-service teachers’ attitudes towards participation in a graduate level probability and statistics course in a hybrid learning environment. Analysis of quantitative data from a survey administered to the teachers led to ranking participant responses and to recommendations for improving this hybrid environment. Additionally, the qualitative data drawn from the open-ended survey response items which were comprised of teacher generated suggestions to improve the hybrid learning environment are considered. In particular, recommendations for instructors, teaching assistants, course designers, and technology support personnel are put forth in accordance with the research findings from both types of data. The goal of these recommendations is to improve community building in this environment, the efficacy of technology in teaching and learning, and the structure of the hybrid learning environment.
116 Ku, Akarasriworn, Rice, Glassmeyer, Mendoza, and Hauk Background Over the past decade, distance education has become a fast-growing delivery method in higher education in the U.S. (Dunlap, Sobel, & Sands, 2007). The growth of distance education in higher education has necessitated utilization of hybrid learning environments which provide the resolution for “the conflicting pressures on distance educators – students prefer to learn in a classroom, but demand to be permitted to learn at a distance” (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009, p. 6). A hybrid learning environment offers a combination of online and face-to-face delivery (Doering, 2006) in which “30% to 79% of the course’s content is delivered online” (Simonson et al., 2009, p. 5). For traditional face-to- face learning experiences, learners and instructors are required to be in the same location, while for online learning experiences, learners and instructors can be in different places by employing the information and communication technologies (ICT) to communicate with each other (Spector, Merril, Merriënboer, & Driscoll, 2008). The aim of hybrid learning is to improve students’ educational experiences by combining benefits of web-based environments while preserving benefits of traditional classroom environments to promote active learning (Garnham & Kaleta, 2002). The hybrid learning environment has greatly increased in popularity in higher education (Young, 2002) because of new opportunities allowing enhanced student learning outcomes (Tuckman, 2002) and high-quality student-instructor interaction (Riffell & Sibley, 2003). The National Science Foundation funded a grant to improve teacher practice and student achievement in middle and secondary mathematics education in the northern Rocky Mountain region to two state universities. This grant allows in-service mathematics teachers to participate in a virtual master’s program offering a degree in mathematics education. During the semester the study took place, students primarily took three courses: Applied Probability and Statistics, Teaching Probability and Statistics, and Continuous Mathematics as indicated in the virtual master’s degree program curriculum. These three courses were offered in a hybrid environment that allowed synchronous and asynchronous interactions among participants. The purpose of this study was to investigate in-service mathematics teachers’ experiences in a hybrid learning environment and provide recommendations to the grant leadership team on how to improve in-service mathematics teachers’ experiences in the hybrid learning environment. Research Questions The research questions for the study are as follows: 2. What were in-service mathematics teachers’ attitudes regarding taking a graduate level mathematics course in a hybrid learning environment? 3. What were in-service mathematics teachers’ suggestions to improve the hybrid learning environment? Method Participants The participants for this study included 27 students who were in-service mathematics teachers at the middle and secondary school levels. Although they are in-service teachers, during the sessions we interact with them, they are graduate students. Therefore, we will use the word student to refer to the participant for the remainder of the paper. These students participated in three of the hybrid setting graduate level mathematics courses at two universities in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States during the summer of 2010. Context: Hybrid Course Format The Probability and Statistics course was offered in the summer 2010 semester. This course used Blackboard (a web-based course management system), two-way video conferencing tool, and Elluminate (an online synchronous tool) to deliver course content. A total of 35 students took these three courses during a six-week period. Among these 35 students, 24 students were gathered in the same classroom at one university, while 11 students were located in the
Lessons Learned from Teaching in Hybrid Learning Environments for In-Service Mathematics Teachers 117same classroom at a different university. Three instructors facilitated courses by using the two-way video conferencingtool and facilitated student discussion by using Elluminate. All instructors also used either Blackboard or eCompanionto post announcements, course materials, and student grades.Instruments The In-Service Teacher Technology Survey consisted of 32 questions. The first 28 questions used the Likert-type response scale with the following responses: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and5= strongly agree. The 28-item survey asked students to indicate their level of satisfaction toward technology (e.g.,Blackboard, Elluminate, Writing Tablets, Webcams, and headsets), asynchronous threaded discussion (Blackboarddiscussion board), synchronous-whole group class session (two-way video conferencing), and synchronous-smallgroup session (Elluminate) that they experienced in the course. These 28 items included 24 positively wordedstatements and four negatively worded statements (items #4, #7, #10, and #11). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability forthe survey was .85. In addition to the Likert-type scale items, four open-ended questions were asked in the survey: 1. What do you like best about the technology supported learning environment being used in this course (using Blackboard, Elluminate, two-way video conferencing, etc.)? 2. What do you like least about the technology supported learning environment being used in this course? 3. Please reflect on the possible learning community/communities you have with your classmates (from both campuses). 4. Please provide at least one suggestion on how to improve the technology supported learning environment if the same course is offered again.Procedure The students enrolled in the Probability and Statistics course were contacted by e-mail to indicate theirwillingness to share information about their learning experiences and to fill out the In-Service Teacher TechnologySurvey if they chose to do so. The In-Service Teacher Technology Survey was sent to all 35 students in Week 5 of thesix-week summer session and 27 students (77%) responded to the survey within one week.Data Analysis From the In-Service Teacher Technology Survey, student responses were calculated by using descriptivestatistics and ranked for each survey item. The data on survey items that contained negative worded statements werereversely coded. For the four open-ended questions, a thematic analysis was conducted to identify emerging themesand patterns for responses to each question.ResultsIn-Service Teacher Technology Survey The means and standard deviations for the 28-item In-Service Teacher Technology Survey were calculated.The overall mean score across these survey items was 3.95, a rating indicating positive experiences in this hybridlearning environment. The data from the In-Service Teacher Technology Survey also revealed that students’ sense ofcommunity was one of the most positive experiences, while issues with technology were the most negative aspects ofthe course. The five highest-rated statements on the survey were “I have not felt isolated from the rest of the class inthis course.” (M = 4.67), “The small group discussions have been helpful to my learning.” (M = 4.52), “I have feltcomfortable discussing concepts in this course with other students during small group discussions.” (M = 4.52),“The small group discussions have been effective in this course.” (M = 4.44), and “When engaged in small groupdiscussions, I have put a lot of thought into my comments.” (M = 4.44).
118 Ku, Akarasriworn, Rice, Glassmeyer, Mendoza, and Hauk The five lowest-rated statements were “I have felt the small groups were rotated enough so I could work with different individuals.” (M = 2.81), “The orientation session the evening before classes began has prepared me for the rigor of the summer courses.” (M = 2.93), “I have been satisfied with the quality of the audio in the classroom.” (M = 3.19), “I have been satisfied with the quality of the two-way video conferencing in the classroom.” (M = 3.19), and “The technology has not interfered with my understanding of the content of the course.” (M = 3.37). Open-Ended Questions To dig more deeply into participant perceptions of technology and professional learning communities for students in the hybrid graduate course, we asked four open-ended questions. These related to what participants liked most and least about the technology used, perceptions of professional learning communities (PLCs), and suggestions for improving future iterations of the same course. While there were several technology components used, students specifically mentioned three classroom technologies by name, two favorably. First, 22% of students commented on the use of Blackboard, with one student capturing these views in his/her interview, who stated “The Blackboard interface allows students easy access to course materials, assignments, grades, and other resources. This access reduces the need for students to contact the professor and wait for a response. I’m sure this also reduces the strain of responding on behalf of the professor.” Students also mentioned Smartboard is a helpful instructional tool (15%). However, when Elluminate was mentioned, it was not in the same vein: three students mentioned they had not used Elluminate due to the inconvenience of the software, noting that challenges included “lugging” the hardware needed to use Elluminate (e.g., computer, camera, headset) to a classroom. As might be expected from other reports of e-learning, students commented that ready access to course materials and other resources was valuable while also indicating that some of the implemented technology did not seem to be worth the inconvenience it introduced into the learning process (Dede, 2006). Although students praised some common aspects, they also shared some dislikes. Eighty-five percent of the students indicated that the unreliability of technology that linked the two universities during synchronous class meetings caused several problems. For example, some mentioned missing important information or content during class and taking class time to fix technological issues, saying it “became a major hurdle for both teaching and learning.” This opinion was echoed by another participant, who said “the technology is unpredictable and seems to break/stop working at inopportune times.” Another student commented on the instructor location influenced his/her learning, who stated “I think that the site that the teacher is at has a clear advantage of creating relationships with the professor and does not miss out on important details about the course.” Additionally, the graduate students’ experiences of community building were most positive when group projects and group discussions came into play and – as has been noted in the literature – when local and distant interactions were both part of the professional learning community (Schlager & Fusco, 2003). The opportunities for students to interact with each other and work collaboratively within and across campuses helped them to get to know each other better. Moreover, students stated that being together on the same campus and having face-to-face class meetings during the first week of the course helped them build relationships. One student mentioned that “The week of classes face-to-face at one campus was a positive move! I know that there are probably difficulties with keeping folks together for the week, but it really helped to develop a better sense of overall community through both sites. Group projects across both sites would be more feasible; however, only one class of the summer sessions focused on PLC’s. It is tough to arrange meetings with different groups (even if all are located on one campus).” While students appreciated the bonding at the individual universities, they also discussed how informal interactions with their peers, such as lunch discussions and living in the dormitories during the local sessions were beneficial. The majority felt there was a sense of community, through interactions in person, online, professional learning communities, small and large group work; however, 15% of the students thought there was still a disconnect with the university that was not their home university. The final open-ended item asked participants whether they had suggestions on how to improve the technology supported learning environment if the same course was offered again. Comments made when asked about the less
Lessons Learned from Teaching in Hybrid Learning Environments for In-Service Mathematics Teachers 119successful aspects of the hybrid classes were again mentioned in the fourth open-ended question of the survey. Amajority of the students mentioned resolving the online video network connection, microphone, and audio problemsas a top priority. Students noted the importance of the instructor making sure the technology worked properly beforeclass started and of ensuring support services were promptly accessible on both campuses whenever technical issuesoccurred. What is more, while participants valued the technology training session, they also said it would be improvedby including some kind of video-conference etiquette session. Finally, students noted the worth of capitalizing on theimmediacy of feedback to students from the instructor that is possible in a technology-rich environment. One studentstated that “When courses are not face-to-face, it is important that there is an adequate amount of feedback from theprofessor. This is where timely grading and feedback on Blackboard are extremely important. For the most part, thishas been good but I think it could be improved in the future.”Recommendations According to the research findings, we recommend the grant leadership team consider the followingrecommendations:Instructor: 1. Provide more activities to support student learning through Elluminate in order to build a strong sense of community for both campuses as well as foster the use of Elluminate. For example, requiring a project where students have Elluminate sessions with small groups including students from both sites or providing optional Elluminate study groups at a fixed time each evening are two possible suggestions. 2. Provide the virtual office hours once a week via Elluminate chat, discussion group on Elluminate, or telephone. 3. Set up an Elluminate session in every class so students can ask questions at the end of the class. 4. Create a “technical problem/issue board” for students who have technical problems to report those issues on the board. 5. Provide more activities to facilitate students rotating small groups during class so that they can work with different individuals across two campuses. 6. Create groups with members from all points in the program (both new students and veterans in the program) for mentoring purposes. 7. Provide an orientation session (instructor’s expectations, a Q&A session, etc.) to students at beginning of the class so students feel prepared for the rigor of online learning. 8. Set expectations and communicate with technology support personnel regarding how the technology is to be used.Teaching Assistant: 1. Ensure that technology (two-way video conferencing, audio, microphone, etc.) works properly before class starts so technology will not interfere with students’ understanding of the content of the course. 2. Assist instructors to set up an Elluminate session in every class so students can ask questions at the end of the class.Course Designer: 1. Design course activities to promote student learning through Elluminate in order to build a strong sense of community for both campuses and to foster the use of Elluminate. For example, requiring a project where students have Elluminate sessions with small groups including students from both sites or providing optional Elluminate study groups at a fixed time each evening are two possible suggestions. 2. Create a “technical problem/issue board” for students who have technical problems to report those issues on the board. 3. Design more activities to facilitate students rotating small groups during class so that they can work with different individuals across two campuses.
120 Ku, Akarasriworn, Rice, Glassmeyer, Mendoza, and Hauk Technology Support Personnel: 1. Test out technology and tools used in the classroom at each site at least 30 minutes before class begins. 2. Provide training sessions not only for Elluminate, Blackboard, eCompanion, and Smartboard, but also for a video-conferencing “etiquette” training session. 3. Send two images to two different screens when the instructor is using two-way video conferencing tools. One to show the Smartboard/computer/document camera image being discussed, and another to show the instructor or the student who is speaking. 4. Pay attention and focus the camera on the person speaking and zoom in as soon as possible. 5. Ensure that technology (two-way video conferencing, audio, microphone, etc.) works properly before class starts so technology will not interfere with students’ understanding of the content of the course. These recommendations have practical significance to help the two universities in offering guidelines and providing suggestions to other universities that are interested in offering a master’s degree program in a hybrid environment. Furthermore, it may also help instructors or other course designers to have a more systematic understanding of the pedagogical, technological, and administrative approaches to hybrid learning (Challis, 2005; Ricketts & Wilks, 2002). However, we realize that the action research is conducted in the context of focused efforts to improve the quality of an organization but is limited in its generalizability to other settings. References Challis, D. (2005). Committing to quality learning through adaptive online assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(5), 519-527. Dede, C. (Ed.). (2006). Online Professional Development for Teachers: Emerging Models and Methods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Doering, A. (2006). Adventure learning: Transformative hybrid online education. Distance Education, 27(2), 197–215 Dunlap, J. C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D. I. (2007). Supporting students’ cognitive processing in online course: Designing for deep and meaningful student-to-content interactions. TechTrends, 51(4), 20- 31. Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today. Retrieved November 26, 2009, from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham.htm Ricketts, C., & Wilks, S. J. (2002). Improving student performance through computer-based assessment: Insights from recent research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 475-479. Riffell, S. K., & Sibley, D. F. (2003). Learning online: Student perceptions of a hybrid learning format. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(6), 394–399. Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The Information Society 19(3), 203-220. Simonson, M. Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Spector, M. J., Merril, D. M., Merriënboer, V. J., & Driscoll, M. P. (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Tuckman, B. W. (2002). Evaluating ADAPT: A hybrid instructional model combining web-based and classroom components. Computers & Education, 39(3), 261–269. Young, J. R. (2002, March). ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28), A33-A34. Retrieved from Research Library. (Document ID: 115164458). Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Mathematics Teacher Leadership Center grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF Award # DUE-0832026). However, any opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this paper are our own.
Preparing for Doctoral Supervision at a Distance: Lessons from Experience 121 Preparing for Doctoral Supervision at a Distance: Lessons from Experience Peter R Albion Faculty of Education, University of Southern Queensland Australia Peter.Albion@usq.edu.au Ronel Erwee Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland Australia Ronel.Erwee@usq.edu.au Abstract: An aging academic workforce and increasing demand for tertiary education are combining to create an acute shortage of university teachers across almost every discipline in Australian universities. Distance education at the doctoral level has an increasing role to play in preparing a new generation of university teachers but brings new challenges for existing aca- demics responsible for that preparation. This study collected data from doctoral students and associated staff in two faculties at a regional Australian university with a growing number of doctoral students studying at a distance. Analysis of the data has produced insights into what currently works well for students and academics and what changes might be desirable. The paper presents selected data and lessons that can be applied to improve distance doctoral edu- cation. Australia faces an impending crisis in its academic workforce. Within the next decade almost 50% of senioracademics are expected to retire and the current numbers of young academics are unlikely to be sufficient to replacethem. The effect of an aging academic workforce has been exacerbated by an increase of 107% in student numbersbetween 1989 and 2007 accompanied by only a 28% increase in academics over the same period (University ofMelbourne, 2009). Another report (Hugo & Morris, 2010) has confirmed that the projected shortage exists across therange of academic disciplines, driven by the combination of aging in a workforce that has not been steadily renewedover recent decades, increasing enrolments following government policy aimed at increasing participation, anddecreasing job satisfaction among current academics related to a perceived decline in academic working conditions.Education, perhaps because of the career trajectories followed through teaching and then to academia, appears to bethe worst affected of the professional areas, with upwards of 60% of education academics aged over 50. Hugo and Morris (2010) noted that Australia has been recruiting academics internationally, with 40.5% ofthe academic workforce being born outside Australia compared to 25.7% of the total workforce and 23.9% of totalpopulation. However, they also noted that the aging of baby boomers in western countries is likely to reduce theavailable supply of international academics. Hence, there is an immediate need for expansion of the potential academicworkforce in Australia through preparation of increased numbers of doctoral graduates. The scope of the task isincreased by the observation that less than a quarter of Australians with a PhD work in universities (Hugo & Morris,2010). In some disciplines, such as those in Arts and Science faculties, it is reasonably common for students toprogress through undergraduate study and an honors degree or masters to doctoral study. However, in the professions,such as teaching, it is more common for graduates to spend some years in practice before returning, often by way ofa masters degree, to further study and a doctorate. Although this may be seen as a positive by the profession, becauseof the value placed upon field experience for grounding in reality, it does result in doctoral students from thesedisciplines being typically older than those in the ‘pure’ disciplines and more likely to have ongoing family and othercommitments that impede transition to full-time study. Such students often prefer to enroll part-time in a doctoratein order to maintain employment because they need the income and to avoid career interruptions that may reduceopportunities for advancement. Moreover, where their employment is some distance from the university, as is often thecase in sparsely populated Australia, they will prefer to study at a distance. As is the case with undergraduate students
122 Albion and Erwee who are increasingly likely to have substantial employment commitments (James, Bexley, Devlin, & Marginson, 2007), even those students who are within commuting distance of the university may prefer the flexibility offered by online study. That trend has been evident for more than a decade. Pearson (1999) noted the rapid increase in student numbers, increasing diversity, and the need for increased flexibility in study arrangements to accommodate the continuing commitments of more mature students to family and employment. Hence there is a need to consider how best to provide for more flexible doctoral education, including at a distance. Doctoral Studies, Interaction and Attrition The structures and process of doctoral education vary internationally. In Australia they are typically based on the British model in which a PhD is undertaken without coursework and entirely by research with the guidance of a supervisor. Professional doctorates, such as the Doctor of Education (EdD), typically include about one-third course work, equivalent to a year of full-time study, and a smaller research project but are otherwise very similar to the PhD. In all cases, principal supervisors will be experienced researchers with doctorates and some prior experience of supervising doctoral students, usually as an associate supervisor or co-supervisor working alongside a principal supervisor who is responsible for the progress of a student. Students entering the PhD program are expected to have any necessary background in content and research methodology or be capable of learning without formal coursework. Students studying related topics in such a program may provide each other with a degree of mutual support in what might be described as a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) formed around a team of supervisors. However, it is possible for doctoral students to be isolated from peers even when they are studying on campus if there are not other students working on similar topics or if other factors limit interaction. For distance students, without the benefit of working in common spaces, the problem of isolation is likely to be more common. If doctoral education were viewed as solely or primarily about guiding students through an individual process of developing capacity for independent research, then the value of interaction among students might be limited. However, a broader view of doctoral education is as a process of initiation into a scholarly community in which the interaction with supervisors and other students is an important contributor to building links among members (Upham, 2003). The frequent interactions among students and academics in a traditional on-campus doctoral program offer frequent opportunities to build those links but students working at a distance are unlikely to benefit from the same incidental and informal interactions. Hence, if initiation into the scholarly community is a significant goal of doctoral education, special provision will be needed to provide the opportunities for that to occur. Induction and support for doctoral students has been acknowledged as an important issue (Asmar & Peseta, 2001; Neumann, 2003). Although commencing doctoral students have prior successful experience of university study, doctoral study is a new, and potentially challenging, experience. Asmar and Peseta compared beginning doctoral students to school leavers entering university for the first time. They found that only 50% of 9000 graduate students “felt part of a group of staff and students committed to learning” (¶ 7) and argued that there was a “demonstrated need for enhanced academic and personal interactions” (¶ 12), for which systematic provision should be made. Issues of socialization and feelings of isolation and depersonalization have been listed among the causes of high attrition from doctoral programs (Terrell, Snyder, & Dringus, 2009). Traditional doctoral programs have attrition rates of 40% to 50% and the rates for distance programs are typically 10% to 20% higher (Terrell, et al., 2009). Distance doctoral programs will need to attend to induction and support if they are to retain and graduate students. High levels of attrition reported for doctoral programs represent a significant cost to students, universities, and the wider community. They would be a concern at any time but are especially so in the face of anticipated demand for more doctoral graduates. Hence, if the provision of doctoral education at a distance is to be expanded to meet that demand it is important to consider how attrition rates might be minimized. Golde (2005) argues that poor social and academic integration is a significant contributor to attrition among doctoral students in traditional programs and it seems reasonable to assume that the challenges for integration in distance programs would be greater. Terrell et al. (2009) developed an instrument, the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale, specifically to study feelings of connectedness to each other and faculty among distance doctoral students., and found evidence that low feelings of connectedness might be predictive of departure from the doctoral program. They recommended a variety of initiatives that might be implemented to improve support for students by promoting increased interaction in online communities thus leading to increased feelings of connectedness and reduced attrition.
Preparing for Doctoral Supervision at a Distance: Lessons from Experience 123 The interpersonal interactions that may reduce attrition by increasing feelings of connectedness are alsonecessary if doctoral education is to provide induction into an academic community alongside development of researchcapabilities. However, such interactions are becoming more difficult to manage as the student population expands andincludes more part-time and distance students with personal commitments that reduce the time they have available forstudy and associated activity. These challenges facing doctoral education in Australia were recognized in a nationalreport (McWilliam, et al., 2002), which recommended that intensive or flexible teaching be used to “maximisenetworking, and to introduce participants to senior/international peers and/or researchers” and that universities developand maintain “online resources and communication technologies in support of participants who are work-based” (p.xi). To meet the projected demand for academics in Australia it will be necessary to recruit more doctoral studentsand to minimize attrition during doctoral programs in order to produce more graduates. The associated increase inthe number of doctoral students at any time will require more supervisors who, given the trend toward part-time anddistance study, will need to be skilled in providing supervision at a distance. Many academics, even those who havebeen successful supervisors of doctoral students in traditional programs, will require support in developing the rangeof skills appropriate to supervising doctoral students at a distance. Thus it is important to increase our understanding of effective practices for doctoral supervision at a distanceto develop ways of sharing that understanding with academics who are required to supervise doctoral students at adistance. The goals of this study included informing the design of materials that might be used to advise and supportacademics in the process of developing new skills for supervision at a distance. To underpin that goal the study wasdesigned to investigate the experiences of doctoral students and supervisors with a view to increasing understandingof how distance supervision is experienced and the variety of approaches that are being used by supervisors. It wasguided by the following broad research questions: 1. How do doctoral students experience the processes of supervision, especially those involved in distance education? 2. What approaches are currently used by doctoral supervisors working at a distance and with what degrees of success?Method The study was funded through an internal grant and was conducted within the contexts of the Faculties,Education and Business, within which the authors work. Data were collected from current doctoral students andsupervisors in the faculties using a combination of questionnaires (students) and interviews (staff). The student questionnaire included items about expectations regarding various forms of support in doctoralstudy, communication challenges of distance study and use of various technologies, issues experienced in relation toprogress, the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale (Terrell, et al., 2009), satisfaction with supervision, suggestionsfor improvement in the programs, and demographics. Development of the student questionnaire included two roundsof consultation with experienced supervisors. Some adjustments were made to the Doctoral Student ConnectednessScale to reflect differences in context between the USA, where the scale was developed, and Australia. The completequestionnaire was administered online using QuestionPro. Data were downloaded and subsequently analyzed usingSPSS. Supervisor interviews were conducted using a protocol that began by presenting the interviewee with a seriesof five brief scenarios in which they were asked to imagine that another supervisor asked their advice about how torespond to some difficulty with supervision at a distance and suggest the advice that they might offer. The followingscenarios were presented: 1. Another supervisor mentions that she has a student in another country with a time zone difference that makes direct communication during working hours impossible. She has sent several email messages to the student but has not had a response for several weeks. What advice would you offer? 2. An external doctoral student has sent a draft chapter to his supervisor, requesting feed back as soon as possible. It is evident from the email message that the student expects a response within the week but the supervisor
124 Albion and Erwee already has several tight deadlines including exam marking, commitments to other doctoral students, and a partially complete research article due for submission in the same week. 3. A new student has submitted a draft proposal to her supervisor. It is clear from reading the document that the student has much lower English language proficiency than was expected and the supervisor has become anxious about the student’s ability to meet the challenges of writing a dissertation. 4. A supervisor has been supervising face-to-face students for several years and has had at least one student graduate. He has developed appropriate communication strategies that include regular face-to-face meetings. Now he has his first doctoral student at a distance and is wondering how his communication strategies can be adapted for the new situation. 5. A supervisor who has been successful with both face-to-face and distance students for some years has been trying new technologies (Skype and Wimba) to supplement email communication with her external doctoral students. However, the students are not responding as positively as she had anticipated and she is wondering how to encourage them to engage in communication methods that she expects to make their experience more comparable to face-to-face supervision. Subsequent sections of the interview protocol included general questions about difficulties that might be experienced by doctoral students and supervisors working at a distance, services offered by university sections that assisted with supervision, satisfaction with arrangements for allocation and training of supervisors, experiences with use of various technologies for supervision, and general suggestions for improvement in doctoral programs. Interviews were conducted by one or other of the authors or an experienced research assistant, recorded using digital recorders, transcribed verbatim, and then analyzed thematically. Results Students Doctoral students from the two faculties were invited by direct email to respond to the questionnaire and 42 complete responses were received from 150 invitees, a response rate of 28%. The respondents were representative of the doctoral students from the two faculties, comprising 60% from Business and 40% from Education with 58% being male and 42% female. The majority (75%) were studying at a distance and slightly more than half (56%) were international students. The predominant age groups were 40 to 49 years (40%) and 30 to 39 years (36%) with a further 18% in the 50 to 59 years range but just one younger than 30 and one older than 60 years. They were spread across different stages in their study from first year (32%), through those confirmed in candidature after presenting a formal research proposal at the end of their first year (43%) to the final stages of writing their dissertation (25%). Factor analysis of the items on the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale (Erwee, Albion, & van der Laan, in press) revealed three factors compared to the two found in the original study (Terrell, et al., 2009). The common factor comprised 9 items identified by Terrell and colleagues as indicating student-to-student connectedness. Compared to the original study, the mean scores for items on this scale were consistently higher, suggesting that the feelings of student-to-student connectedness were generally stronger for students in this study. Similarly to students in the original study, students in this study responded most positively to the items reflecting feelings of trust and care among students, but were less affirmative about communication with other students and the existence of a sense of community among doctoral students. One possible interpretation of this pattern is that students may have a close connection to a small research group but do not feel part of a broader university research community. Where the original study found a second factor comprising 9 items indicating faculty-to-student connectedness, the current study found that 5 of the same items loaded on a second factor (Erwee, et al., in press). Two items in which the reference to ‘faculty’ had been changed to’ supervisor’ to reflect the different use of ‘faculty’ in the Australian context loaded on a third factor. The remaining 2 items about students believing they received timely feedback and trusting faculty did not load on any factor. The three-factor solution explained 76% of the variance. Considered together the data from these two factors indicate that links from students to supervisors and to faculty, understood in the Australian context as the organizational section of the university, are relatively stronger than links to other students. This is consistent with the centrality of the supervisor role in the Australian doctoral model but probably not conducive to development of strong links to a broader scholarly community as an outcome of doctoral education (Upham, 2003).
Preparing for Doctoral Supervision at a Distance: Lessons from Experience 125 Responses to other items on the questionnaire indicated that expectations for support among doctoralstudents were centered on access to library resources and to regular feedback from supervisors. Where theyexperienced difficulties those were mostly associated with lack of resources or employment related issues. Theymostly communicated with their supervisors by email, with telephone calls or teleconferences being among the nextmost common methods, and were satisfied or very satisfied with their communication with supervisors at frequenciesof once every two weeks or monthly.Supervisors Fourteen supervisors, seven from Faculty of Business and seven from Faculty of Education, with experienceof distance supervision agreed to participate in an interview. They comprised six females and eight males, mostly inthe age range of 40 to 59 years. Although not constituted by a formal sampling process the interviewees seemed to bebroadly representative of the supervisors across the two faculties and the number was manageable for data collectionand analysisThe supervisors who were interviewed mostly had some successful experience of supervising studentsface-to-face and, because almost 75% of all students at the university study at a distance, had some experience ofteaching courses at a distance as a basis for their distance supervision. Consistent with the data reported for thestudents, they indicated that their most common methods for communicating with students were email and telephone.They placed high value on finding opportunities for face-to-face interaction with doctoral students at significant phasesin the doctoral process, noting that such direct interaction made it possible to clarify matters and speed progress onsuch steps as planning a research project. Most supervisory activity tended to involve one-to-one interaction between the supervisor and student,whether by email, telephone or other means. However, some involved a second supervisor in the conversation, at leastsome of the time, and some engaged a group of doctoral students in discussions about topics of mutual interest. Both ofthese strategies were presumed to have benefits for developing broader connectedness for doctoral students as well asmaking more efficient use of supervisors’ time by avoiding the need to deal with the same or similar issues separatelywith multiple students. Overall the interview data revealed a group of supervisors who were mostly comfortable working withstudents at a distance using some combination of telephone and email. However, they also considered that face-to-face meetings between supervisor and student at one or more critical points during the doctoral program were highlydesirable or even essential. Those meetings could be accomplished by having the student visit for a period of campusresidence or by the supervisor travelling to meet with students in their home location, often in association with offeringa workshop for a group of doctoral students in that locality.Summary In summary, there was broad consistency between the data from students and supervisors both in reportsabout aspects of the current experience and the desirability of different forms of communication. Both students andsupervisors reported being comfortable with telephone and email as primary modes of communication but both alsorecognized occasional difficulties with communication and a limited sense of connectedness to a scholarly communityaround the doctoral programs. This consistency between students and supervisors tends to confirm the reliability of thefindings and provides a platform for addressing the issues.Informing Development of Supervisors The data collected in the study were used to inform the preparation of resources for use in a developmentseminar offered to current and prospective doctoral supervisors. Organization of the materials was based on thescenarios used in the interviews and major themes that emerged. In this paper we report some of the key themes thatemerged in the interviews and are represented in the resources developed for supervisors. Much of the advice thatemerged amounted to ‘common sense’ that would be equally applicable in a variety of working relationships but isparticularly apposite in the context of distance doctoral supervision because of the challenges that arise in buildingunderstanding between busy people who may not have the advantage of an initial face-to-face meeting as a basis fortheir ongoing working relationship.
126 Albion and Erwee The Non-responsive Doctoral Student The first scenario presented to interviewees (see above) asked about advice they might offer to a colleague with a non-responsive student. Much of the advice offered by the experienced supervisors centered on the need to clarify expectations from the outset. This included expectations around the communication media to be used, and the expected times and frequency of contact. Supervisors noted the importance of stressing to students that it is their doctorate and that they need to take responsibility for ensuring that they achieve the levels of communication necessary to support their progress and should not expect the supervisor to be responsible for their motivation. Experienced supervisors were sensitive to the variety of issues that might affect communication with students. They mentioned personal and work-related issues that might necessitate a period of leave from study and issues related to student locality, especially for students in other countries where access to email and other Internet services may be subject to restrictions. One or more of these factors might prevent the student from receiving or attending to the supervisor’s messages. They cautioned against appearing to badger the student, counseling that approaches to the student by whatever means should be couched in forms that the student would be most likely to understand as supportive rather than demanding. The practical advice offered about communication techniques reflected a combination of supervisors’ aggregated experience and creative thinking about alternative strategies. It included the use of devices such as priority settings to draw attention to email messages, sending traditional letters to a registered address, and making a telephone call to establish contact at an appropriate time in the student’s time zone. Other suggestions included using SMS messages to set up a time to call and exchanging recorded audio messages by email if a student might find that more suitable than text in an email message. Student Reactions to New Technology The fifth and final scenario presented to interviewees (see above) probed their experience of using newer technologies to support supervision of doctoral students. The advice offered was arranged in broad thematic groupings. Clarifying ownership of the issue and student expectations were among the most common approaches mentioned as important. Students enrolling in distance education programs have often made a considered choice of a mode that offers them flexibility that may not be available in a face-to-face program. Such students tend to be independent and are focused on completing a project and graduating rather than on the program experience. By its nature doctoral study is independent and, if students are progressing satisfactorily, there is little point to insisting that they adopt new modes of communication. Moreover, too frequent contact from a supervisor may even prove counterproductive by inducing unnecessary anxiety about progress. Sensitivity to the differing circumstances of students emerged as a significant component of the advice from experienced supervisors. Students have different personal and employment circumstances that affect availability of time and technology that may be needed for communication. It is important to ascertain student capabilities and preferences and work with those. Where there may be a specific benefit to be gained by introducing a different technology it is good to begin with familiar technology and introduce the new tools in parallel to allow time for learning. Just as students differ in their capabilities and communication needs, so technologies offer different affordances. It is important to ensure that students know what options are available and can make informed choices based on knowledge of the relative benefits. Text-based asynchronous communication, such as email, provides for thinking time and is likely to promote considered exchanges with precise language and convenient record keeping. Synchronous communication, such as telephone, Skype, or Wimba, support rapid informal exchange of ideas for brainstorming or clarifying issues. It is most helpful for supervisors and students to agree on a limited selection of tools that offer different functionality and then work to develop any necessary skills and patterns of use that suit the needs of the student. Reaching this agreement may be facilitated by beginning with familiar tools to build a working relationship and then trialing alternatives to see if they add something of value to the mix.
Preparing for Doctoral Supervision at a Distance: Lessons from Experience 127Higher Presence Communication Technologies for Doctoral Supervision Compared to more traditional forms of correspondence, email and other formats carried on the Internet havesubstantially shortened the time required for exchange of text-based messages. However, text-based communicationlacks many of the cures, such as tone of voice and body language, that are available in face-to-face interaction (Lin,Cranton, & Bridglall, 2005) and some people find this ‘disembodied communication’ disconcerting. Hence there isinterest in the educational use of technologies that provide for a greater sense of presence. Supervisors have often usedthe telephone for communication with students because of the benefits it provides for more spontaneous interaction aswell as the increased sense of human presence it makes available. The interviews explored supervisors experience of,and interest in, using additional higher presence technologies such as Skype (voice and video), Wimba (voice, videoand application sharing), and Second Life (3D spaces, avatars and voice). The responses from the supervisors included some statements of general principles that should apply to theselection of technologies for use in supervision. First among those was that the adoption of new technology should bedriven by the advantages it offers rather than for appearances of being up to date. Supervisors recognized the dangersin being seduced by technology in an attempt to seen to be up to date when the research topic should be of muchmore interest than the tools supporting communication about it. There were questions about whether the levels ofpresence available in face-to-face supervision should be the measure for distance supervision when the student mayhave consciously opted for the latter. Skype has been used successfully as a substitute for telephone communication at lower cost. Using video inaddition to audio adds a further dimension of presence that supports reading of facial expressions that may conveyuseful information about responses in a conversation. Video does require better connectivity and should be dropped ifthe signal degrades to the point where it is a distraction from the conversation. Wimba and similar tools such as Elluminate or Adobe connect add tools such as shared electronic whiteboardsand application sharing to the audio and video available with Skype. Depending on the activity in which a supervisorand one or more students may be engaged these systems may be preferable for the additional facilities they add at theprice of a little more complexity. Supervisors and students should be aware of the alternatives available to them andselect the tool that is most appropriate to the task and with which they feel comfortable. Few of the supervisors had any direct experience of Second Life or similar systems and none had used itfor supervision. Although they recognized the potential benefit of a sense of physical presence by participants andthe sense of place that might be afforded by such systems they expressed concern about the possibility of disguisedidentity inherent in the use of avatars. They were also sensitive to the issues it might present for students with poorconnectivity to the Internet.Conclusion There were few surprises in the data obtained from either students or supervisors. Both groups of participantsreported being comfortable with the use of familiar technologies but there was willingness to consider the possiblebenefits of alternatives. Students reported that they did not experience a strong sense of connection to a scholarly community beyondtheir supervisor and perhaps a small group of peers working in closely related areas. While initiation into a broaderscholarly community is part of the function of doctoral education (Upham, 2003) and is likely to be significant forany doctoral student as a basis for later work in the field, it is arguably even more important for doctoral students whowill find positions among the next generation of university teachers. If the current arrangements for distance doctoralprograms are not succeeding in developing these connections and, as is argued previously, such programs are likely tobe important for meeting the anticipated demand for an academic workforce (Hugo & Morris, 2010), then it will beimportant to find means of promoting a greater sense of community within distance doctoral programs. Previous workhas demonstrated some of the potential in online communities for doctoral studies (Albion, 2006), but further workwill be required to extend the benefits of such efforts in time and breadth of coverage.
128 Albion and Erwee Although generally comfortable working with familiar technologies, several supervisors expressed a strong desire, even a necessity, for face-to-face interaction with students at critical stages in the doctoral journey. They find the currently available technologies, mostly email and telephone, limiting for development of relationships and for certain kinds of work. Few have much experience of working with newer technologies that might address the issues through offering a stronger sense of presence but there was willingness to consider such alternatives. Professional development for supervisors should include opportunities to explore relevant technologies through hands-on training with opportunities to practice in a supportive environment. There is ample evidence based on graduations over the past decade or more that doctoral supervision at a distance can be successful and a rewarding experience for both students and supervisors. However, it is also evident that there is more that can be done to facilitate the process and increase the likelihood of successful completion. This study has contributed to our understanding of what students and supervisors might find most helpful for improving their experiences of the process. References Albion, P. R. (2006). Building momentum in an online doctoral studies community. In M. Kiley & G. Mullins (Eds.), Quality in Postgraduate Research 2006: Knowledge Creation in Testing Times (pp. 87-96). Adelaide: The Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods, The Australian National University. Asmar, C., & Peseta, T. (2001). ‘Figuring things out from my friends’: Encouraging collaboration among first year students at undergraduate and postgraduate level. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Fremantle. Erwee, R., Albion, P., & van der Laan, L. (in press). Connectedness needs of doctoral students. Paper presented at the Education 2011 to 2021- Global challenges and perspectives of blended and distance learning conference, Sydney. Golde, C. M. (2005). The Role of the Department and Discipline in Doctoral Student Attrition: Lessons from Four Departments. Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669-700. Hugo, G., & Morris, A. (2010). Investigating The Aging Academic Workforce: Stocktake: University of Adelaide. James, R., Bexley, E., Devlin, M., & Marginson, S. (2007). Australian University Student Finances 2006: Final report of a national survey of students in public universities. Canberra: Universities Australia. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lin, L., Cranton, P., & Bridglall, B. (2005). Psychological Type and Asynchronous Written Dialogue in Adult Learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1788-1813. McWilliam, E., Taylor, P. G., Thomson, P., Green, B., Maxwell, T., Wildy, H., et al. (2002). Research Training in Doctoral Programs: What can be learned from professional doctorates? Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia Department of Education Science anNeumann, R. (2003). The Doctoral Education Experience: Diversity and complexity. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia Department of Education Science and Training. Pearson, M. (1999). The Changing Environment for Doctoral Education in Australia: implications for quality management, improvement and innovation. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(3), 269-287. Terrell, S. R., Snyder, M. M., & Dringus, L. P. (2009). The development, validation, and application of the Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(2), 112-116. University of Melbourne (2009). Study reveals looming crisis for Australian academia. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from http:// newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/n-151 Upham, S. (2003). Can there be a renaissance of the PhD? Journal for Higher Education Strategists, 1(3), 243-260.
Engaging Students through 21st Century Art Learning: Three-dimensional Virtual World Pedagogy 129 Engaging Students through 21st Century Art Learning: Three-dimensional Virtual World Pedagogy Lilly Lu Art Education Northern Illinois University email@example.com Abstract: Three-dimensional (3D) virtual worlds (VW) have great potential for 21st century art education. This article demystifies the characteristics of 3D VWs and addresses how the VWs serve as virtual learning environments (VLE) for art education. In a research grant project, the author investigated student art conversations conducted and facilitated during and after virtual exhibits through a 3D VW, Art Café, in Second Life (SL). The findings show that all participants were highly engaged and motivated to participate in art conversations. They could be open and freely discuss art in depth because of their anonymous identities in SL. The implications and recommendations for future research and art education practice are addressed.Introduction The younger twenty-first century generation has grown up with innovative digital media and technology. Aspart of their daily lives, they have wide-ranging experiences with iPods, video games, virtual worlds, and so forth.Also, they actively participate in the emerging digital culture and digital visual culture by sharing digital collectionsand self-produced content with peers through various virtual communities (Solomon & Schrum, 2007) such as blogs,wikis, MySpace, Flickr, and Second Life (SL). It is a challenge for educators in the 21st century to engage and motivateour students by utilizing digital media resources that they are already familiar with. Educators need to fully understandwhy and how they work in the identified learning and teaching context. This article is to demystify the VW and showhow it can serve as an effective virtual learning environment (VLE) that can enrich and enhance art learning. I will startwith the characteristics of this 3D VW technology and describe the potential and the ways for teaching with 3D VWsfor art education. Next, I will report the findings on engaging in art inquiry in 3D VWs from my case studies and thenmake recommendations for future research. Characteristics of 3D VWs Many educational researchers have explored the educational potential of the 3D VWs (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010;des Freitas, 2010; Dickey, 2005; Hew & Chung, 2010; Salmon, 2009). Users can access such virtual communitiesthrough a networked desktop virtual reality with a high-speed internet connection and web browser. As avatars, peoplearound the world can visit different VWs, and interact with one another in real time. In the following section, Iwill identify and discuss five key characteristics of 3DVWs: visualization, autonomy, interaction and interactivity,easy access and low cost, and rich information resources.Visualization In the context of 3D VWs, visualization refers to information communicated through interactive and dynamicvisual representations in digital form. There are two types of information visualization: simulative visualization andcollaborative visualization. Simulative visualization involves simulation of a complex system that is partial or desktopvirtual reality (Sakatani, 2005). Each visual object can serve as an output of visual or data representation. Whena user clicks a visual object with a mouse, the system receives the user input and then processes the action, eitherdisplaying information or triggering other visual objects on the screen. Another type of information visualization,collaborative visualization, enables multiple user collaboration when they are physically separated by distance. Theycan communicate ideas or explore information collaboratively using the same presented visualizationsimultaneously through networked computers.
130 Lu Three-dimensional VWs combine both types of information visualization to simulate the visual or imaginary virtual “objects,” “avatars,” “land,” “island,” or “world.” Users as avatars can walk, jump, run, fly, pass through, or even “teleport” to any virtual location in this cyberspace. The power of visualization in the 3D VWs has a great impact on how users perceive themselves in the virtual space. Users feel that they virtually “live” or co-exist in this immersive virtual environment where virtual objects and avatars are three-dimensional and hyper-real. Their senses of presence, co-presence, and place-presence were closely related to engagement, a prerequisite for learning success (Herington, Oliver & Reeves, 2003; Jarmon, 2009). Autonomy In 3D virtual environments, a user can have a certain degree of autonomy by personalizing his/her virtual identity. For example, in addition to name and gender, users in SL may change their appearance to forms of human, animal, or monster avatars. They can even change their body shapes and hairstyles and wear shoes, outfits, make-up, and jewelry. Another user autonomy is that they can choose how to navigate the virtual lands (walk, fly, run, teleport, etc.) and view the virtual spaces by controlling the camera (first person vs. third person views or near vs. far distant views) and the environment settings. Basically, users can make free choices that they may not possibly have in real life. Interactivity and Interaction Interactivity and interaction have been identified as key components of any computer-mediated communication (Gunawardena, Lowe, & Carabajal, 2000; Murphy & Drabier, 1998; Vrasidas & McIsaac, 1999). Interactivity refers to users employing the cursor to interact with the content/information, objects, and system while interaction refers to communication between or among humans. When navigating VWs, users interact with the content/information, objects, system, and other visitors/ avatars. Five interactive activities are identified and elaborated based on Miller’s work (2004). The first type is stimulus-response exchange. A user inputs a stimulus (ie. clicking on an image) and then receives a response or feedback (ie. an animated object or funny sound effect) generated from or through the system in real-time. Navigation is the next interactive type that users can freely move around to explore a virtual landscape. The third type is the ability for users to control and interact with visual objects by moving, modifying, or opening the item, and so on. The fourth type is receiving, sending, and interacting with the content/information. Users can save information/ objects, purchase physical objects, and send some of the collections to other visitors. The fifth type is communication between and among visitors. In this virtual environment, users can meet and talk with people from around the world by using text-based chats, audio, instant messages, or even body gestures in real-time. They can send synchronous or asynchronous messages to people in-world with an option of copying and sending the message to users’ email accounts. These five types of interactive activities can generate a great diversity of virtual experiences and make the users’ experience in the 3D VWs fun and unpredictable. Dalgarno and Lee (2010) identify embodied actions (including view control, navigation, and object manipulation), embodied verbal and non-verbal communication, control of environment attributes and behavior, and construction of objects and scripting of object behaviors as tasks of learner interaction. Lu (2010a) states that these interactive activities not only make the users’ virtual experience fun and unpredictable, but they also turn users into active and engaged participants. Users can initiate, manipulate, and influence interactive actions; they decide how far to go with their virtual experience. That is, each user’s experience is different and unique, depending on how much or how far the user wants to interact with the immersive VE. Easy Access and Low Cost Technically, to access 3D VWs such as SL, users just need an internet connection, a reasonably up-to-date computer and a free browser. They register as citizens or residents to navigate the VWs. At this point, anyone around the world can do this without charge. It is a relatively easy and straightforward process. As for age limit, adults and teens can access SL. As for the technology requirement, broadband connection is strongly recommended to ensure a stable connection and quality 3D graphics. SL requires a computer system with at least a 1.6 GHz processor, sufficient memory, and an advanced graphics card to ensure smooth simulation. It is noted that the more SL browser updates are installed, the more advanced computer requirements are needed for smooth functioning of 3D images.
Engaging Students through 21st Century Art Learning: Three-dimensional Virtual World Pedagogy 131Rich Information Resources Information resources provided and presented in 3D VWs are very different. These resources are visualizedor represented as visual objects. When users trigger the visual objects, they can either display information or launchan internet browser to show a particular website. In addition, users need to initiate the action (the tasks) and makesome effort to find the information embedded in the virtual environment. They navigate the virtual landscape, read thesigns, “walk” to the information, and “click” on the object to trigger the action or display information. They can alsoaccidentally discover shortcuts such as “a quick ride” provided by the creator. If visitors do not make enough effortnavigating the virtual landscape and interacting with the visual objects, they may not be able to find information ofinterest to them. In the 3D VW, the more users explore, the more they will discover. There are a variety of art-relatedgalleries, artist studios, and events in 3D VWs, particularly in SL. SL users can search the menu and the event websitesor sign up to receive event notices from the art groups they have joined.Why Can SL Enhance and Enrich Student Learning? Jarmon (2009) identified three key elements of engagement -- connectivity, interactivity, and access touser-generated content -- in learning in the digital age. SL possesses these three elements in its immersive virtualenvironment. Atkinsona and his associates (2005) have shown that the senses of self-presence, co-presen