12 18 brecheisen final draft thesis
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

12 18 brecheisen final draft thesis






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 14

http://napabloom.pbworks.com 14



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

12 18 brecheisen final draft thesis 12 18 brecheisen final draft thesis Document Transcript

  • How Does a Teacher Become Proficient in Project Based Learning and One-To-One Computing? A Field Project Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education TOURO UNIVERSITY - CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of MASTERS OF ARTS in EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY By Jessica Bloom MONTH 2011-2012
  • How Does a Teacher Become Proficient in Project Based Learning and One-To-One Computing? In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE In EDUCATION BY Jessica Bloom TOURO UNIVERSITY – CALIFORNIA Month YearUnder the guidance and approval of the committee and approval by all the members, thisfield project has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.Approved:___________________________ ___________________Pamela A. Redmond, Ed.D. Date__________________________ ___________________Jim O’Connor, Ph.D, Dean Date
  • TOURO UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA College of Education Author ReleaseName: Jessica BloomThe Touro University California College of Education has permission to use my MAthesis or field project as an example of acceptable work. This permission includes theright to duplicate the manuscript as well as permits the document to be checked out fromthe College Library or School website.In addition, I give Dr. Pamela Redmond permission to share my handbook with others viathe Internet.Signature: __________________________________Date: ______________________________________
  • i Table of ContentsLIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... III CHAPTER I .................................................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ..............................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND AND NEED .......................................................................................................................................4 THEORETICAL RATIONALE .....................................................................................................................................5 IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, WHAT DOES THE JOURNEY OF BECOMING PROJECT BASED LEARNING AND ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING PROFICIENT LOOK LIKE, THIS PROJECT PROPOSED TO DEVELOP A GUIDE FOR LANGUAGE TEACHERS BEGINNING THE PBL AND ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING JOURNEY. A DIGITAL GUIDEBOOK/ WEBSITE WILL BE CREATED TO DOCUMENT THE PROCESS FOR BECOMING PBL LEARNING PROFICIENT. THE WEBSITE WILL CONTAIN TRAININGS, INSIGHT ON THE PLANNING, SAMPLE PROJECTS, AND TECHNOLOGY TIPS, TO HELP OTHER NEW TEACHERS BECOME PBL PROFICIENT. ................................7 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................8 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 TIME IS THE BIGGEST LIMITATION, SPECIFICALLY; LONGITUDINAL EFFECTS WILL NOT BE SEEN AS THE RESEARCHER IS CONSTRAINED BY THE LIMITATION OF A MASTER’S THESIS TIMELINE. THE STUDY WILL CAPTURE THE MOST ESSENTIAL PART OF BECOMING PROJECT BASED LEARNING PROFICIENT, WHICH INCLUDES THE TRAININGS, THE ORIENTATION OF THE CLASSROOM, THE PLANNING BEFORE THE SCHOOL YEAR AND THE FIRST FEW PROJECTS USED WITHIN THE CLASSROOM. THE STUDY WILL PRODUCE THE GROUNDWORK FOR A MORE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH PROJECT IN THE FUTURE. ................. 11 DEFINITION OF TERMS ......................................................................................................................................... 12 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................... 13CHAPTER II ............................................................................................................................................. 15 THE GOAL OF THIS PROJECT WAS TO CREATE A WEBSITE TO HELP TEACHERS IN THE PROCESS OF BECOMING PBL AND ONE-TO-ONE LEARNING PROFICIENT. THE GUIDEBOOK ONLINE CONTAINED TRAININGS, INSIGHT ON THE PLANNING, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECTS, CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT, AND TECHNOLOGICAL TIPS, TO HELP OTHER NEW TEACHERS BECOME PBL PROFICIENT. .................................................................................................................................................................................. 32RECOMMENDATION, EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT AND IMPLICATIONS OF THERESULTS ................................................................................................................................................... 34 TIME IS THE BIGGEST LIMITATION, SPECIFICALLY; LONGITUDINAL EFFECTS COULD NOT BE SEEN AS THE RESEARCHER WAS CONSTRAINED BY THE LIMITATION OF A MASTER’S THESIS TIMELINE. THE STUDY CAPTURED THE MOST ESSENTIAL PART OF BECOMING PROJECT BASED LEARNING PROFICIENT, WHICH INCLUDES THE TRAININGS, THE PLANNING BEFORE THE SCHOOL YEAR AND THE FIRST FEW PROJECTS USED WITHIN THE CLASSROOM. THE STUDY PRODUCED THE GROUNDWORK FOR A MORE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH PROJECT IN THE FUTURE................................................................................................................... 35THIS PROJECT PROVIDED A DIGITAL GUIDE TO HELP OTHER TEACHERS IN THE PROCESSOF PBL AND ONE TO ONE COMPUTER INTEGRATION. THIS PROJECT, ESPECIALLY THEFIRST SURVEY, REVEALED THAT DEVELOPMENT MAY VARY FROM TEACHER TOTEACHER. ALTHOUGH A USEFUL WEBSITE OR COLLECTION OF THE PROCESS OFBECOMING PBL PROFICIENT WAS CREATED, THIS WAS A STARTING POINT BUT NOT ASOLUTION FOR EVERY PROBLEM THAT A TEACHER ENCOUNTERED WHEN BEGINNINGTHE PBL AND ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING JOURNEY. THE RESEARCHER HYPOTHESIZEDTHAT TEACHERS THAT WERE AFRAID OF THE CHANGE TO PBL LEARNING. THIS WASTRUE AS THE STUDY REVEALED THAT SOME TEACHERS WERE FEARFUL AND THEWORKSHOPS TOGETHER DID SETTLE SOME OF THEIR FEARS. PBL PROFICIENCY MAY
  • iiLOOK DIFFERENT FOR EVERYONE; SPECIFICALLY AMONG DIFFERENT CONTENT AREAS.AS FOR WORLD LANGUAGES IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT BECOMING PBL AND ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING PROFICIENT WILL TAKE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF TIME. FIRSTTEACHERS NEED TO EXPLORE PBL AND TECHNOLOGY TOGETHER DURINGCOLLABORATION TIME TOGETHER. SECOND OF ALL, TEACHERS WILL BRAINSTORMSMALL PROJECTS ON THEIR OWN. LASTLY, WHOLE DEPARTMENTS WILL WORKTOGETHER COLLABORATIVELY TO CREATE LARGER PROJECS. OVERALL THE PROCESS OFBECOMING PBL AND ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING PROFICIENT WILL TAKE TIME AND WILLVARY FROM TEACHER TO TEACHER................................................................................................. 36REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 37APPENDIX: FIELD PROJECT .............................................................................................................. 40HOW TO BECOME PBL AND ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING PROFICIENT ................................ 40PBL AND ONE TO ONE COMPUTING SURVEY .............................................................................. 40APPENDIX F- TO USE WITH TEACHERS SECOND SEMESTER AFTER THEY HAVECREATED PROJECTS TOGETHER ..................................................................................................... 45PHASE ONE: PRESENTATION ............................................................................................... 46PHASE TWO: CRITIQUE............................................................................................................ 46 PHASE THREE: RESPONSE ............................................................................................................................... 47
  • iiiList of Tables
  • Chapter I Introduction Along with the passage of time comes change. For example, computers that oncetook up an entire room are now laptops or desktops. Computers have become so smallthat they conveniently fit into the palm of our hand . Changes, however, do not onlyhappen in regard to technology. Presently, within the classroom in the 21st century, there is an emergence of one-to-one computing and project-based learning . One- to-one computing is when everystudent has access to a computer, whether it is a laptop or a desktop within the classroom.Project Based Learning is when projects drive the curriculum and students takeownership of the learning process. The Buck Institute for Project Based Learning points out that in previouscenturies students needed to focus just on mastering each subject area and then beingassessed through content knowledge with quizzes and tests (Larmer, 2009). In addition tothe former skills, students must learn to; collaborate, think critically and communicate(Larmer, 2009). Students still learn the traditional material in Project Based Learning inaddition to learning real world applications and/or creating a final product. Presently, inthe 21st century knowledge and skills rainbow, students need to learn innovation skills,life and career skills, core subjects and 21st century and information, media andtechnology (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Currently, classrooms are increasingly becomingmore students centered, as the teacher does not hold all the answers. When one-to-onecomputing and projects exist, the student takes more control of their own learning.
  • One-to-one computing in combination with Project Based Learning (PBL) doesprovide a solution to meeting the new demands of the 21st century. Teachers in teamsselect essential standards and then create projects that make students masters theseessential standards. It is clearly illustrated in the PBL starter kit provided by the BuckInstitute that the project is central to the curriculum and drives the instruction (Larmer,2009). The goal of PBL is a set of learning experiences and tasks that guide students in aninquiry toward answering a central question, problem or challenge. The artifacts of whatstudents create should be rigorous and demonstrate mastery of essential standards(Larmer, 2009). Project Based Learning appears to combine one-to-one computing andreal projects or real life problems to make students use technology to find answers(Larmer, 2009). Now the question and reason for this study emerge. It seems easy intheory the integration of project based learning and one-to-one computing but whatstands in the way? The fear that it is difficult to put one-to-one computing and projectbased learning into practice. The question that teachers are left with is how does one become proficient atproject based learning and using one-to-one computing? Currently teachers haveconcerns such as, what will it look like? How much technology do teachers need toknow? How will teachers need to work together? What if the teacher does not remembersomething from training? Where will the teacher get help? What does the process looklike of becoming proficient? In light of these questions, a need for a study emerges as tohow these questions can be answered so that faculty is not overwhelmed. Instead thefaculty can focus on following steps or examples to become PBL and one-to-onecomputing proficient.
  • The goal of this study after reading, attending trainings for PBL, and observingveteran teachers is to create a wiki guidebook. This wiki guidebook will document theprocess of becoming proficient at PBL and one-to-one computing proficient. Theresearcher intends to interview all department members after an introduction to get theirconcerns and then address these concerns in the wiki website. The intent of the proposedproject is to inspire teachers and serve as a place for solutions. The end goal will be forthe researcher to create a wiki and provide examples of projects, rubrics, best websites tovisit and programs to use within their own classrooms. It will also be a place whereteachers can look back at training information, read a blog presented by the researcher,view a podcast, view example projects and a collection of answers to questions that wereasked before the study started. Statement of the Problem While project based learning is being used in classrooms with increasingfrequency, teachers may lack the knowledge or skill to properly implement PBL and one-to-one computing. At the high school where the researcher teaches, during the 2010-2011 school year, only two teachers wanted to pursue Project Based Learning and one-to-one computing out of 116 teachers on campus. The question emerges, what is preventingteachers from signing up? The researcher will attempt to answer the question andinvestigate the hypothesis through a case study regarding how a teacher and their partnerteacher become proficient at implementing PBL and one-to-one computing. A guidebookwill be created in the form of a wiki to document the process of becoming proficient atimplementing PBL and one-to-one computing. Trainings, implementations of trainings,
  • projects that are created, observations and blog reflections will all be captured on the wikiwhich will serve as a guidebook of the process of becoming PBL proficient. Background and Need The researcher, who teaches at a high school in the San Francisco Bay Area, willdocument her own process of becoming PBL and one-to-one computing proficient withthe intent of answering the following questions: What will classroom management looklike? How much technology does a teacher need to know? Where can teachers findsupport to make the process easier in their own classroom? The goal of this study is toanswers these questions for the researcher and other teachers that want to begin the PBLjourney. The change to PBL learning creates hesitation from teachers who are afraid of theunknown and what it will look like. Fortunately, previous studies examined teachers’fears of one-to one computing have been completed by Donovan, Green, and Hartley(2010). Their goal was first figure out what the faculty feared in regard to PBL. Then theresearchers were able to target and solve these fears. This study examined the fears ofmiddle school teachers in regard to one-to-one computing environment. The researchrevealed that middle school teachers were concerned about how it would affect them on apersonal level as well as their students (Donovan, Green, & Hartley, 2010). The studyfound that teachers undergoing the change to one-to-one- computing and PBL werepreoccupied with pedagogy and classroom management to the same degree as noviceteachers (Donovan et al., 2010). The study concluded that if data is collected on howteachers feel, and then the focus can be on preventing these fears. The study’s
  • recommendations provided teachers with support and required teachers to work ingroups. In another study completed by Donovan and Green, faculty members in a collegeteaching credential program were selected to teach through one-to-one computing. Theparticipants did not volunteer but were randomly selected. It became apparent thatfaculty readiness for one-to-one computing, faculty preparation and addressing facultydifferences helped to settle their fears (Donovan & Green, 2010) . The researcher’s studywill use the surveys created by Donovan and Green to find the specific fears teachershave and then address these fears on the wiki blog site. Theoretical Rationale The predominant theory is that the 20th century was behaviorist teaching wherethe teacher holds all the information. The 21st century movement and project basedlearning is seen in the theory of constructivism. Constructivism is the dominant theorythat underlies the technology movement with the new one-to-one computing and PBL.The learners, being the students, need to explore, invent, question and create. The bigdifference is once a student is given a vehicle like a computer they need to stop beingpassive and start learning to think on their own. Teachers are fearful that while studentslearn to perform in a project environment the students still need to perform onstandardized tests and there is a clash between theories (Pflaum, 2004) . It emergesthrough studying both theories that although constructivism supports technology and PBLlearning, behaviorism is still apparent and still shapes the political reality withstandardized test. One theory, such as constructivism, is not the end all; this study willdemonstrate that a mixture of both is fine and students can perform with a combination of
  • both theories (Pflaum, 2004). Both behaviorism and constructivism can co-exist in theenvironment of PBL and on-to-one computing. In order for teachers to be proficient at PBL and one-to-one computing, teachersmust learn to work together. The website will document projects; capture the workshopsthat the researcher will have attended, the documentation of projects created with theirpartner teacher. The website will have posted all of the work for trainings the threeresearcher will lead. The goal of this website is to create an open stage for collaborationamongst teachers. Mike Schmoker, in Results Now explains how professionals in everyother industry do not work alone. They usually work together so why are teachersworking in isolation? (Schmoker, 2006). If teachers want kids to work together teachersthemselves have to work together. The PBL and one-to –one computing model will forceteachers and students to work closer together. The researcher’s school has also discovered that defining essential standardsallows teachers and students to become proficient. After essential standards have beendefined then PBL projects can be implemented. The essential question will be the drivingforce of a PBL project. In the book, Focus, Elevating the Essential Standards bySchmoker it becomes apparent that the essential standards count (Schmoker, 2011). Inaddition, many schools are focusing on Marzano and his teaching philosophy. Marzanohas three principles for cognitive psychology: ―Principle 1: Learning is enhanced when ateacher identifies specific types of knowledge that are the focus of a unit or lesson‖(Marzano, 2003, p. 109). This will be seen in the process of becoming PBL proficient, asteachers will create lessons based on essential standards. Marzano’s ―Principle 2:Learning requires engagement in tasks that are structured sufficiently similar to allow for
  • effective transfer of knowledge‖(Marzano, 2003, p. 109-111). Thus research will becollected on students during a PBL unit undergoing practice activities and workshops.―Principle 3: Learning requires multiple exposure to and complex interactions withknowledge (Marzano, 2003, p.112). This will be seen at the end of the PBL process whenstudents have completed their project. Students will learn things through constant andrepetitive exposure during their projects. The research of Marzano supported project-based learning, which follows the model of first finding essential standards. Then havingstudents practice and teachers teach in a traditional form, in the last step Students takeownership and create a final project that demonstrates their understanding of the topic. The background studies by the Buck Institute School point to the success withPBL and the need to study it more (Larmer, 2009). PBL can give teachers a great way tomeet content standards, motivate students and integrate technology with the outsideworld (Larmer, 2009). Researchers have found that when well designed andimplemented, PBL, can be more effective, increase motivation, increase retention, andhelp the lower achieving students (Larmer, 2009). Many educators feel that this is agreat way to connect communication and create a collaborative culture (Larmer, 2009).While PBL and one-to-one computing sounds perfect in writing, there is a need toexplore the real process of becoming PBL proficient through the real life experiences ofteachers.Project Objective In answer to the question, what does the journey of becoming Project BasedLearning and one-to-one computing proficient look like, this project proposed to developa guide for language teachers beginning the PBL and one-to-one computing journey. A
  • digital guidebook/ website will be created to document the process for becoming PBLlearning proficient. The website will contain trainings, insight on the planning, sampleprojects, and technology tips, to help other new teachers become PBL proficient. It is expected that teacher developmentmay vary from teacher to teacher.Although a useful website or collection of the process of becoming PBL proficient willbe created, this will be a starting point but not a solution for every problem that abeginning teacher starts out with. The researcher hypothesizes that she will encounterteachers that are afraid of the change to PBL learning.Answers and examples asdocumented in the study should settle their fears.Finally, PBL proficiencymay lookdifferent for everyone; the researcher hypothesizes that this will be evident from the finalproduct. Methodology In order to answer the research question of what is the process of becoming PBLand one-to-one computing proficient, a study will be conducted in the form of two casestudies. The researcher will be using the PBL model for the first time. The researcher’sclassroom is a world language, Spanish 1 classroom, in a suburban high school in the SanFrancisco Bay Area. The researcher teaches 4 Spanish 1 classes that will be using PBLfor the first time. Data in the form of projects and a class website used with students, willbe compiled from all classes the teacher has, trainings will be attended, collaboration willbe made with partner teacher. The partner teacher will be teaching French 1 and will alsobe teaching with PBL and one-to-one computing for the first time. Also data will becollected in regard to projects that the partner teachers work together collaboratively tocreate that require PBL and one-to-one computing proficient.
  • The goal will be to compile a guidebook study of the process of becoming PBLproficient the trainings, the lesson planning and creation of projects, the integration ofone-to-one computing, and finally the best websites to use when implementing a project.The goal will be to help obtain information to help teachers become PBL proficient.It isalso important to know the demographics of the school. Other general information about the California high schoolis that it is aDistinguished School. The students are38% Hispanic or Latino, 38 % White, 10 %Filipino, 4 % African American, 2 % Asian, 1 % American Indian, 1 % Pacific Islander.English Language Learners are 9 % and Special Education students are 10 %. The staterank, which is determined by a school’s API Score in comparison to all other schools inCalifornia, is a 7. The API Score is 752. There are around 2500 students in the school. First the researcher will introduce the concept of PBL by providing teachers withan entry document. That they have been invited to rise to the challenge of creating a PBLand one to one computing project or unit in their classroom. The second day the teachersand researcher meets the researcher will lead teachers in an introduction workshop totechnology and the website the researcher is creating. Then the teacher researcher willdevote an entire half hour for teacher to fill out a survey based off a mere skeleton of thewebsite of what teachers in world language specifically want to see that can help them intheir journey of PBL and one to one computing proficiency. A Google documents surveywill be used to collect a list of faculty concerns in regard to one-to-one computing andproject-based learning. As a result of time limitations this survey will only be conductedwith the seven other world language teachers. The survey will gather teachers’ thoughtsand opinions about PBL and one-to-one computing. The researcher will then do a case
  • study of how to become PBL and one-to-one computing proficient. The end goal will bea digital creation of a website that will answer all the question and concerns of the sevenother department members.. The website will contain teacher trainings, projects,classroom management and websites online that support teachers and students in theprocess.. The website also allows teachers to review trainings in the forms of videos andpodcasts. The website should capture teachers’ interest of wanting to attempt PBL andone–to-one computing in their classrooms. Data will be specifically collected in the form of a survey from Google Docs tosurvey the other seven world language teachers. The researcher will be working with thesix other world language teachers at the high school in which the study is beingconducted.While two teachers including the researcher will be transitioning into a PBLmodel while the other four can be used to obtain data of what they are afraid of or whatthey would like answered before they embark on the journey themselves. A survey willbe administered that was used in Donovan’s study (2010) whereby a study of teacherconcerns in regard to one-to-one computing and PBL were collected. The results fromadministering Donovan’s survey will be a catalyst of what to include on the website asadvice. Donovan’s survey asks teachers what one-to-one computing is, if they like or donot like the idea, fears they might have in regard to knowledge about computers etc. Thegoal of this variation of Donovan’s survey will be that it helps accurately pinpointpossible fears or concerns. The research participants will be the researcher who has completed two years ofteaching and about to embark on a third year. The researcher teaches Spanish 1 and 2 atthe Bay Area high school. The study will consist of the teachers’ four Spanish 1 PBL
  • classrooms consisting of around 36 students each, one other teacher piloting PBL in twoFrench 1 classrooms. This study will be contrasted with four other teachers continuingteaching in a traditional environment without one-to-one computing and PBL. In regard to data collection procedures data will be collected anonymouslythrough survey information either using Google Documents. The researcher will thentake this data that has been collected and identify themes regarding the concerns ofteachers in regard to becoming PBL proficient. Permission will be requested toredistribute materials that have been viewed at trainings to allow teachers to easily accessmaterials. Even if the teachers do not have access to paid software like ECHO. ECHO isa program which contains for teachers not only access to trainings but a grade book, dailyagenda, and sample projects. The wiki that will be created in this study will provide afree online documentation of the process of becoming PBL proficient. Limitations Time is the biggest limitation, specifically; longitudinal effects will not be seen asthe researcher is constrained by the limitation of a master’s thesis timeline. The study willcapture the most essential part of becoming project based learning proficient, whichincludes the trainings, the orientation of the classroom, the planning before the schoolyear and the first few projects used within the classroom. The study will produce thegroundwork for a more extensive research project in the future. Sample size will be a limitation as the researcher, partner teacher, and sixadditional department members will be the entire data source. The small sample ofteachers includes variety in familiarity with technology, age, and willingness to changeversus keeping the status quo. Again, while the small size is a limitation, it will serve as
  • the foundation for a continuation study with a larger sample size to be studied in thefuture. The researcher will work with self-reported data as the researcher’s classroomwill be one of the classroom of the data collection. The researcher will gather data fromthree of the researcher’s classrooms. The researcher will be comparing project-basedlearning data from all three classes. The researcher will also be collecting data from thepartner teacher in order to verify results and compare data related to becoming project-based learning proficient. The limitations highlight that this study will lay the groundwork for a moreextensive study in the future capturing the process of becoming project based learningand one-to-one computing proficient in a more longitudinal extensive case study. In afuture study, numerous departments across campus could be included and numerousteachers followed in an extensive case study. Also, studies would be followed for at leasta year. Definition of Terms Proficient-Someone who is competent or skilled in using PBL or one to onecomputing this will look different from person to person. Project Based Learning (PBL) is when teachers teach with projects and projectsdrive the curriculum. Projects create critical thinking and reflect real world problems.Project Based Learning can be done with our without technology. PBL creates a student-centered environment where students choose specifically within a topic what they want tostudy. PBL students are self-motivated and work together within a team and findsolutions together to problems.
  • One to One Computing is where every student has access to a computer whether adesktop or a laptop within the classroom in order to complete work or projects. SC 21 learning is where students learn in an environment that teaches with 21stcentury skills that focus on communication, creativity, collaboration and critical thinking.Students learn: innovative, life and career skills, core subjects, as well as media andtechnology. Summary Chapter one explains how the goal of this study will be to document the processand journey of becoming Project Based Learning and one-to-one computing proficient.The need for this study is evident as a result from faculty concerns and general non-consensus for moving forward with PBL learning within the school where the researcherteachers. The fact that only two teachers out of 116 were willing to transition to PBLsuggests that something is stopping teachers from making the transition. This study will focus on the other seven teachers within the World LanguageDepartment at the high school where the researcher teaches. By focusing only onteachers in the World Language Department, it will allow the researcher plenty of time tofocus on documenting the PBL and one-to-one computing journey. The researcher intends to document their own journey of becoming PBLproficient through a wiki website. The researcher will then be able to compile aguidebook for how to set-up a PBL and one-to-one computing classroom. The researcherwill document the trainings that are attended, collaborative work with a partner teacher,as well as the designing and running of their first PBL projects.
  • Time, sample size, and self reported data are all limitations that capture that thisstudy will only lay the groundwork for a future researcher to continue a more extensivestudy. A longitudinal study could follow this study with a larger sample size, forexample, consisting of numerous departments and follow several case studies instead ofjust one case study. The next chapter, a literature review, will allow the researcher to examine existingresearch regarding the journey of becoming PBL and one-to-one computing proficient orhave studied this topic. The researcher will be able to build upon previous landmarkstudies.
  • Chapter II Although it is known that numerous components are required to become ProjectBased Learning (PBL) and one-to-one computing proficient there is insufficientknowledge about the process in becoming proficient. Thus, the process can seemmysterious and overwhelming to teachers. This literature review is designed tounderstand and analyze research completed in regard to PBL and one-to-one computing. This chapter will first focus on the history of PBL and one-to-one computing,followed by an examination of the barriers and struggles that have emerged when othershave completed the PBL and one-to-one computing journey, and finally investigating thestrategies that were successful for overcoming challenges of using PBL and one-to-onecomputing in the classroom.History Bell (2010) studied how PBL allows us to meet the 21st Century goals ofcommunication, collaboration, and critical thinking. Bell described the excitementoccurring in classrooms employing PBL, and then defines PBL, ― as a student-driventeacher-facilitated approach to learning. Learners pursue knowledge by asking questionsthat have piqued their natural curiosity…Students love when new projects come‖ (p.39).Bell stated that students learn to be self-reliant and that social learning helps withcollaboration skills. They learn such collaborative skills as active listening skills andteamwork, which will help them eventually in the work world. Students also learnintrinsic motivation and gain success through teacher provided scaffolding. Technologyallows for students to construct knowledge and share their thoughts, digitally, with aglobal audience.
  • There are a number of advantages to a PBL environment. Dewey (1938, as citedby Bell, 2010) proposed that learning by doing was a positive influence in shapingstudents’ learning. Bell (2010) suggested PBL could help develop students’ naturalcuriosity and love of learning, as it is a form of social constructivism. Most importantly,the use of rubrics is paramount in creating an environment of self-reflection. Studentslearn how to receive critical feedback and thus are prepared for the workforce uponexiting. Problem solving and critical thinking skills currently are more important thanfacts and memorization with the development 21st Century skills. Also the usage ofrubric-based peer-feedback forces students to become critical friends and cohesive groupmembers. In addition to the role of the student changing, the teacher’s role also changes,as the classroom becomes a more student-centered environment. Therefore, knowing thatstudents will thrive in a constructivist, technology enhanced, PBL environment, teachersshould be motivated to try this style of teaching. There are an abundance of hurdles on the path to PBL proficiency. Ertmer andSimons (2006) researched PBL and explained that it has long been successfully used inmedical and pre-professional schools but not widely adopted by teachers. Ertmer andSimons explained that although PBL is a relevant model—as it allows students to meetthe new 21st Century student’s needs—it has not been widely adopted because of thenumerous challenges teachers experience when trying to implement it. Some of theproblems related to creating the culture, adjusting the roles of teachers, and scaffoldingthe learning experiences for students. There is a need for initial support of teachers asthey learn to create new classroom management procedures for the PBL environment toenhance student engagement and learning.
  • It is also important to examine how PBL and one-to-one computing allowteachers to move away from forcing students to memorize facts and standards and toinstead design units around essential standards as proposed by Marzano (2003).According to Marzano, education is in a constant state of chaos stemming from multipleand shifting standards. The multitude of ways that teachers teach is the rationale for thestandards movement. He points out that less is more in regard to standards and that weneed to teach less but teach it well. For political reasons, we have added to manystandards. Marzano declared, ―quantity is not quality‖ (p. 19). He hypothesized thatteacher morale would improve if there was a more manageable amount of essential topicsto cover. The current emphasis on standards based education frustrates teachers ratherthan helps them. However, if standards based units or PBL units where projects could bedesigned around essential standards, an environment in which all teachers were on thesame page and could work together would be created. With fewer standards, a teacher’s ability to develop a collection of units andassessments would be further enhanced (Marzano, 2003). A teacher should begin byplanning which standards will actually be assessed, then add any additional standards thatneed to be assessed. Marzano emphasized that the key to planning is to not add moretopics or standards than can be taught and assessed effectively. He stated that project-based learning is a natural fit to this philosophy because it allows the teacher to focuseach project on essential standards. After running a project, teachers can decide whetherany standards need to be added. Marzano also supported one-to-one computing because itallows teachers to use digital tools to collaborate with each other and share successes andchallenges. Both PBL and one-to-one computing require pre-planning collaborative time
  • to create projects. Marzano’s theory of teaching essential standards has been adopted bymany school districts that support PBL environments; therefore, Marzano’s ideas offocusing on essential standard further proves the need for teachers to begin the PBL andone-to-one computing journey. In his book, Classroom Instruction that Works, Marzano (2003) identifiedcooperative learning as one of the nine most effective instructional strategies.Cooperative learning is also called for in the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Today(ACOT2) (2008) six-design principles of 21st Century skills which include: 1. 24/7 access to tools and resources 2. 21st Century outcomes 3. Relevant and applied curriculum 4. Informative assessments 5. Social and emotional connection 6. Culture of creativity and innovationAs Marzano suggested, collaboration aided by technology use enhances all six aspects ofdesigning curriculum. ACOT2 also referred to Dewey’s ―learning by doing‖ (p. 18) is theessence of authenticity and relevance. Technology facilitates authenticity and relevancyand encourages lessons that are not rote exercises, which are typically completed intraditional standards-based classrooms. One-to-one computing allows students to actuallyresearch, work, and create their own projects instead of completing traditional bookexercises. ACOT2 (2008) focused on the need to teach students technology; the world haschanged from nine to five workday to all twenty four hours seven days a week as a result
  • of technology we are always on therefore we need our students to meet these demands.ACOT2 examined how No Child Left Behind demanded a focus on test scores andresulted in a demise of critical thinking skills and keeping students engaged in school.Outdated teaching methods need to be changed. Educators must address how to meet 21stCentury skills through relevant and applied curriculum, informative assessments, socialand emotional connection, a culture of creativity and innovation, and 24/7 accesses totools and resources. Another advantage is the link to the outside world; with tools such as web 2.0technologies, wikis, blogs, and podcasts, you can communicate with anyone within theclassroom and around the globe. The ACOT2programs create a student climate of greatindependence, self-directed learning, increased motivation, improved attendance, andfewer discipline issues. (ACOT2, 2008) ACOT2created a table comparing traditionalclassroom to a one-to-one computing environment (see Table 1).
  • Table 1Comparison of new models of learning in the technology enhanced classroom (read/writeweb) with the Traditional ClassroomTraditional Classroom Classroom of the Read/Write WebTextbook Staggering breadth and depth of content. Open-source type classrooms in which everyone contributes to the curriculum.School teachers Knowledge of primary sources such as authors, historians, and researchers.Do your own work Produce work in collaborative ways for larger audiences.Lecture Conversation.Textbooks and more ―closed‖ sources of information Create own texts from different content providers such as blogs, wikis, websites, discussion groups, and so on. Teachers and students employ the many ways to find information on the web.Reading as passive and ―trusted‖ process Active engagement in reading for truth and accuracy.Paper-based content Electronic learner portfolios.Text-based writing Write in many different genres.Mastery of content as measured by passing a test Electronic online portfolios.Handing in assignments Contribute ideas and work to larger body of knowledge that is the web.Source: ACOT 2: Apple classrooms of tomorrow-today: Learning in the 21st centurybackground information (Rep. No. 2). (2008). Retrieved from Apple Inc. website:http://ali.apple.com/acot2/.( p.33)Table 1 demonstrates the usefulness of one-to-one computing specifically how it allowsfor collaboration, conversation, electronic continuous portfolios, and engagement easierthan other previous methods.
  • Challenges and Barriers already discovered to PBL and One-to-one Computing Ertmer (1999) also investigated First and Second Order Barriers to change andidentified them as extrinsic and intrinsic factors. First order barriers are internal barrierssuch as a lack of access to computers, insufficient time to plan, and inadequate support.External second order barriers are teachers’ beliefs about computers and classroompractice and the unwillingness to change. Trainings can eliminate first order barriers butsecond order barriers require a change in a belief system. Second order barriers require awhole school change. To address second order barriers to change, schools need ―block-busting strategies‖ (p. 48) that allow teachers to get around problems that emerge. In regard to first order barriers, Ertmer (1999) advocated for teachers to be able tochoose the way they want to use technology and that use of technology should not be theend goal; instead, it should be part of the learning process. Technology facilitatesmeeting goals of collaboration, critical thinking and communication. Thus, schools,districts, and governments cannot calculate success by counting how many computers arebeing used. Instead they should examine the overall means of how computers are beingused to promote 21st Century learning and what first order barriers (such as extensiveequipment training, time, support that are missing or inadequate) prevent such innovativeuse. First order barriers are easy to find, measure, and eliminate. Many teachers canprovide a laundry list of complaints to illustrate the frustrations that they feel. When firstorder barriers go away second order problems emerge. Second order barriers emerge when students and teachers are faced with all newclass management, discipline and lesson development issues. Second order barriers stemfrom the teachers underlying beliefs. Teachers will have to create a learning environment
  • that is different from the one they experienced themselves. It is also helpful to know thatoftentimes these barriers will simply never go away. Then, we can understand how theirgoals for technology and their beliefs about the role of technology may shape perceptionand response to first order barriers. To ever attain high integration second order barriersmust be addressed. Second order barriers sometimes are more damaging as they are theunderlying beliefs. Ertmer (1999) proposed a solution to these barriers, that teachers’ attitudes can beimproved by modeling, reflecting and collaborating. Modeling allows teachers to gainexamples. Learning communities led by administrators, technology coordinators,teachers, and students can help provide modeling development activities. The process ofreflection is a critical component to teacher development. Time and the means to reflectcan be provided through ongoing access to technology tools. Publication of ideas inelectronic journals (blogs) or Twittering can be beneficial for eliciting peer support.Teachers can use virtual real time professional development opportunities and finallycollaboration. Support is required for successful integration. Also, more time is requiredfor professional development ongoing training and teacher support. As teachers learn to innovate with technology, they must also change theirclassroom management techniques (Ertmer, 1999). Instructional frustrations can arisebecause of teacher and student problems with technology. Therefore, initial teacherdemonstrations, proper modeling and assistance, technology posters, aids, and studenthandouts can all help facilitate computer use. Class rules should be established regardinghow to care for and maintain resources. For example, keep hands off monitors, help oneanother solve problems, share information and ideas openly, and congratulate each other
  • for making progress. Lastly, clear instructions for collaboration are needed to workclosely with others. Students and teachers need to support each other beyond thecomputer environment. Many teachers are concerned with how assessments will be completed in a one-to-one or PBL environment (Ertmer, 1999). However, the solution is simple use ofrubrics, electronic portfolios, and process orientated feedback and performance tasksrequiring teams of students to solve authentic problems. Students can also undergo self-evaluation. Not many teachers achieve highly innovative and transformative teachingpractices with technology integration. Perhaps some of this lack of progress can beattributed to lack of practice with strategies for circumventing, overcoming andeliminating barriers. The process of becoming PBL and one-to-one computing proficient varies greatlyin length depending on teacher readiness, preparation and differences (Donovan andGreen, 2010). Donovan and Green studied technology concerns and implications forteachers and educators. They initiated a one-to-one laptop teacher education pilotprogram. They had twenty-nine teacher candidates in a one-year multiple subjectprograms with added emphasis on teaching and learning in a one-to-one laptopenvironment. The other seven world language faculty members were selected for theirlevels of concerns in regard to proficiency in using technology as a learning tool.Donovan and Green came to three main conclusions: faculty readiness, preparation, anddifferences affect one-to-one computing success. As a researcher, spending time onfaculty readiness for one-to-one computing also gives the researcher time to survey,gather and address misconceptions. By knowing concerns, there is time to determine
  • what professional support is needed. In regard to faculty preparation, teachers need to beinformed and included in the process at all times. Donovan and Green also found thatfaculty differences tended to vary mostly in regard to initial concerns about technologyrelative to teachers’ pedagogical beliefs. They determined that creating more supportwould be helpful for teachers. Establishing a trend of faculty concerns could also bebeneficial. Donovan, Green, and Hartley (2010) also explored one-to-one computing in themiddle school setting. They specifically examined how different implementation oflaptop programs can have numerous different results. The study design addressed the gapin literature regarding the implementation of laptop computers in the middle schoolsetting. There were three configurations of laptop computers. All three teachers were atthe same school and had equal access to the technology; however, they all used varyingamounts of technology and varied in teaching philosophies from textbook to PBL, andtherefore all had a very different result. This study is hopeful for teachers as they can seethe correlation between the choices teachers make in regard to classroom management,technology integration, and use of PBL, and the success of increased student performanceand engagement.
  • Instructional Technology Instructional Challenges Cited Lesson Design/Student Student performances Teacher Performances Used by Teacher ChoiceA Posted assignments via a None 21st Century model where All students brought their Teachers rarely collected drop box system. students were given laptop unless the laptop papers; viewed digital Daily attendance, checked choices in their learning was recalled or repaired. documents instead. email, modeled process. Students used the Kept up to date on assignments for class. PBL design was used computers for a variety of resources. Collected student work on instruction in Modeled work with the computer. configuration computer. Used for creating PBL Internet, communication Clear rules and learning. presentations, assignment expectations. Internet communication and homework. with teacher and student. Understood rules and Created for students’ brought laptops. online test, quizzes and student presentations.B Assignment electronically Not all students brought PBL assignments involved Students engaged in off Grouped students based on retrieved on occasion. their laptops to class. student research an task activities during class. laptop access. No electronic collection of Batteries were dead or assigned topic completing Distracted by games on Asked the whole class if work students turned them laptops were being a slideshows or computers. there were technology in manually by hand. repaired and recalled or presentation of poster or glitches. No electronic simply left at home. mini book. Teacher did not have clear communication between Not as much choice for classroom management the teacher and student. students. rules for students. For record keeping an attendance.C No electronic collection of Students came unprepared Lessons were designed Students were sometimes Used technology for assignments for class or theybrought around the textbook. off task and not engaged lecture presentation No Internet based their laptops and simply Students answered purposes. activities. left them in their textbook questions or Nor electronic backpacks unused during completed a student communication class. handout. No online assessments Students not as engaged Only used word Only used the computer processing if the computer for attendance and their was ever even used no email. Internet based work.
  • The relevance of this table as synthesized from Donovan, Green, and Hartley(2010) is that if the technology is used correctly along with PBL, and clear lessons andclassroom management is employed teachers had a great deal of success. On the otherhand teachers that made excuses for students not being prepared, used a mixture ofresources, and did not integrate the technology appropriately saw that students were lessengaged and had less ownership over the learning process. Although all teachers had thesame resources, it is up to fellow teachers and administrators to make sure PBL and one-to-one computing is established uniformly throughout a school. Luckily, ACOT capturedin the representation of a five stage chart of technology integration. How the teacher thathad the most success was at the final stages whereas the other teachers in configuration Aand B could have been struggling because they were simply going through the stages andprocess of technology integration. ACOT teacher development centers were designed to use technology as amotivator and a tool for teaching and learning and study the process of using technologyin the classroom (ACOT, 1995). The study ran from 1985-1995. ACOT teacherdevelopment centers were created to engage teachers in the same activities that they weregoing to aim to create for their students. In ACOT project research conclusions weremade that many experienced teachers were concerned about effective pedagogy andmanagement in the same way they were as novice teachers. Earlier many people wereconcerned about how the computer initiative would impact them on a personal level.The basic questions that drove ACOT were what happens when computers are significantresources? Does using a lot of technology affect how teachers teach and how students
  • learn? Most relevant to this study is the realization that there are five stages to technologyintegration that teachers go through:Entry Learn the basics of using the new technology.Adoption Use new technology to support traditional instruction.Adaptation Integrate new technology into traditional classroom practice. Here, theyoften focus on increased student productivity and engagement by using word processors,spreadsheets,and graphics tools.Appropriation Focus on cooperative, project-based, and interdisciplinary work—incorporating the technology as needed and as one of many tools.Invention Discover new uses for technology tools, for example, developing spreadsheetmacros for teaching algebra or designing projects that combine multiple technologies.(ACOT, 1995, p. 16) These stages of entry, adoption, adaption, appropriation andinvention are made easier when mentors are available. Knowing these defined stagesallows for teachers and administrators to realize where they area on the road totechnology integration. The role of the coaching teacher and teacher in the classroomchange during the PBL and one-to-one computing journey as they become facilitatorsthey help each other out in all situations. More group work occurs in learningcommunities as teachers, teacher leaders and administrators share ideas and worktogether to overcome any obstacles. ACOT’s (1995) stages of development can be seen in the three classroomconfigurations that Donovan and Green (2010) studied. As the teacher that had the mostsuccess was onto the final levels of appropriation and already beginning the last staged ofinvention. As the teacher in configuration A had successfully already completed entry ofbecoming familiar with the technology. Then this teacher already went through adoptionof combining the new technology with available resources. And then this configuration A
  • already worked on adaption of integrating technology into the traditional classroom. Inthis configuration the teacher mastered the adaption stage of classroom management. Theother configurations B and C were stuck in the earlier forms of integration thus capturinghow teachers will all be on different levels of integration during this process and needtime to collaborate and reach the final stages of technology integration.Success and Support for PBL and One-to-one Computing In regard to PBL and one-to-one computing many studies have created support tohelp teachers through the PBL and one-to-one computing process. Studies have beendone to not focus only on fears but solutions to common problems even training websiteswith advice have been created. For example, Ravitz, et al. (2004) created an onlineprofessional development to meet the needs of PBL teachers. The PBL online website/project had a section on designing the PBL project, online courses available to learn moretechnology, as well as course management, course expectations, time management, etc.Therefore, they created an online guidebook; although factually helpful it is missingexamples of how to create a project from scratch or example projects in every subject.Teachers want to see how to use the technology on a day-to-day basis, how to meet withother teachers and really collaborate, or even how to create content specific warm-ups orsamples projects for all content areas. In addition to a guidebook online preparation isprovided. They stress teachers are more willing to use one-to-one computing afterreceiving appropriate training. Therefore they suggest online preparation training isavailable in the form of five hours of training on their website. Shortcomings are evident
  • though as it is left up to the teacher to take the ownership and collaborate with others andlearn how to use PBL and one-to-one computing at their site with others. Once again the journey of one-to-one computing can be a tough one as seen in thejourney of two seventh grade teachers becoming one-to-one computing proficient.However this study also suggest solutions. Garthwait and Wellner (2005) found teachersuccess depended on the role of the teacher changing. The traditional role of the teacherbeing the whole source of knowledge within the classroom is shattered once technologyis introduced. With one-to-one computing students have the world at their fingertips.Therefore the role of the teacher as an omniscient source of knowledge must beredefined? When the teacher becomes more of a coach there study found greater successin learning and with the PBL model in general. Garthwait and Wellner (2005) addressed that in order to have success in theenvironment of one-to-one computing the teacher must have solutions for logisticalproblems that occur. For example, the best time of day to even use the Internet as a resultof issues with network connections. There exists inequality in classrooms in regard tostudents’ familiarity and access to technology at home. During the study focusing on twoteachers using one-to-one computing. One teacher was more advanced with technologyusage and could focus on pedagogy problems. The other teacher in the study was boggeddown in technical problems. For example, in regard to using a shared printer, thissituation highlighted differences in teacher readiness in regard to technology. One teacherhad connectivity issues with even getting the printer connected. Whereas the secondteacher had no technical issues and instead had pedagogy problems in regard to what kindof projects he could assign to use the printers. Garthwait and Wellner come to the
  • conclusion that it is okay that teachers are at different levels of integration they shouldwork together to overcome these obstacles. Garthwait and Wellner explored howassignments might not be completed during the day before laptops can be sent home aschool policy should be in place to even allow computers home. Garthwait and Wellnercontinued to stress laptop school rules are necessary to ensure classroom managementsuccess. They suggested basic rules of keeping laptops charged and rules for printing.They went as far as suggesting rule consequences to help management. For example,after students violated rules too many times they were disconnected from the network orlimited in regard to printing. The reality is teachers will be tackling differentmanagement challenges than found in a traditional classroom. Clear school and newtechnology specific classroom rules will ease teachers’ transition into one-to-onecomputing. Engel and Green (2011), in Dialing Up Disaster, explored the successes of one-to-one computing in regard to cell phone integration in the classroom. They talked aboutthe importance of rules, being prepared for alternatives if students do not havesmartphone cell phones. It is apparent that flexibility really is key. Their study reiteratedthat having alternative assignments and strong rules are necessary for success with anytechnology integration. Schuck, Abusson and Kearney (2010) studied how to use Web 2.0 successfully.Schuck realized that students are familiar with the sites they use therefore oftentimes theyare not starting from scratch. It is suggested that teachers force students to use web 2.0 indifferent ways to make them learn something new. Schuck, et al. declared it is theteachers’ job to explore these free online websites and use them. This can go hand and
  • hand with the 21st Century student, as they know basic uses for technology however theyneed to be pushed to learn how to use the technology for business and jobs as well as inthe classroom. Therefore, to be successful at integration of Web 2.0, the teacher shouldfirst become familiar with what websites are already out there, which websites studentscurrently use, then teach students how to appropriately use them as well as teachingstudents other useful Web 2.0 sites. Hooft, Diaz and Swan (2004) explored using palm handheld computers theycaptured in their study how their can be numerous positives of technology integration andyet a teacher can still mix in more traditional classroom styles when there are technologyglitches. The data on using palm handheld computers concluded that teachers were moreorganized and so were students when using them. Although Hooft, et al. came to theconclusion that teachers wished that they could control and monitor how students wereusing them better. Realistically it was harder to write on them than any of themoriginally thought. Hooft, et al. explored although technology is available some studentswill prefer traditional old fashion note taking and that is okay. Therefore the teacher canhave a greater success in implementing one-to-one computing when allowing for somedifferentiation within the classroom. The instructor can allow a few students that want tocontinue note taking by hand to do so as technology might not work for every student inevery aspect. Allowing for flexibility is again the key to success. Garthwait and Wellner (2005), Engel and Green (2011), Shuck, Abusson andKearny (2010), and finally Hooft , Diaz and Swan ( 2004), came to the conclusion thatinnovation in technology is engaging for students and has many positive aspects.
  • However a teacher always needs to be flexible and have a back up plan if innovation doesnot work. In regard to computer ethics, digital plagiarism and cheating this subject can feeloverwhelming to teachers. However Ma, Wan and Lu (2008) studied how it is possible totackle this issue by educating students not to plagiarize or cheat and making projectsrigorous enough. Digital plagiarism is currently everywhere and most teachers are notgoing through the effort to catch students. This has created a relaxed attitude of teachersand students. Currently when students find information the culture is to copy and paste.Ma, et al. discovered that the reason why students copy and paste is that others are doingit. With the vast quantity of information available it is hard to catch plagiarism. Thetemptation for cheating is overwhelming due to the high pressure for achievement. Tosuccessfully stop plagiarism websites can be blocked or information being turned in canbe scanned for plagiarism. Another preventative measure is to educate students tounderstand what plagiarism is and make them see it is not worth taking another’s personsworks as their own as this is a from of stealing. In addition, activities that require analysisare relevant and engaging help cut down on cheating. Ertmer, et al. (2009) focused their study on five middle school teachers that werealready using the PBL model for four years and were now successfully integrating one-to-one technology. They examined what were the challenges of adding on one-to-onecomputing and why do teachers persist. They came to the conclusion that to besuccessful teachers must put a great deal of time into planning, implementing andassessing. In regard to planning teachers must anticipate all the ways the lesson can go.To be successful at planning they suggest at first keeping lessons small and manageable
  • for both teachers and students. The role of the teacher also changes duringimplementation they become a facilitator. In regard to implementing technology teachersshould : 1. Have a list of relevant resources ready. 2. Keep students on track by checking in daily. 3. Teachers must be flexible if technology glitches occur then use non- technology PBL ways. 4. Have paper and books on hand for example just in case the technology fails. ( For example: create informational paper notebooks that students had printed out and students could use them for homework. 5. Time is the only other challenge, as teachers need lots of time to integrate technology successfully.Below is a table the researchers created as a result of the study capturing recommendedstrategies for planning, implementing and assessing PBL units combined withtechnology.
  • Ertmer, P. A., Glazewski, K. D., Jones, D., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Goktas, Y., Collins, K., & Kocaman, A. (2009). Facilitating technology-enhanced problem-based learning(PBL) in the middle school classroom: An examination of how and why teachers adapt. Journal of Interactive Learning and Research, 20(1), (51).
  • Summary This literature review highlighted although PBL and one-to-one computing isbeneficial to the students and a great way to prepare students for the 21st century,different obstacles can stand in teachers’ way of successful implementation. Some ofthese obstacles are fear of technology, how to create projects and issues stemming aroundclassroom management. As well as the reality that there are stages to technologyintegration that simply take time. A number of solutions exist to these problems such as aneed for flexibility in regard to technology use, collaboration, and strong lesson planningand classroom management skills that specifically address technology use. There is a relevancy for creating a website documenting the early process ofbecoming PBL and one-to-one computing proficient. As previous studies such as Ertmer,et.al (2009) have focused on five teachers that were already using PBL successfully foryears then added technology. Therefore there is a need to study the early stages foradoption and teachers that chose not to use this model and why not. Also there is a needto explore why and if teachers stop the process. ACOT2(2008) also supports the need to capture the process of becoming PBL andone-to-one computing proficient. As seen in how the ACOT2focuses specifically on thegoal of reaching high school students with one-to-one computing to meet the 21st Centurystudent needs. Their goal is to create online data and voices and examples of technologytherefore creating testimony of success. Eventually they want to create a curriculum for afreshman year of high school using technology. Therefore justifying the need to study theprocess of becoming PBL and one-to-one computing proficient.
  • Lastly, flexibility is key to technology and PBL integration. As althoughtechnology is a wonderful tool numerous glitches can occur while using technology andflexibility is the best answer to these obstacles.
  • Chapter IIIIntroduction In chapter two the researcher completed a literature review to understand andanalyze existing peer reviewed research in regard to PBL and one-to-one computing. Theliterature review first focused on the history of PBL and one-to-one computing, followedby an examination of the barriers and struggles that have emerged when others havecompleted the PBL and one-to-one computing journey, and finally investigating thestrategies that were successful for overcoming challenges of using PBL and one-to-onecomputing in the classroom. This literature review revealed that PBL and one-to-one computing werebeneficial to the students and a great way to prepare students for the 21stCentury;however, many different obstacles can stand in teachers’ way of successfulimplementation. Of these obstacles are fears of technology, a lack of knowledge of howto create projects and issues stemming around classroom management. In addition to thereality that there are stages to technology integration that simply take time. A number ofsolutions exist to these problems such as allowing flexibility in regard to technology use,collaboration, strong lesson planning, and classroom management skills that specificallyaddress technology use. The literature review supported the need to create a website that documented theearly process of becoming PBL and one-to-one computing proficient. First the literaturereview of Donovan and Green (2010) captured the need to ask the teachers questions onwhat their concerns and fears are so that they can be addressed in the website. WhileErtmer, et.al (2009) conducted a study that focused on five teachers that already used
  • PBL successfully for years then added technology. Ertmer et.al suggested a need to studythe early stages for adoption by teachers. ACOT2(2008) reporteda need to create onlinedata and examples of technology to create a testimony of success. Schuck, Abusson andKearney (2010) studied how to use Web 2.0 successfully and pointed out theneed tocompile useful Web 2.0 resources for teachers to use and reference within contentspecific areas. Schuck, Abusson and Kearney (2010) stated that finding Web 2.0websites can often be time consuming and overwhelming for teachers starting to use one-to-one computing in there classroom. Finally,Jason Ravitz et. al (2004) and the BuckInstitute created a general online guidebook for PBL but the study suggested that in thefuture someone needed to create a content specific website to support teachers in the one-to-one computing and PBL journey. In conclusion the literature review supported the need for a creation of contentspecific websites to support the journey of world language teachers starting the one-to-one computing and PBL journey.Background of the Project The school district in which the researcher teachesbelieved one-to-one computingand PBL was the best way to meet the needs of the 21st Century student.The PBL andone-to-one computing modelcan allow students to learn how to be a digitalcitizen,students also learn to collaborate, think critical and creatively. A study emerged,when the researcher and only one other teacher this year were willing to try implementingone-to-one computing and PBL in their classroom.
  • As the researcher began the PBL and one-to-one computing journey, questionsarose: why are more teachers not willing to try PBL and one to one computing? As theresearcher wondered what stands in the other teachers ways? Where would support befound on this one-to-one computing and project based learning journey? What would thejourney look like for a world language teacher to become PBL and one –to-onecomputing proficient? Would it look different in world language classrooms?Components of the project The specific components of the project were: for the first semester of the schoolyear, the researcher held three workshops and created a website to support teachers in theprocess of becoming PBL and one-to-one computing proficient. The researcher presentedthe three workshops in the first semester in a PBL format during the first session of aworkshop. On the second day of training the researcher gave an overview of technologyto support one-to-one computing and PBL. The researcher also had teachers analyze thewebsite and give feedback about the website and technology readiness. For the third andfinal session teachers examined sample projects and completed a critical feedback andbrainstorming of project, as well as teachers explored one Web 2.0 website that is postedon the website and explored it to use in their classroom with their students. Although research is present that supports PBL learning and one-to-onecomputing certain gaps are evident in the research. The first specific gap in literature wasa need to focus on teachers starting the PBL and one-to one computing journey. Thesecond gap in the literature was a need for a content specific website being designed tohelp make other teachers proficient at the journey of one to one computing and PBL.
  • The research supported the need for creating a website to help support and easeteachers fears in regard to becoming PBL and one to one computing. For example,Donovan and Green (2010) primarily focused on how teacher concerns, varying degreeof preparation and differences in regard to technology readiness. All of these factorseffected teachers the most in technology adoption and success. Donovan and Greendetermined that creating more support would be helpful for teachers, and suggestedgiving a survey to understand what teachers fear. The literature review prompted thedesign of the project whereby the researcher informed the teachers what PBL and one-to-one computing was during a workshop, then the researcher gave a survey through Googledocuments to see what teachers are afraid of, concerned about and therefore what theyneed included on a website or during trainings to support them. The literature review also supported the need to create a website specific forworld language content area as Jason Ravitz et al. (2004) created a general onlineprofessional development to meet the needs of PBL teachers. The website containedonline courses available to learn more technology, as well as course management, courseexpectations, time management. Ravtiz et al. suggested that it is missing examples ofhow to create a project from scratch or example projects in every subject. Teachersneeded to be able to see how to use the technology on a day-to-day basis, how to meetwith other teachers and really collaborate, or even how to create content specific warm-ups or samples projects for all content areas. After completion of the literature review ofRavitz work there was a need for content specific websitesto support teachers inbecoming one-to-one computing proficient.
  • From the analysis of Schuck, Abusson and Kearney (2010) studied how to useWeb 2.0 successfully. Schuck realized that students are familiar with the sites they usehowever teachers must introduce students to use new web 2.0 websites that will helpthem in the professional world. Schuck, et al. declared it is the teachers’ job to explorethese free online websites and use them. However this takes time and can feeloverwhelming for some teachers. Therefore, the goal of this website was to deduce andchoose the best most user friendly Web 2.0 websites for students and teachers to usewithin the classroom. Additionally the literature review captured how a teacher starting PBL and one–to-one computing for the first time needs to document their work. As Ertmer, et.al (2009)had focused on five teachers that were already using PBL successfully for years thenadded technology. However at the end of their study they concluded that there is a needto study the early stages for adoption and teachers that chose not to use this model andwhy not. Also there is a need to explore why and if teachers stop the process. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Today, (ACOT2,2008) also supported the need todocument the process of becoming PBL and one-to-one computing proficient. As seen inhow the ACOT2focused specifically on the goal of reaching high school students withone-to-one computing to meet the 21st Century student needs. Their goalwas to createonline data and voices and examples of technology therefore creating testimony ofsuccess. Eventually they wanted to create a curriculum for a freshman year of high schoolusing technology. Therefore justifying the need to study the process of becoming PBLand one-to-one computing proficient and documenting the process on a PB works websitethat other teachers can use to support their journey.
  • The literature review specifically supported the need for creating a website.Tohelp the researchers achieve one to one computing and PBL within their own worldlanguage classroom and support others embarking on their own journey of PBL and one-to-one computing.Project Design This project was conducted with the researcher and seven world languageteachers. During three professional learning communities, teacher collaboration meetings,the researcher will lead the content team on how to create PBL and one-to-one computingin their classrooms. The main project of the researcher was to create a website to help other teachersin the process of becoming PBL and one-to-one computing proficient. In order to createthe website the researcher had three workshops with world language department teachers.The first workshop introduced PBL to teachers and gave teachers a sample entrydocument and rubrics to use with teachers. The second workshop introduced teachers tothe researchers website and then concluded with a Google Documents survey togetherwhere teachers revealed where they are at in order to better support them on therejourney. The third session involveda review of developed projects that teachers havecreated, and time to explore a Web 2.0 website listed on the researcher’s website topractice using before implementing in their classrooms. PBworks was chosen as the website as teachers are already familiar with as adirect result of instructional practice workshops where teachers have been taught how touse PBworks and Edmodo. PBworks was a website that is free for teachersto join where
  • they can create a website in a very easy and user-friendly way to lead a professionaldevelopment or for use with their students. Edmodo was a website created to interactwith students, post daily agendas and projects, as well as allow for digital submission ofwork. Edmodo has a similar appearance toFacebook and is also very user friendly forstudents to use. The project was designed to make the journey of PBL and one-to-onecomputing easier for the next teacher in world language beginning the journey. The websitewas also designed to improve student learning. As the websitecontained a link to support students through a website designed just for students. Thiswebsite was broken down by chapter, assignments, projects, etc. Daily agendas,submission of work, etc. will be conducted through Edmodo which was a websitedesigned to interact with students. Edmodo was set up exactly like Facebook thatstudents already used outside of the classroom for social networking purpose. HoweverEdmodo has the advantage of having an easy learning curve as it looked exactly likeFacebook however it provided a private connection between just the teacher and classand it is not public like Facebook. This website that was created was designed to help the researcher and other worldlanguage teachers at their site that wanted to begin the journey of becoming PBL and oneto one computing proficient. After researching the topic it became obvious that researchwas missing in regard to the start up process of preparing to use one to one computingand preparing to use project based learning in the classroom. The goal was to documentthe process and make a helpful and useful guide for other teachers to use in their ownclassrooms. Not only did the website contain a collection of sample projects to use in aproject based environment it also contained a collection of the best online explanations of
  • how to use the most commonly used one- to- one computing programs and technologyexplanations. The researcher compiled the most useful YouTube videos to teach with inregard to their target language of Spanish. The researcher also included digital stories thatwere available online and digital storytelling programs that are available for free onlinefor students to use for the creation of projects.Specific Breakdown of the Three-Hour Trainings Sessions The researcher first started out the sessions by giving all of the teachers a sampleentry document and a sample scenario that they will need to complete. (See Appendix B)Teachers created a 21st Century project that couldbe used in their own classroom. In thefirst session the researcher walkedthe world language teachers through how to create aProject. The researcher explained how the PBL modeldifferedfrom previous models ofteaching. The PBL model has teachers roll out a project and then allow for workshopsand assessments and then a culminating end project. During the first session it was theresearchers job to show teachers that they were getting taught through their own miniproject that they have to complete by the end of the year. At the end of the first sessionteachers are prompted through aninformal session on the board Knows and Need toKnows session (See Appendix C). Knows and Need to Knows is a process wherebyparticipating students, or in this case teachers, go through a metacognitive activity wherethey think out loud about their thinking. They realize based off of their entry documentwhat they know about this project and what questions still need to be answered. On the second hour of training, the researcher provided a Google documentsurvey to the seven world language teachers at their school site to see what their comfort
  • levels were in regard to one to one computing and project based learning (See appendixA). As a result of the Knows and Need to Knows teachers wanted to see how thetechnology integration happened within teachers classrooms in regard to technology andgeneral one to one computing with the implementation of PBL. For, the second sessionthe researcher began to compile a list of resources such as: programs online for thecreation of storytelling websites, poster making websites, best YouTube videos tointegrate into the classroom, great websites that quiz students, sample projects for otherteachers to use. At first the researcher created a basic outline of a website for teachers touse. Then the researcher allowed teachers to explore the website together and at the endof the first session gave teachers a survey for input. Questions included: was thewebsitehelpful for them? What needed to be added, edited, or redone on the website to supportteachers. The main goal of this website was to create a digital guidebook that is trulyhelpful for teachers that has a collection of you tube videos, sample projects, the bestwebsites to use and the best online programs to immediately integrate into the classroom.By having teachers view the website and providefeedback after exploration the researcherwas able to include exactly what teachers wanted in the website. To see how many different levels of readiness are present within the school’sworld language department, the researcher used a Google document survey to see howteachers specifically wantedto spend their time together during their trainings together.The survey also asked for feedback of what videos they felt they need in regard totechnology explanations. The survey also asked them what collections of resources theywould like to see for music, websites, digital storytelling, interactive quiz sites, etc.
  • Therefore from the results the researcher knew what needed to be added and included onthe website. Finally, during the last workshop, the teachers in the world language departmentcompleted a critical friends review process of a project based learning project. Criticalfriends are a simple check that teachers can do together to review a project. It allowsteachers to give feedback to each other and improve upon their project. It is a simplechecklist that helps teachers assess how well their project went and what couldbeimprove upon (See Appendix D). Teachers completed a survey on how helpful theworkshop for that day.Teachers had an opportunity to express suggestions for what theywanted posted on the website to support them on their journey of becoming PBL andone-to-one computing proficient. After the analysis of the teacher feedback the researcherbuiltin all aspects that teachers wanted to see changed. For the third session theresearcher built up the website and then gave a workshop on Web 2.0 programs to usewith students for the third session. Where teachers take the time to immediately get towork with either creating an Edmodo account, PB works account, work on exploring oneof the website. Basically give time for technology integration for one hour. Theresearcher helped support teachers in this process, as the biggest things teachers requiredwas more time. At the end of the third session after exploring a Web 2.0 website teacherswere given a survey in Google Documents to capture that website they explored and ifthey would use the website with their class (See Appendix E). During the second semester after this project is completed. The researcher willtake time to have teachers create a PBL project together.
  • Data analysis of what teachers need in regard to the implementation of PBL fromthe first session:Figure 1: Current Level of Project Based Learning Knowledge What is your current level of knowledge about Project Based Learning? 6 5 # of Teachers 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 I have no idea I have some I have an idea of I have a lot of I am well idea, but would what it is, but no information informed and like more plans to use it , but not sure ready to go information how to implement it Current Level of Knowledge of PBLFigure 1 captured how teachers overall 71% have some idea what PBL is however theywould like more information on how to use PBL within their classrooms. 14 % of theteachers had no idea what PBL is and needed to learn about it while 14 % of the teachersare well informed and ready to go however they might need some more support. It isinteresting that all of the teachers were interested in learning about PBL. Therefore thisdata supports an interest in PBL and that most teachers at least know what it is and wouldlike to learn more about it.
  • Figure 2: How Many Hours of Professional Development Teachers Have Had in PBL How many hours of professional development have you had in PBL? 14% None 14% 1-5 Hours 57% 15% 6-10 Hours More than 10 HoursFigure 2 captured the results of how many hours of professional development teachershave had in PBL in order to see if teachers even know what PBL is and to figure out whatthere current knowledge is. 57 % of teachers have had no professional development inPBL. 14 % has had 1-5 hours. 15 % has had 6-10 hours of training. And 14 % has hadmore than 10 hours of training. Therefore there was a wide variety of what teachers havereceived in regard to training but the majority needs beginning training of PBL. The datajustified the researcher started the first workshop with PBL information for teachers onthe website and taking the time to teach the other teachers about PBL.
  • Figure 3: What Is Teachers Plans for Implementing PBL This Year Or In The Future? What is your plan for implementing PBL this year or in the future? 6 5 # of Teachers 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 Only if I have to I will include direct I will have a few I will only teach teaching but will projects with untis using PBL ocassionally include essential elemnets student group work of PBL and projects How teachers plan to implement PBL Figure 3 captured what teachers planed to do with PBL this year or in the future.14 % of teachers plan to use PBL in combination with some direct instruction. 29 % ofthe teachers only planning to use it if they absolutely have to therefore they could benefitfrom a website showing easy ways to integrate PBL within the classroom. While 14 %would have a few projects with essential elements and were willing to try using projects.While the other 14 % of teachers were interested in only teaching through PBL units.There was a wide range of teacher interests in regard to PBL.
  • The data in Regard to One to One Computing and Technology:Figure 4: What Is Your Comfort Level With Using Technology Everyday While you areteaching? What is your comfort level with using technology everyday while you are teaching? 6 5 4 # Teachers 4 3 3 2 1 0 0 I am not comfortable I am somewhat I am very comfortable using technology comfortable using using technology technology Comfort Level for Using TechnologyFigure 4 captured in general how comfortable teachers are in regard to using technology.The graph reveals all teachers arecomfortable using technology. 57 % of teachers aresomewhat comfortable using technology, while 43 % of teachers were very comfortableusing technology. This was interesting as most of the teachers are comfortable usingtechnology;however, it leads to another question, howdo teachers feel about usingtechnology with students in their classroom?
  • Figure 5: Where Do Teachers Feel They Are In Regard to Integrating One-To-OneComputing of Technology in Their Classrooms? Where do you feel you are in regard to integrating 1:1 computing or technology into your classroom? Stage 4: Appropriation- You have created Stages of Integrating Techology 1 multiples files and programs. You are… Stage 3: Adaption- you have tried it in a few 1 classroom assignments Stage 2 : Adoption- you are ready to take 3 control and try it out Stage 1: Entry- Only if I have to will I use it 2 and you are filled with fear and anxiety 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 # of TeachersFigure 5 revealed that 43 % if teachers are at the adoption stage where with directionteachers are ready to take control of technology and try it out in their classroom. 29% ofteachers are at the entry stage in regard to integrating technology within their classroomsmeans that they will only used technology in there classrooms if they have and are filledwith fear and anxiety. 14 % of teachers are the adaption stage where they have tried a fewclassroom assignments that require one-to-one computing. While 14 % have createdmultiples files and programs to use themselves in the classroom and for other teachers touse in the classroom.
  • Figure 6: All The Ways ThatTeachers are Currently Using Technology in the Classroom? All the ways that you are currently using technology in your classroom? Other 3 LadyBug/ Elmo Projector 7 Ways teachers are using technology Smartboard- Interactive Board 2 You tube 7 Social media-twitter, todays meet.com 3 Have a website that you use daily to… 1 EDMODO- To interact with teachers… 2 Power Presentations 6 LCD Projector 7 DVD/ VHS 7 Take attendance 7 To check email 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 # of TeachersThis Figure 6 chart captured all the ways that teachers are currently using technology inthe classroom. The graph showed the ways that teachers are commonly all usingtechnology with students: teachers use it to view YouTube videos with students,lady bug/elmo projector, LCD projector, DVD/ VHS, take attendance and check email. This dataalso revealed that only two teachers are using a smart board beside the researcher, andonly three teachers are using social media-twitter with their students, only one teacherhad a website that they are using this their students and lastly only two teachers are usingEdmodo which is a website to interact with other teachers. Therefore teachers neededsupport using Web 2. 0 websites with students specifically their own website. Also one ofthe most interesting bits of information is one teacher even followed up informally after
  • this survey that only six out of the seven teachers use Power Point. One of the teachersdoes not even use Power Point as they are not comfortable and have not been trained inhow to use Power Point.Teacher feedback of using the websiteand exploring a Web 2.0 website:Figure 7 : After exploring a Web 2.0 website would you use the Web 2.0 website in yourclassroom? After exploring a Web 2.0 website today, would you use the one you explored today in your classroom? 7 T 6 e 5 # a 4 c 3 o h 2 f e 1 r 0 s Yes No All teachers said after exploring a Web 2.0 website that they would use it withstudents. Teachers choose to explore: the BBC website for teaching Spanish throughstories, using Glogster for making posters with their students, and two other teachersbegan making GoAnimate cartoons, while one other teacher explored using the websiteDelicious to organize websites for students to explore. All the teachers said the Web 2.0website would be interesting to use with students.
  • Summary Overall the project was developed and designed to create a website to supportteachers in the journey of becoming PBL and one to one computing proficient. Over thecourse of threeProfessional Learning Community, department collaboration days,theresearcher designed the time to maximize being able to teach the other teachers first whatPBL is and then provided a website and received feedback for what teachers really needto integrate technology and one to one computing in their own classroom. The goal wasto provide support in order to help them on their journey. The researcher wanted to makethe journey of becoming PBL and one-to-one computing easier for all teachers. Theresearcher created the website using PBL wiki which is a free very easy to use website.
  • Chapter IVIntroduction The goal of this project was to support teachers in the process of becoming PBLand one-to-one computing proficient. Currently more teachers are attempting to meet thenew challenges of the 21st Century whereby students need to learn to workcollaboratively, creatively, think critically and communicate. Project based learning is asolution to meet these goals for the 21st Century learners by the researchers schooldistrict. One-to-one computing and the integration of more technology within a classroomallow teachers to meet these new goals of a 21st Century learner. The new goals of 21stCenturyeducatorsinclude teaching students to work collaboratively, creatively,communicate and think critically. Laptops and project-based learning allowed forstudents to be in a more student-centered environment. Although research is available on PBL and one-to-one computing, the literaturereview revealed that existing research is general andnot content specific for teachers. Thisgap in current research supported the need for a content specific project. The gap in theresearch was the researchers motivation to create a website that directly supports theintegration of one-to-one computing and project based learning in the world languageclassroom. Also the website was created to help reduce concern that can arise fromteachers feeling so overwhelmed they will not even begin the process. Through thedocumentation of the training that was held for the seven world language teachers,inclusion ofthe researchers sample projects, rubrics to use in the classroom, and support
  • for teachers and students a website will be created to help other teachers begin theirjourney of one to one computing and PBL.Project Outcomes The goal of this project was to create a website to help teachers in the process ofbecoming PBL and one-to-one learning proficient. The guidebook online containedtrainings, insight on the planning, and implementation of projects, classroommanagement, and technological tips, to help other new teachers become PBL proficient. Another goal of the website was to support varying levels of teacher developmentrelated to PBL and one-to-one computing. Although a useful website or collection of theprocess of becoming PBL proficient wascreated, the website was a starting point but nota solution for every problem that a beginning teacher to PBL and one-to-one computingfaces. The researcher hypothesizedthat some teachers would be afraid to try PBL andone-to-one computing learning. Answers and examples as documented in the study mayreduce someof the fears related to teaching PBL and one-to-one computing. Theresearcher planned to take the fears and concerns that teachers encountered from teachersand build the website to support teachers and ease their fears. ACOT’s stages of technology development reveal that different teachers aresimply at different stages and thereforePBL proficiencymay look different for everyone;the researcher hypothesizes. As the data suggested teachers are simply at different pointsfor integrating PBL and one to one computing in their classrooms.The researchers datasupported this as well:
  • Figure 5: Where do teachers feel they are in regard to integrating 1:1 computing andtechnology? Where do you feel you are in regard to integrating 1:1 computing or technology into your classroom? Stage 4: Appropriation- You have created Stages of Integrating Techology 1 multiples files and programs. You are… Stage 3: Adaption- you have tried it in a few 1 classroom assignments Stage 2 : Adoption- you are ready to take 3 control and try it out Stage 1: Entry- Only if I have to will I use it 2 and you are filled with fear and anxiety 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 # of TeachersFigure 5 revealed that proficiency will simply loo different from teacher to teacherdepending on where they currently are in regard to integrating technology. Currently 43% of teachers are at the adoption stage where teachers are ready to take control oftechnology and try it out in their classroom. 29% of teachers are at the entry stage inregard to integrating technology within their classrooms means that they will only usedtechnology in there classrooms if they have and are filled with fear and anxiety. 14 % ofteachers are the adaption stage where they have tried a few classroom assignments thatrequire one-to-one computing. While 14 % have created multiples files and programs touse themselves in the classroom and for other teachers to use in the classroom. Thereforethe website is a starting point of how to integrate technology and one-to-one computing ateacher could to use tools on the website to help them implement one project during ayear, or try one web 2.0 website with their students, overall teachers can integratedifferent amounts of what they find in the website into their teaching.
  • Audience, Procedure and Timeline This project was specifically designed to help any teacher begin the process ofBecoming PBL and one-to- one computing proficient journey. The surveysgiven to theworld language teachers would be useful for any teachers beginning the journey. Thewebsite was most helpful to support a world language teacher specifically Spanish thatwas beginning the journey of one-to- one computing and project based learning. The actual timeline for other teachers beginning the process of training otherteacher to use PBL and one-to- one computing in at least a year. As the researcher has atotal of three early release days during Personal Learning Community time each sessionwasone hour longduring the first semester. Where it was the job of the teachers to eachcreate their own project by the end of the year. During this research project teachersexperienced workshops together to as a group. During the second half of the semesterafter this research project teachers would continue to create at least one project and thatrequires technology integration within the project. Teachers would continue to exploreWeb 2.0 websites together and will complete critical friends review of projects.Recommendation, Evaluation of the Project and Implications of the Results The main limitations of this project were time as a result of the researcher nothaving control within the master calendar of the school year of when the research wouldimplement the workshops with the teachers. During the first semester the researcher hadthree one-hour sessions with the world language teachers.
  • Next steps would be for a longer duration of the project. In the second semesterafter this project is completed the researcher wouldhave an additional three sessionswhere teachers create a PBL and one-to-one computing project. Time is the biggest limitation, specifically; longitudinal effects could not be seenas the researcher was constrained by the limitation of a master’s thesis timeline. Thestudy captured the most essential part of becoming project based learning proficient,which includes the trainings, the planning before the school year and the first fewprojects used within the classroom. The studyproduced the groundwork for a moreextensive research project in the future. Sample size was a limitation as the researcher, partner teacher, and six additionaldepartment members were the entire data source. The small sample of teachers includedvariety in familiarity with technology, age, and willingness to change versus keeping thestatus quo. Again, while the small size is a limitation, it served as the foundation for acontinuation study with a larger sample size to be studied in the future. The researcher worked with self-reported data of collecting the websites that theyfound to be most useful on a website. The limitations highlighted that this study wouldlay the groundwork for a moreextensive study in the future capturing the process of becoming project based learningand one-to-one computing proficient in a more longitudinal extensive case study. In afuture study, numerous departments across campus could be included and numerousteachers followed in an extensive case study. Also, studies followed for at least a year.Conclusion
  • This project provided a digital guide to help other teachers in the process of PBLand one to one computer integration.This project, especially the first survey, revealed thatdevelopment may vary from teacher to teacher. Although a useful website or collection ofthe process of becoming PBL proficient was created, this was a starting point but not asolution for every problem that a teacher encountered when beginning the PBL and one-to-one computing journey. The researcher hypothesizedthat teachers that were afraid ofthe change to PBL learning. This was true as the studyrevealed that some teachers werefearful and the workshops together did settle some of their fears. PBL proficiency maylook different for everyone; specifically among different content areas. As for worldlanguages it became evident that becoming PBL and one-to-one computing proficientwill take different amounts of time. First teachers need to explore PBL and technologytogether during collaboration time together. Second of all, teachers would brainstormsmall projects on their own. Lastly, whole departments would work togethercollaboratively to create larger projecs. Overall the process of becoming PBL and one-to-one computing proficient willtake time and will vary from teacher to teacher.
  • ReferencesACOT: Changing the conversation about teaching, learning, and technology: A report on 10 years of ACOT research (Rep. No. 1). (1995).ACOT2 : Apple classrooms of tomorrow-today: Learning in the 21st century background information (Rep. No. 2). (2008). Retrieved from Apple Inc. website: http://ali.apple.com/acot2/.Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), (39-43).Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). Inclusion and problem-based learning: roles of students in a mixed-ability group. Research in the Middle Level Education Online, 32(9), (1-19).Donovan, L., & Green, T. (2010). One-to-one computing in teacher education: Faculty concerns and implication for teacher educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(4), (140-148).Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal Educational Computing Research, 42(4), (423-441).Engel, G., & Green, T. (2011, March/April). Cell phones in the classroom: Are we dialing up disaster? TechTrends, 55(2), (39-45).Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47(4), (47-61).Ertmer, P. A., Glazewski, K. D., Jones, D., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Goktas, Y., Collins, K., & Kocaman, A. (2009). Facilitating technology-enhanced problem-based learning(PBL) in the middle school classroom: An examination of how and why teachers adapt. Journal of Interactive Learning and Research, 20(1), (35-54).Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher, technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs and culture Intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), (255-284).Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006, Spring). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of k-12 teachers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1).
  • Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. G. (2005, Summer). A year in the life: Two second grade teachers implement one-to-one computing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), (361-377).Hooft, M. V., Diaz, S., & Swan, K. (2004). Examining the potential of handheld computers: Findings from the Ohio pep project. Jourrnal Educational Computing Research, 30(4), (295-311).Larmer, J., Ross, D., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2009). Introduction. In Project BasedLearning Toolkit Series: PBL starter kit (pp. (1-8)). 18 Commercial Boulevard., Novato,California 94949: Buck Institute for Education.Ma, H. J., Wan, G., & Lu, E. Y. (2008). Digital cheating and plagarism in schools. Theory Into Practice, 47, (197-203).Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, Viriginia USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2004). Envisioning the handheld-centric classroom. Journal Educational Computing Research, 30(4), (281-294).Park, S., Ertmer, P., & Cramer, J. (2004). Implementation of a Technology-Enhanced Problem-Based Learning Curriculum: A Year-Long Study of Three Teachers. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Retrieved from EBSCOhost.Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2007). Impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use. Journal of Research in Technlogy in Education, 40(2), (247-267).Pelham, C. S., & Nyiri, Z. (2009, Summer). Technology and Education: The power of the personal computer. Harvard International Review, (74-76).Pflaum, W. D. (2004). The technology fix: The promise and reality of computer in our schools (G. R. Carter, Ed.). 1703 N. Beaurguard St. Alexandria, CA22311-1714, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Ravitz, J., Mergendoller, J.,& Beryl Buck Inst. for Education, N.A. ( 2002). Teaching with Technology: A Statewide Professional Development Program. Evaluation Report. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.Ravitz, J., Mergendoller, J., Markham, T., Thorsen, C., Rice, K., Snelson, C., & ... Beryl Buck Inst. for Education, N. A. (2004). Online Professional Development for Project Based Learning: Pathways to Systematic Improvement. Beryl Buck Institute for Education. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
  • Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models and changing instruction with project-based learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, (290-312).Schmoker, M., & Marzano, R. J. (1999). Realizing the Promise of Standards-Based Education. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 17. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, Virginia USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the Essentials To Radically Improve Student Learning. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., & Kearney, M. (2010). Web 2.0 in the classroom? Dilemmas and opportunities inherent in adolescent web 2.0 engagement. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), (234-246).Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times (First Edition. ed.). 989 Market Streer, San Francico,CA 94103-1741: Jossey-Bass.
  • Appendix: Field ProjectHow to Become PBL and one-to-one computing ProficientAppendix A: Survey given to teachers to see where they are in regard to PBL and one-to-one computing. PBL and One to One Computing SurveyPlease answer these questions, as honestly as possible your answers will remainanonymous :)* RequiredWhat is your current level of knowledge about Project Based Learning * I have no idea I have some idea, but would like more information I have an idea of what it is , but no plans to use it I have a lot of information, but not sure how to implement it I am well informed and ready to goHow many hours of professional development have you had in PBL? * None 1-5 hours 6-10 hours More than 10 hoursWhat is your plan for implementing PBL this school year or in the future? * Only if I have to I will include direct teaching but will occasionally include student group work and projects I will have a few projects with essential elements of PBL I will only teach units using PBLWhat is your comfort level with using technology everyday while you are teaching? * I am not comfortable using technology I am somewhat comfortable using technology I am very comfortable using technology
  • Other:Select all the ways that you use technology currently in your classroom * Check all theways that you use technology in your classroom... To check email Take attendance DVD/ VHS LCD projector Power Point Presentations Edmodo- To interact with teachers and parents Have a wesbite that you use daily to communicate with students and parents Social media - twitter, todays meet.com You tube Smartboard- Interactive Board LadyBug/ Elmo Projector Other:What programs, websites, technology have you heard about that you would like to learnmore about? * List any websites, programs, etc. that you would like to learn more about.Where do you feel you are in regard to integrating technology into your classroom? * Entry- Only if I have to will I use it and you are filled with fear and anxiety. Adoption- you are ready to take control and try it out Adaption- You have tried it on a few classroom assignments . Appropriation- You have created multiple files and programs. You are currently rethinking curriculum and creating large projects that require technology.What would you find to be most helpful to you on a website designed to support yourPBL and one to one computing journey? * Select as many of the following that youwould find helpful on a website to support you on your journey? Technology Explanations with videos ( For example how to use the smartboard, ladybug, popular websites.....)A Collection of sample PBL projects and rubrics that other teachers have used at the school Collection of guides on ( how to make accent for example on the computer) List of websites that have digital stories for you to use in your classroom in the target language List of websites where you can have your students create digital stories List of great youtube videos to use in your classroom when teaching a language List of great culturally appropriate websites List of music websites
  • Other:What else would you like to see included on a website deigned to support you on the oneto one computing and PBL journey? *What are your main questions or concerns in regard to the PBL and one to one computingjourney? *Appendix B: Entry Event Document provided to teachersDear Teachers,As part of a select group interested in project-based learning (PBL), you are well awareof the pressures that teachers face in the classroom. Research tells us that by makinglearning relevant we can increase retention and promote a more positive attitude towardeducation. Often, however, the amount of content coverage required in a single courseleads teachers away from attempting project-based units because of perceived timeconstraints.Some teachers are also uncomfortable with the chaosPBL produces.Studies conducted by the Buck Institute for Education demonstrate the effectiveness ofproject-based learning, in terms of engaging students and ensuring rigor. Even with thisknowledge, few teachers have the training, resources or time to implement what thisresearch tells is best practice.Over the course of six days (SC21 Project Design and Technology Training), you will begiven a variety of resources and tools to start you on your pathtowards implementing aPBL model in your classroom. You will have the opportunity to begin creating anengaging, standards-based project that you can use in your classroom this comingsemester. At the end of the training, you will be asked to present your project as far as ithas progressed. It should be built into the New Tech Online Learning System (Echo),and include the following elements:• Engaging entry event• Detailed project outline, including a driving question• Outline of scaffolding activities, with specifics if possible• Effective content and skill rubric(s)Your project should be derived from the content standards in your area(s), incorporate21st Century Skills assessment, address a variety of learning styles, and demonstrate thequalities of effective project-based learning strategies. Your project will receiveconstructive criticism from your colleagues using a Critical Friends protocol.To accomplish this task, you will have access to teachers experienced in PBL unitdevelopment, the Buck Institute PBL Starter Kit, and New Technology Network onlineresources. You can also count on the support and critical contributions of your fellow
  • participants. Soon you will have the foundation for an excellent PBL unit to use in yourclassroom.Sincerely,__________________Apendix C: Sample Knows and Need to KnowsKNOW-We’re creating a PBL-Clear requirements in Entry Doc-Teaching both content & skills-Project will be evaluated by peers - presentation-Resources available-Failure is NOT an option!-Projects are derived from content standards-Engage students & ensure rigorN2K – Logistics vs. Content?-How will we present our projects? How long?-Pick our own groups for presentations?-How long should the project be? 4wks? 6wks?-When should the project occur during the year?-Can you do an individual project vs. group?-What specific resources are we using to build projects? What materials will help me?-How will we see a sample? Looks like in a classroom? Finished projects? Walk thru one?-If cross-curricular, how do you make sure you keeping the standards for both content areas equally?-Templates for rubrics?-How to pace the project & how do you integrate direct instruction and other activities?
  • -How much is student-driven vs. teacher-driven? -Do students create the rubric or should we? -How much student choice? Should they pick the topic? -What strategies to hold students and myself accountable throughout the project? -Questions around copying/borrowing/plagiarizing sources? -What resources are out there in terms of technology? -Managing a 1:1 technology environment? -Review a project stages using visuals? Apendix D: Ciritical Friends Project Essentials ChecklistDoes the Project . . .? ?FOCUS ON SIGNIFICANT CONTENT AND AUTHENTIC ISSUES Students learn important subject matter content and address problems and issues from the world outside the classroomORGANIZE ACTIVITIES AROUND A DRIVING QUESTION OR CHALLENGE Students find the complex, open-ended question or challenge to be a meaningful focus for their workESTABLISH A NEED TO KNOW AND DO Students are brought into the project by an entry event that captures interest and begins the inquiry processENGAGE STUDENTS IN INQUIRY Students think deeply and ask further questions as they generate answers and solutionsREQUIRE INNOVATION Students generate new answers and/or create unique products in response to the Driving Question or challengeDEVELOP 21ST CENTURY SKILLS Students build critical & creative thinking, collaboration, and presentation
  • skills that are taught and assessedENCOURAGE STUDENT VOICE AND CHOICE Students, with guidance from the teacher, make decisions that affect the course of the projectINCORPORATE FEEDBACK AND REVISION Students use feedback to improve their work and create high quality productsCONCLUDE WITH A PUBLIC PRESENTATION Students exhibit products or present solutions and explain their work to others and respond to content- and process-focused questionsNOTES: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix E: Session Three Review of Web 2.0 Website and Website that the researcher designed 1. Which web 2.0 tool did you decide to explore during our time together? 2. Would you use the web 2.0 website that you experimented with today with your class? Yes No 3. How do you think you will use this website or Web 2.0 tool that you explored, in your classroom with your students? 4. What was helpful about the website? 5. What recommendations do you have for the website that would help you? Appendix F- To Use with teachers second semester after they have created projects together PEER PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS
  • PHASE ONE: Presentation Presenter: Distribute the entry document and rubric. Briefly give an overview of the project. Describe the final product, the driving question, scaffolding activities, as well as the content standards addressed. Please limit this to 5 minutes. Peers: Up to three clarifying questions may be asked of the presenter. PHASE TWO: Critique Presenter: Presenter silently takes notes and is not allowed to respond to the comments until the end. Peers: Peers talk amongst themselves about the project as if the presenters were not in the room and use the phrases below to start each topic. Start by focusing on the strengths, then on suggestions for improvement, and lastly, ideas for "next steps."1.I like the fact that... 2. I wonder... How this project will engage students? How long this project (or the accompanying activities) will take? How the standards are addressed? How this will impact the scope of addressing other standards throughout the semester/year? What 21st century skills are addressed in the project? What are some ideas for scaffolding? What tasks will be used to address the standards or goals of the project? How this project could be more authentic &connected to the real world? How this project will be managed and assessed by teachers? How it addresses differentiated learning styles and developmental stages?
  • How the project/teacher will support or manage the group process? How or if this could be linked to content in other classes or curriculums? How the learning outcomes are addressed? How this project will address skills or content that the student(s) may be weak in? How the project will promote the literacy skills of students? What tools will be used to hold a common standard with the staff? Does the project balance the coverage of standards versus broader schools culture or other key learning outcome? Does the rubric evaluate what the teacher is trying to assess? Does the rubric address multiple outcomes?3. A next step might be... PHASE THREE: Response Open discussion period for presenter to respond to thecomments of the peers and to follow up on ideas or suggestions.