Technology Integration Through Teacher Training - Action Research Proposal

15,609 views
15,288 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
3 Comments
20 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
15,609
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
200
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
538
Comments
3
Likes
20
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Technology Integration Through Teacher Training - Action Research Proposal

    1. 1. Technology Integration Through Teacher Training Marc Stephens University of Phoenix In partial fulfillment of degree requirements for Master of Arts in Education / Curriculum and Instruction - Computer Education Action Research Project Presentation
    2. 2. Setting: Suburban High School <ul><li>Mid-west United States </li></ul><ul><li>Middle-class suburban neighborhood </li></ul><ul><li>Virtual school district recently received federal funding through a NCLB grant for this school to pay for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One laptop per teacher (plus productivity and educational software tools to tie into the school technology network) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A computerized whiteboard system for each classroom </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Classroom computers at the ratio of three students per computer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Upgrades to the school’s computer lab, media library and state-of-the-art TV production studio </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Team/Support staff to help with teacher training, instructional design assistance, and day-to-day maintenance of the equipment. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Subjects are 16 teachers possessing a broad range of technological sophistication and classroom practices. </li></ul>
    3. 3. Needs Assessment: Failure to Integrate <ul><li>The problem is some high school teachers are not implementing technology in a fully integrated manner. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Superficial use, centered on the technology itself </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of technology training and support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing pedagogical beliefs can have both positive and negative effects on integration. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reluctance to undergo pedagogical change can hinder integration. </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Is there really a problem? <ul><li>Many teachers do not use technology in sophisticated ways (Rakes et al, 2006, p. 412). </li></ul><ul><li>Up to 80% of teachers use computer technology less than 50% of the time (Bauer & Kenton, 2005, p. 535). </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher time spent learning a new technology will increase the likelihood of its use in the classroom (Bauer & Kenton, 2005, p. 534). </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers with student-centered pedagogical beliefs are more likely to succeed in technology integration (Levin & Wadmany, 2006, p. 160). </li></ul><ul><li>When the quality of technology integration is not ensured, time spent with technology may do students more harm than good (Lei & Zhao, 2007, Conclusions). </li></ul>
    5. 5. What can we do about it? <ul><li>The goal is to have useful technology fully integrated into the classroom in a manner that enhances learning. </li></ul><ul><li>Determine why some classroom teachers gain benefits from technology while others do not. </li></ul><ul><li>Provide training in technology integration to classroom teachers that can engage the flow of student learning and motivates student achievement. </li></ul><ul><li>Provide opportunities for teachers to grow in knowledge and professional practice. Use technology as a catalyst for change. </li></ul>
    6. 6. Three-fold solution strategy <ul><li>DETAILS framework for individual teacher needs assessment and evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>IMPACT model for technology support staff and training of Technology Mentors </li></ul><ul><li>Technology instruction using the NTeQ Model </li></ul>
    7. 7. DETAILS Framework <ul><li>D etermining E ducational T echnology A nd I nstructional L iteracy S killsets </li></ul><ul><li>Provides three assessment tools that can help evaluate three key factors pointing to how to approach the individual classroom teacher’s technology training: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Level of Technology Implementation (LoTi) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal Computer Use (PCU) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Current Instructional Practices (CIP) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Provides a means of comparison between pre- and post-intervention technology integration levels. </li></ul><ul><li>Research conducted using DETAILS suggests it is a strong, valid assessment tool. </li></ul><ul><li>Information on the DETAILS framework is available at the website: </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.loticonnection.com/DETAILS.html </li></ul>
    8. 8. The IMPACT Model <ul><li>IMPACT: Guidelines for North Carolina Media and Technology Programs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Team </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Facilitator </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Library and Media Coordinator </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Assistant/Technician </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Mentor Classroom Teachers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Works closely with classroom teachers as Technology Mentors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Instruction in how to use the new equipment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assistance designing classroom instruction utilizing the new equipment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>911 when things break down (Technician on-call plus trained student technology aides) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Information on the overall IMPACT model is available at the website: </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.ncwiseowl.org/impact/ </li></ul>
    9. 9. i N tegrating Te chnology for in Q uiry (NTeQ) <ul><li>Technology as medium, not message: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional design model the main focus of which is “to use computer technology to encourage reflection and synthesis of ideas” (Morrison & Lowther, 2005). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tightly integrates technology into the lesson plan where appropriate. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Standards-based: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NTeQ is purposefully mapped to the standards provided by the International Society for Technology in Education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ISTE National Educational Technology Standards for students NETS•S (ISTE, 2007) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Constructivist-based: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This is a potential problem point that should be identified and addressed when it exists. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Unwillingness exists among some teachers to adapt their classroom practices to more fully integrate technology ( Bai & Ertmer, 2008, pp. 94-95). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Since integrating new technology requires exploring new ways of learning, a teacher that is unwilling to modify their classroom methods will experience difficulties in integration. </li></ul></ul></ul>• Further information on the NTeQ model is available at the website: http://nteq.com/
    10. 10. Calendar Plan 3-Week Summer Intensive 4. Whiteboard Basics 5. Word Processor 6. PowerPoint 7. Internet Research 8. Spreadsheet 9. Database 10. Webquests (use) 11. Webquests (design) 12. Wikis 13. Blogging 14. Photoshop/Graphics 15. Google Maps 16. Google Earth and GPS 17. Digital Camera Basics 18. YouTube/Video 19. Educational Software <ul><li>This is an example year-long plan consisting of 16 pairs of weeks plus a 3-week summer intensive before the school year begins (35 weeks total). </li></ul><ul><li>First is the summer intensive , consisting of training in the use of the NTeQ model for new teachers, or training in skills needed to qualify as a Technology Mentor for teachers identified via DETAILS as ready for this responsibility. </li></ul><ul><li>The training then continues throughout the year with a new topic every 2 weeks. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Week A: one-on-one training between teacher and technology mentor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Week B: mentored classroom experience </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The topics should be revised every year to stay apace of the latest changes in technology, and should be viewed as flexible. Use different topics or order as identified by the teacher and mentor. </li></ul>(geared toward particular teacher’s subject area) Sessions
    11. 11. Technology Instruction: Week A <ul><li>Each teacher will meet one-on-one with his or her technology mentor for an hour-long session on alternating weeks. These sessions are to provide the teacher with hands-on instruction in the use of various technologies, and instruction on ways to integrate that technology into the classroom using the NTeQ method. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Instruction informed by the classroom teacher’s DETAILS. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focused on how to use the technology in the teacher’s specific classroom setting. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guided by the NTeQ model. </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Technology Instruction: Week B <ul><li>B. The classroom teacher will conduct a one-hour session on alternating weeks with his or her students, held in the school’s computer lab and media library or other technology facilities, during which the teacher’s technology mentor will provide direct support for the teacher to integrate content from the Internet or other electronic media sources and will assist the teacher in technologically integrated collaborative classroom activities. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Held in the school’s computer lab, media library or video production studio. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The technology mentor provides direct support for the teacher in technologically-integrated classroom activities. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This gives the teacher the ability to receive feedback on instructional practices and integration while working concurrently with both their students and the technology mentor. </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Assessment <ul><li>The DETAILS framework provides an ideal mechanism for evaluating the classroom teachers’ levels of technology integration. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-assessment every 8 weeks. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment completed by Technology Team/Technology Mentor based on observations of the classroom teacher. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All scores added to teacher’s portfolio so that progress over time may be assessed. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Video recording during all Week Bs for the classroom teacher and their Technology mentor to review the teacher’s classroom performance after the session. </li></ul><ul><li>Aggregated progress reports will be provided to all stakeholders each semester. </li></ul>
    14. 14. Underlying Training Principles <ul><li>The technology team’s teacher-educators will follow these six underlying constructivist principles for conducting the technology integration curriculum. </li></ul><ul><li>(Lebow 1993, p. 5-12) </li></ul><ul><li>Acknowledge that change can be challenging and frightens some teachers. </li></ul><ul><li>Some teachers are better prepared for technology integration than others. </li></ul><ul><li>Provide a context for learning that supports both autonomy and relatedness. </li></ul><ul><li>Model technology as the medium for learning another subject, not as the subject of learning itself. </li></ul><ul><li>Support self-regulated learning. </li></ul><ul><li>Strengthen the learner’s tendency to engage intentional learning processes such as exploring errors. </li></ul>“ Tell me and I will forget. Show me and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand.” - Confucius
    15. 15. Recommendations for the future <ul><li>If this research is successful: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implement program in other schools in the district for further investigation into differences between grade levels (grade school, middle school, college level) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Further trials of the intervention design with refinement of the assessment tools and instructional design, informed by this first trial. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Revisit this same group of subjects in the future to search for technological and pedagogical recidivism, and seek feedback from the teachers after they have had the time to live with these technological and pedagogical changes. What is working? What is not? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>If this research is unsuccessful: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Investigate where the process failed and why. </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Feedback time! <ul><li>Thank you for attending this presentation! </li></ul><ul><li>Questions? </li></ul><ul><li>Comments? </li></ul><ul><li>Points of discussion? </li></ul><ul><li>If you feel more comfortable contacting me privately please send email to marque@umich.edu </li></ul>
    17. 17. References 1 of 3 <ul><li>Bai, H., & Ertmer, P. (2008). Teacher Educator's Beliefs and Technology Uses as Predictors of Preservice Teachers Beliefs and Technology Attitudes. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education , 16(1), p93-112. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from EBSCO. </li></ul><ul><li>Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward Technology Integration in the Schools: Why It Isn't Happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education , 13(4), 519-546. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from ProQuest. </li></ul><ul><li>Bradburn, F. B. (2007). A Program With Impact. T H E Journal , 34(1), 55-52. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from EBSCO. </li></ul><ul><li>Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Teachers Construct Constructivism: The Center for Constructivist Teaching/Teacher Preparation Project. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (pp. 263-275). New York, New York: Teachers College Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Glazer, E., & Hannafin, M. (2008). Factors That Influence Mentor and Teacher Interactions During Technology Integration Collaborative Apprenticeships. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education , 16(1), p35-61. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from EBSCO. </li></ul><ul><li>ISTE. (2007). ISTE | National Educational Technology Standards. ISTE Website . Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://www.iste.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=NETS . </li></ul><ul><li>Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What Happens When Teachers Design Educational Technology? The Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal Of Educational Computing Research , 32(2), 131-152. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from EBSCO. </li></ul>
    18. 18. References 2 of 3 <ul><li>Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education , 49(2), 2 84-297. Retrieved from ProQuest. </li></ul><ul><li>Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design: Five Principles Toward a New Mindset. ETR&D , 41(3), 4-16. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from EBSCO. </li></ul><ul><li>Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers' Beliefs and Practices in Technology-based Classrooms: A Developmental View. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 39(2), 157-181. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from ProQuest. </li></ul><ul><li>Lightfoot, J. (2005). Integrating emerging technologies into traditional classrooms: a pedagogic approach. International Journal of Instructional Media , 32(3), 209-225. Retrieved Novem ber 17, 2007, from Thomson Gale. </li></ul><ul><li>Matzen, N., & Edmunds, J. (2007). Technology as a Catalyst for Change: The Role of Professional Development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 39(4), 417-430. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from ProQuest. </li></ul><ul><li>Moersch, C. (2001). Next Steps: Using LoTi as a Research Tool. Learning & Leading with Technology , 29(3), 22-27. Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http:// www.loticonnection.com/articles.html </li></ul><ul><li>Morrison, G., & Lowther, D. (2005b). NTeQ. NTeQ Website . Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://nteq.com/. </li></ul>
    19. 19. References 3 of 3 <ul><li>National Business Education Alliance. (2006). DETAILS Questionnaire. The LoTi Connection . Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://www.loticonnection.com/DETAILS.html </li></ul><ul><li>National Business Education Alliance. (2006). Handout Modules. The LoTi Connection. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://www.loticonnection.com/freehandouts.html </li></ul><ul><li>NC DPI Instructional Technology Division. (2006). IMPACT: Guidelines for North Carolina Media and Technology Programs. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from http://www.ncwiseowl.org/impact/default.htm </li></ul><ul><li>NC DPI Instructional Technology Division. (2006). Technology Facilitator Job Description. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from http://www.ncwiseowl.org/kscope/impact/positions/tech_facilitators.html </li></ul><ul><li>Perkins, D. N. (1992). What Constructivism Demands of the Learner. In T. Duffy & D. Johnassen (Eds.) Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation (pp. 161-165). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. </li></ul><ul><li>Rakes, G., Fields, V., & Cox, K. (2006). The Influence of Teacher's Technology Use on Instructional Practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 38(4), 409-424. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from ProQuest. </li></ul>

    ×