Gerdts master's project

1,413 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,413
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gerdts master's project

  1. 1. Document Camera and Technology Implementation at the Elementary School Level A Field Project Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Education TOURO UNIVERSITY - CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in EDUCATION With Emphasis in Educational Technology By Megan Gerdts December, 2010
  2. 2. Document Camera and Technology Implementation at the Elementary School Level In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE In EDUCATION BY Megan Gerdts TOURO UNIVERSITY – CALIFORNIA December, 2010Under 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
  3. 3. TOURO UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA Graduate School of Education Author ReleaseName: Megan GerdtsThe Touro University California Graduate School of Education has permission to use myMA thesis or field project as an example of acceptable work. This permission includesthe right to duplicate the manuscript as well as permits the document to be checked outfrom the College Library or School website.In addition, I give Dr. Pamela Redmond permission to share my handbook with others viathe Internet.Signature: __________________________________Date: ______________________________________
  4. 4. i AbstractOur lives have been transformed by new technology and it is no surprise that technologyis quickly making its way into the classroom. Teachers are using document cameras,computers, LCD projectors, and digital cameras to teach students. With this influx oftechnology comes of a lack of professional development and training. Many teachers lackthe skills and desire to effectively use technology in preparing and delivering standards-based lessons. An elementary school in northern California purchased document camerasand LCD projectors for all of its teachers. This implementation project provided ahandbook and the staff development required for the staff to successfully use documentcameras in delivering effective, engaging, standards-based lessons.
  5. 5. ii Table of ContentsABSTRACT.............................................................................................................ILIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................IVLIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................IVCHAPTER I.............................................................................................................1Statement of the Problem...............................................................................................................................2Background and Need....................................................................................................................................3Purpose of Project...........................................................................................................................................5Objectives........................................................................................................................................................6Summary.........................................................................................................................................................7CHAPTER II............................................................................................................8Theoretical Rationale...................................................................................................................................11Technology Integration Factors..................................................................................................................15Application to New Technologies................................................................................................................19Technology Implementation in the Current Study....................................................................................21Summary.......................................................................................................................................................22CHAPTER III.........................................................................................................24Background...................................................................................................................................................24Project Components and Design.................................................................................................................25Summary.......................................................................................................................................................30CHAPTER IV........................................................................................................31Project Outcomes ........................................................................................................................................31Timeline and Recommendations for Implementation...............................................................................33Limitations and Further Development.......................................................................................................34
  6. 6. iiiConclusion.....................................................................................................................................................35REFERENCES......................................................................................................36APPENDIX: DOCUMENT CAMERA HANDBOOK.............................................40
  7. 7. iv List of TablesTable 1: Knowledge Building Activity Types...................................................................20 List of FiguresFigure 1: TPACK Context Model......................................................................................12
  8. 8. Chapter I With the 21st century, new technologies emerged for both personal andeducational use. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, adults used to check the mailbox forcorrespondence from a high-school friend; they now check their electronic mail on acellular telephone. Students used to come home from school and play outdoors in the dirtwith neighborhood friends; they now play video and computer games indoors with theirfriends. Teachers used to write on chalkboards and use ditto machines, but are now usingdocument cameras, projectors, and computers as tools in teaching their students. We nowlive in a technology-rich society. As technology rapidly entered our society, it trickled into schools at a slowerpace. As an elementary teacher at a middle-class, suburban elementary school, theresearcher saw the trickle gain momentum as grant money poured into the school’scoffers during the past school year. The principal at the elementary school felt thatdocument cameras and LCD projectors would be the best use of the money. She felt thatthese technologies were something that the majority of teachers would use with propertraining and staff development. Research also supported the idea that students learn morewhen the concepts are presented using appropriate technology (Taylor, Casto & Walls,2007). Pusey, Sadera, and Kenton (2007) found that successful technology integrationincluded coaching and instruction as well as technical support. As the document camerasand projectors arrived at the researcher’s northern California elementary school, the staffwas trained in the basics of using document cameras and LCD projectors. This processwas much less difficult than anticipated. The new technology was met with enthusiasm
  9. 9. 2instead of grumbling. The next step was to do more in-depth training with the staff andintroduce all of the components and functions of the document cameras using modellessons and activities. This project focused on providing teachers with lesson plan ideasthat properly integrated document cameras into the elementary classroom. The stafflearned, by example, how the Internet could enhance their teaching as well. The goals ofthis project were to 1) create a handbook for staff based on researched best practices and2) offer staff development in order to demonstrate the effective integration of thetechnology into the elementary classroom. The principal often told the staff to worksmarter, not harder. Technology, with proper staff development and tools, would help theteachers reach this goal.Statement of the Problem While each teacher had a laptop, LCD projector, and document camera at theelementary school, there was little instruction in how to effectively integrate thetechnology. Up until the time of this project, the only training that the staff receivedcentered on technicalities such as proper cooling of the lamp and dust mitigation.Teachers were exposed to the possibilities of the document cameras, but had no formalinstruction on best practices. Research showed that successful implementation of technology is partiallydetermined by the staff members’ perceptions of the technology itself, their experiencewith computers, and their understanding of the technology coordinator’s job (Mueller,Wood, Willoughby, Ross & Specht, 2008; Pusey, Sadera & Kenton, 2007). In the targetdistrict, the technology coordinator was the liaison between the school site and the
  10. 10. 3district. The coordinator was also responsible for training staff and providing minortechnical support at the school site. The goal of this project was to research best practices for implementation, createand carry out an effective technology implementation plan for document camera use. Theplan included a reference guide as well as trainings that support effective teaching withtechnology.Background and Need While there are many factors that affect the implementation of teaching practicesinvolving technology, a few stood out that impacted the staff at the target elementaryschool. These factors included teachers’ attitudes toward technology, teachers’experience with technology, and the perceptions of the technology coordinator’s role intraining and staff development. Baek, Jung, and Kim (2006) stated that the factor inimplementation that had the biggest impact on teachers’ adoption of technology was theidea that someone in higher authority was requiring it. This implied that many teachersdecide to use technology based on someone telling them that they were required to use it,rather than truly believing that using technology can be an effective method fordelivering curricula (Baek et al., 2006). This attitude toward technology did not fosterpositive outcomes or successful integration. In the two years prior to this study, eachteacher at the target elementary school received a laptop because the district required allattendance be taken online using a new program purchased by the district. Althoughtaking attendance online was a very simple process, it was met with a large amount ofresistance from the staff. There was a large amount of data available to teachers usingthe online program, but many teachers were resistant to the change.
  11. 11. 4 A second factor that affected integration levels was the teachers’ experiences withcomputers (Mueller et al., 2008). Mueller et al. (2008) discovered that the most importantfactor for determining if an elementary school teacher was going to be a high integratorof technology was whether he/she had positive experiences with computers in the past.Although people’s prior experiences with computers could not be changed, it wasimportant to make technology integration a positive experience from that point forward.Age also tended to be a factor – older teachers appeared to integrate technology less thanyounger teachers (Eteokleous, 2007). However, the number of years of teachingexperience seemed to have little impact on technology integration (Mueller et al., 2008).Mueller et al. (2008) suggested that perhaps the newer teachers, who had pre-servicetraining in technology, were busy organizing and managing their classrooms, leavinglittle time for technology integration. For whatever reason, there was room forimprovement. The third factor that worked against the implementation of technology was theteachers’ misunderstanding of the technology coordinator’s role. Many teachers believedthat the coordinator was available only for technical support and did not use him/her as aresource for integration of ideas and lessons. This led to a lack of movement towardintegration because teachers were not pursuing new opportunities or methods with thetechnology coordinator (Pusey et al., 2007). While it appears that there are many factors that work against successfulintegration of technology, the literature provided some clear avenues to explore. Muelleret al. (2008) suggested that there was a need to differentiate professional development,realizing that some people will gain more from it than others. Secondly, teachers needed
  12. 12. 5positive reinforcement to be successful when they practiced using technology. Lastly, asthe hindrances to integration began to crumble, building on the foundation laid should bestarted (Mueller et al., 2007). As we have looked into technology integration, much of the focus has been on theclassroom teacher and what they needed to do. Hew and Brush (2007) suggested thatfuture research focus on variables at the school site or at the district level since mostpolicies and technology-related decisions were made at those levels rather than at theclassroom level. After learning what research-based, effective technology implementation was, itwas clear that the most effective approach was to develop training based on the needs ofeach teacher at the target elementary school. Successful teachers differentiated instructionfor the different learning styles and comprehension levels of their students. This approachwas also used in the staff development. A reference guide for those teachers who haddifficulties remembering steps in a process was incorporated into the project as well.Purpose of Project As technology becomes an integral part of society and education, staffdevelopment must be included on how to best integrate it into classrooms. Technologyoffered so much, yet most teachers were unaware of the great things that could beaccomplished using technology. At the northern California elementary school addressedin this project, teachers were excited about the possibilities with document cameras andprojectors. In order to properly train and meet the needs of all teachers, the technologycoordinator, who was also the researcher for this project, implemented and carried out an
  13. 13. 6integration plan. The purpose of this plan was to educate the staff on proper integrationof document cameras as well as to introduce best practices in effectively teaching usingtechnology. Educational websites were visited and the staff discussed their benefits anduses in the classroom. Teachers left the training with a reference handbook with specificactivities that could be used to integrate their document camera.Objectives In order for staff to learn how to integrate technology properly, they must learnbest practices as they relate to the specific technology being used. This project had twocomponents 1) create a reference manual for staff and 2) create professional developmentin technology use with ongoing workshops to relate to specific topics or needs of thestaff. It was hoped that the reference manual would be a fast way for teachers toremember how to set up specific lessons and that it would act as a quick reference since itlisted websites that were useful for elementary teachers.Long term goals for the project: • Staff will know how to use the technologies available at their site. • Staff will integrate technology into lessons plans as it is appropriate. • Students will be exposed to more technology-enriched lessons and learn content more efficiently. • Staff will use the technology coordinator as a resource for both integration questions and technological support.
  14. 14. 7Summary A northern California elementary school purchased document cameras andprojectors for each of their teachers. With positive perceptions about the technology, thestaff was eager to learn how to use the new technology. Knowing that the staff’s previousexperience and perceptions about technology determined how willing they were tointegrate technology, the researcher approached staff development taking these factorsinto account. It was also important that the teachers understand the role of the technologycoordinator. The technology coordinator’s role was important in both solving problemsand helping staff members with areas and concepts that were troublesome. The stafflearned how to properly integrate the technology and benefitted from model lesson plansthat used document cameras. This project helped accomplish the goal of training teachersin research-based techniques for technology integration and provided a handbook withlesson plan ideas that integrated document cameras.
  15. 15. 8 Chapter II In 2010, youth have an increasing knowledge of technology that far surpassespeople in older generations. According to the Pew Charitable Trust (2010), thisgeneration, the Millennials, are more ethnically diverse, less religious, more educated,and extremely tech savvy. Three-quarters of this generation have created a profile andinteracted on a social-networking website and 20% have posted a video of themselvesonline. While the majority of Millennials have cell phones, 88% of them use theirphones daily to text and 62% use wireless connections to access the internet while awayfrom home. Compared to Generation X, those whom are one generation older, twice asmany Millennials feel that technology is what defines their generation. While many students use technology with ease, our public education system lagsfar behind in effectively educating today’s youth. Prensky (2001) coined the term digitalnatives for the students of today who are well versed in the language and processessurrounding video games, computers, and the internet. Conversely, people who were bornprior to this generation are digital immigrants. Digital immigrants are in a constant stateof learning the language of technology and growing up with little technology impacts theway that these people operate in a technology-rich world. Digital immigrants havelearned how to use some technologies. The way in which they process and solveproblems is very different from a digital native. For example, if a person needed to getthe phone number of a restaurant and make reservations, the digital immigrant would findthe phone number in a phone book and call to make reservations. In contrast, the digitalnative might look on the internet for the phone number and possibly make reservationsonline. It is very apparent that the two approaches are not right and wrong, but rather are
  16. 16. 9provocative in how they describe two generations’ approach to a task based on theirexperiences with technology (Prensky, 2001). Similarly, the technology gap between teachers (digital immigrants) and students(digital natives) affects the efficiency and effectiveness of the lessons delivered in theclassroom. Prensky (2001) examined the digital natives and concluded that they were ageneration that was used to multi-tasking, quick answers, instant gratification, andworked best when with other people. This begs the question, how do students learn in our21st century public educational system in which teachers who are digital immigrantsattempt to teach a generation of digital natives. Both speak different languages and havedrastically different methods for learning. Prensky (2001) suggested that teachers and school districts need to address theirmethodology and content. Using the pedagogy, or science of teaching, presented in theTechnological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model, Mishra and Koehler(2006) addressed the issues of integrating content, pedagogy, and technology. Theyadvocated that, in addition to teaching reading, writing, and math, educators needed toaddress the technology and issues surrounding technology. Educators must teachstudents how to use software, hardware, etc. However, they also must include the ethics,issues, and politics associated with technology. Harper (2003) stated that in order toaddress the “digital divide”, school districts and teacher preparation programs mustaddress the social, cognitive, and communication barriers that exist as well. In order to begin the process of closing the digital divide, it was imperative thatteachers look at their own teaching, pedagogy, and content knowledge as it relates totechnology. All teachers have experiences with technology that affect how fully they
  17. 17. 10implement it in their classroom. There are external factors that influenced how welltechnology was integrated and used in the classroom. These factors included theavailability of technology, support from administration, and training (Baek, Jung, & Kim,2006). Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) studies regarding technological, pedagogical, andcontent knowledge (TPACK) provided clear findings that proper implementation hadspecific characteristics. The teacher must have content, pedagogical, and technologicalknowledge. In addition, teachers must also be able to learn and implement areas ofcombined knowledge such as content-technological or pedagogical-content knowledge.Using this model and Harris and Hofer’s (2009) research on activity types, teachers couldcreate activities using technology that take into account the context of the standards beingtaught. Mayer’s (2003) work with learning had many suggestions for how teachers canpresent media to maximize learning. Mayer and Moreno (2003) presented ways to reducethe cognitive load in multimedia learning. The idea of cognitive load suggested thatpeople can only take in and process a limited amount of information. People take ininformation pictorially (images and text) and verbally (sounds and voices). Thisinformation is then processed by the brain. The brain could process a limited amount ofinformation at one time. Using their research, it was important for teachers to planlessons so that images and text are presented separately. By presenting limited text andimages separately, the brain is not overloaded on the amount of information that it canprocess and learning takes place.
  18. 18. 11 Harris and Hofer (2009) based their work on the TPACK model. Their researchdemonstrated that there were specific technologies and activities that worked best whenpresenting concepts in a specific content area.Theoretical Rationale In order for educators to begin to bridge the technology gap between themselvesand their students, they first had to acknowledge that technology is advancing in all partsof our society and that there is a generational divide between students and teachers(Watson, 2006). Training teachers in technology goes back many years to a time whenteachers took courses in “visual instruction” during the 1920s (Betrus & Molenda, 2002).As these courses evolved, teacher preparation programs began offering classes on thehistory of visual instruction and the psychology of visual learning. As audio recordingbecame available in the 40s, instructors incorporated it into these visual instructioncourses. Computers began to make their way into classrooms in the 1980s and 1990s.Students began to use computers in the classroom and teacher preparation programsbegan offering more courses in technology (Betrus et al., 2002). As technology evolved,so have the teacher preparation programs; however, there still exists a large gap betweenusing technology in the classroom and effectively integrating technology to increasestudent engagement and knowledge. Early in the 21st century, researchers Mishra and Koehler (2006) didgroundbreaking research that paved the way for a model of effective technologyintegration. They took Lee Shulman’s (1986) research on pedagogy and contentknowledge and extended it to include technology. Their studies established that teachers
  19. 19. 12must have specific knowledge about technology, pedagogy, and content. Where theseknowledge areas meet was a new area of knowledge that teachers must learn.Figure 1. TPACK Context ModelSource: http://tpack.org/Figure 1 demonstrates that where content knowledge and technological knowledge met, anew kind of knowledge was created called technological content knowledge. Anexample of technological content knowledge could consist of combining the contentknowledge of a social studies lesson on the causes of the Revolutionary War and thetechnological knowledge of using technology to create an interactive timeline and lessonabout the causes of the Revolutionary War. Teaching only the content required differentknowledge than teaching the content in the context of technology. Although, TPACKwas not a prescription for how educators should be trained to teach, it was a model bywhich educators could understand their own knowledge and better prepare themselves forteaching effectively with technology. In the TPACK model, each knowledge area
  20. 20. 13covered specific topics and concepts that must be understood in isolation before they arecombined. Content Knowledge. Content knowledge is the information, ideas, hypotheses,and procedures within a given subject area. It is the knowledge specifically needed toteach a subject. The content knowledge in a middle school art class is very different fromthe content knowledge needed to teach a high school math course. Understandingcontent knowledge includes the ability to compare and contrast different subject areasand determine if they have anything in common (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Pedagogical Knowledge. This kind of knowledge involves an understanding ofhow people learn. Someone with deep pedagogical knowledge would thoroughlyunderstand how people construct knowledge, obtain skills, and create positive habits andattitudes in their learning. Pedagogical knowledge requires an understanding of theoriesand how these theories apply to students in a classroom (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Technological Knowledge. Technological knowledge is knowledge abouttechnologies including books, magazines, and whiteboards, as well as more advancedtechnologies such as digital videos and document cameras. This involves the knowledgeneeded to operate the technology as well as use multiple technologies together.Technological knowledge encompasses familiarity with computer hardware as well assoftware programs. Since the technology available is always changing, someone withtechnological knowledge must be able to move with the changes and adapt oldknowledge to learn new technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Shulman’s (1986) research on content and pedagogical knowledge is what Mishraand Koehler used when they started their research on TPACK. Shulman’s idea about
  21. 21. 14pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was important in conveying the concept of a newknowledge area where two areas met. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). This area of knowledge includesunderstanding pedagogy well enough to determine what type of lesson will teach thecontent most effectively. It also includes knowledge of students’ backgrounds in thecontent area as well as an understanding of what makes concepts easy or difficult tolearn. Using PCK is what makes up the art of teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Technological Content Knowledge (TCK). The relationship betweentechnology and content knowledge is always changing, however this type of knowledgeis demonstrated when a teacher uses a specific technology to teach content. Teachersmust know the content, but also how to use the technology in the context of theclassroom in order for all students to learn. Many software programs change the way thatcontent is presented such as in a game format or virtual manipulation of shapes in ageometry lesson. Some of these programs offer students the opportunity to constructknowledge somewhat passively, while they “play” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). The knowledge of whattechnologies exist, how to use them, and understanding that teaching may change as aresult of using specific technologies are all aspects of TPK. In addition, this knowledgearea includes an understanding of pedagogical strategies and the ability to apply thosestrategies to different technologies (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK or TPACK). This isthe newest area of knowledge that extends beyond the three knowledge elements.TPACK is the foundation on which solid teaching with technology occurs. This model of
  22. 22. 15technology integration requires a person to be thoughtful in how they intertwine the threecore knowledge areas. A superb technology integrator is one who has a firm grasp on thecontent and pedagogy and is able to select the appropriate technology to deliver aneffective lesson. Successful integration balances these three components. Lessons aretaught in a specific context. It is very important to be aware of the context because it willchange as the content and students change (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In the following sections, the hindrances and affordances of integration areexplored as well as the application of TPACK in training teachers.Technology Integration Factors Taylor, Casto, and Walls (2004) found that students who learned subject matterwith effectively integrated technology, gained more knowledge than students wholearned the same information without technology. In order for technology to beimplemented and used effectively, teachers need training in how to do this. Manyvariables determine whether a teacher will fully integrate computers or not. These factorsincluded: (a) positive teaching experiences with technology; (b) teacher’s comfort withcomputers; (c) beliefs supporting the use of computers as an instructional tool; (d)training and support; (e) motivation; (f) and teaching efficacy (Mueller et al., 2008).Baek, Jung, and Kim (2008) found that many of the factors that affected implementationwere external and based on others’ requests or perceived need for technology. Theirresearch also suggested that teachers with more experience were less likely to beginimplementing technology in their classrooms while new teachers were more motivated touse it willingly.
  23. 23. 16 Based on the TPACK model and the findings of Baek et al. (2008) and Taylor etal. (2004), a conclusion might be drawn that teachers’ willingness to integrate technologyis somewhat based on their training and comfort with technology. Teachers can betrained well in content and pedagogy, but despite training in technology as a requirementin teacher credentialing programs, much of the learning is techno-centric or focusedsolely on the technology. This training does not include hands-on application of content,pedagogy, and technology as suggested in TPACK. Preparing teachers to use theTPACK model must include the application of the three knowledge areas and time to besuccessful in using technology. Mueller et al. (2008) found that teachers’ positiveexperiences with computer technology were the greatest contributor to successfulintegration. They proposed that perhaps these positive experiences boosted teachers’confidence in using technology. They also indicated that teachers needed to see thattechnology had the potential to improve learning before they became willing to use it intheir classroom. This finding demonstrated the importance of professional developmentthat is teacher-focused and based on pedagogy that is applicable to the content focus.Teachers need to see how to integrate technology effectively as well as be convinced thattechnology works. Addressing these integration factors in teacher trainings and preparation programsis important. However, there are many teachers who received little or no technologytraining when they were in a teacher licensure program. This lack of prior educationforces school districts to be responsible for training their teachers to be effectiveintegrators.
  24. 24. 17 In order for teachers to integrate technology, there needed to be training standardsand professional development guidelines (Pittman, 1999). Before the Department ofEducation (DOE) adopted national standards in 2007, prominent organizations in theeducational technology field began putting forth recommendations for what best practicesand models should be addressed. Mishra and Koehler (2006) stated that teachers neededto learn not only the basics of software and hardware, but needed a deep understanding ofthe technology available. This deep understanding allowed teachers to be flexible andteachable through the many changes and enhancements that happen over time. Inaddition to a deep understanding, Mishra and Koehler found it was important for teachersto appreciate the interrelationships that exist between the technology, tools, users, andmethods. This was a very fluid and ever-changing interaction. For teachers to besuccessful in integrating and using technology, they had to be able to appreciate it and bewilling to learn new things and apply their knowledge to new situations. The DOEstandards that were adopted in 2007 addressed performance indicators for students,teachers, and administrators. Each set of standards also addressed not only the use oftechnology, but also how to be a digital citizen and grow in your knowledge oftechnological issues. Mishra and Koehler (2003) suggested that, during training sessions, teachers workin groups and learn by solving an educational issue using technology. With this method,teachers had a lower affective filter because they were working in a group and couldmove at their own pace. Since they used technology to solve a problem that the trainerposed, teachers learned what it was like to be on the student side of learning. In general,they focused more on solving the problem and less on learning the technology. In other
  25. 25. 18words, technology was being taught implicitly, not explicitly. This model of learningsupported the idea that Young (2003) proposed. Young studied different computer-basedlearning environments. The research findings suggested a model in which studentslearned from computers not with computers. This meant that students, aided by acomputer, actively constructed knowledge within a specific context. In contrast toinstructor-led learning, the teachers in this class used a broader range of technologies tosolve the problem, hence giving students experience with a larger number of programsand platforms. Brown and Warschauer (2006) studied the teacher preparation programs. Theirresearch found that most programs and field placements fell short. Students reported thatthey were too busy with other classes to focus and learn what they needed to for thetechnology classes. The same trend was found during student teaching placements.Student teachers were overwhelmed with class work and found it difficult to integratecomputers, so many chose not to use them. As Mishra and Koehler (2005) found, theteacher preparation courses focused on mastering hardware and software functions, ratherthan tasks that could be used for integrating technology. Brown and Warschauer (2006)believed that infusing technology into the methods courses would provide a context and acollaborative learning environment by which teachers would learn technology andcontent more effectively. They also believed that teacher-education faculty needed tomodel the use of effective technology integration. Once teachers completed thepreparation program, Brown and Warschauer (2006) suggested that teachers be placedwith a technologically proficient mentor. This person would be a role model as well asbe able to provide information and suggestions for successfully integrating technology.
  26. 26. 19Application to New Technologies Teachers need specific contextual examples of how to integrate technology.Clemmons & Hayn (2009) focused on the interactive aspect of document cameras andgave many examples of ways to integrate document cameras into curriculum. Theirresearch focused on effective integration supported Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) researchdemonstrating that context along with technology is a new area of teacher knowledge.Using the context of a content-specific lesson, Clemmons and Hayn (2009) gave teachersan opportunity to use technology successfully. Harris and Hofer’s (2009) extensive work with activity types, specific kinds oflessons that worked well with certain technologies, demonstrated that lesson design isparamount in effectively using technology and training teachers to integrate technology.Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) gave extensive examples of technologies that werecompatible with specific activities. Suppose a teacher wanted students to create anarrative writing about an event in the past. The technologies that were found to be mostcompatible with that activity were word processors and concept mapping software.Although Harris and Hofer’s research was not a prescribed set of parameters forintegration, they created a very user friendly model. Table 1 identifies many activity choices for knowledge-based activities within thecontext of social studies curriculum. It demonstrates that if a teacher wanted students tolisten to a radio broadcast and learn about a historical event, the compatible technologymay include MP3 files, podcasts, CDs, and radio. Using this table, teachers candetermine quickly what kind of technology would be best for a specific activity.
  27. 27. 20Table 1.Knowledge Building Activity TypesSource: Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2009, February). Social studies learning activity types.Retrieved from College of William and Mary, School of Education, Learning ActivityTypes Wiki:http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/SocialStudiesLearningATs-Feb09.pdf
  28. 28. 21Technology Implementation in the Current Study Based on the research, it became clear that technology implementation was not ashort, easy process. Teachers’ prior knowledge, attitudes, and experiences must be aconsideration when developing an implementation plan. Mayer (2003) researched design methods across different media and found thatstudents gained a deep understanding of the content and material regardless of the mediaused. This research was important to implementation because it demonstrated that therewere many different types of media available. As long as the instructional design wassound, students learned the material with significant depth whether it was using text andillustrations or narration and animation (Mayer, 2003). Sound instructional design is rooted in the concepts presented in Mayer’s (2003)cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML). This theory focused on the idea thatmultimedia instructional messages designed in light of how the human mind works aregoing to be more understandable than ones that are not (Mayer, 2003). His theory oflearning stated that a person has two channels through which information enters the brainand there is a limit as to how much the brain can process. Mayer found that people learnmore effectively if pictures and printed words are presented separately rather thansimultaneously. There appeared to be a limit to the amount of information a person canprocess visually, so it may be beneficial to see pictures and hear narration, rather than seewords and pictures together. Pairing Mayer’s (2003) CTML with Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) theoryregarding knowledge, one could create an implementation plan that successfully mergesvisual and auditory concepts with content, knowledge, and technology. Although Mishra
  29. 29. 22and Koehler didn’t explicitly discuss document cameras, or document readers, as a formof visual technology, this technology has been used in schools as a visual media alongwith auditory components. Visual media such as digital photos, video, and documentcameras are being used in classrooms with little training in effective integration.Summary Technology evolves daily and with those changes comes a need for teachertraining. Teachers not only need to know the content and pedagogy behind the standardsthat they teach, but also should be able to select appropriate technologies to use. Mishraand Koehler’s (2006) research on knowledge led to the creation of the technological,pedagogical, and content knowledge framework for multimedia instruction. Using thisresearch with Harris and Hofer’s (2009) work on activity types, the researcher created animplementation plan for using document cameras at an elementary school. Applying theTPACK and activity type theories to document cameras was a natural step forward sincedocument cameras contain much of the same technology as computers, digital cameras,and digital video recorders. This study proposed to use the research to create an implementation plan fordocument cameras based on the findings of Harris and Hofer (2009), Mishra and Koehler(2006), and Mayer (2003). Document cameras are a digital projector that allows the userto project an image of an item or document onto a screen. Document cameras are usefulwith microscopes, as a digital camera, and as an interactive tool. At the time of thiswriting the research on document camera use was very limited. However, studies onvisual media and technology integration were applied easily to the goals of this project.Using this research, an implementation plan that included Harris and Hofer’s activity
  30. 30. 23types and examples of successful lessons using TPACK was created for an elementaryschool that recently purchased document cameras.
  31. 31. 24 Chapter III Technology is here to stay. Many school districts have embraced it and when thefinances are available, teachers use amazing technologies such as LCD projectors,document cameras, interactive whiteboards, laptops, and much more. With each of thesetechnologies comes a new skill set requirement for teachers – not only the ability to usethe technology, but also the ability to integrate each technology with pedagogy andcontent in the creation of a lesson plan (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In the target schooldistrict of this study, effective integration was essential in order to maximize the learningpotential of the students. Unfortunately, due to the cost of teacher trainings, mosttechnology was given to teachers with little training in how to use it to engage studentsand encourage them to learn. Often times, teachers were left to figure out how to use andintegrate the technology with little support from district staff development trainings.Background This project started as a way to fill the implementation and staff development gapthat existed at a suburban elementary school. As the teachers received document camerasand LCD projectors, there were very few resources available for teachers to learn moreabout using the document cameras in the classroom. It became apparent that manyteachers were using the document camera as a glorified overhead projector. Teachersdidn’t know how to use it in ways that were more engaging and student focused. Taylor,Casto, and Walls (2007) found that students who learned subject matter with effectivelyintegrated technology, gained more knowledge than students who learned the sameinformation without technology. In order for technology to be implemented and usedeffectively, teachers needed training in how to do this.
  32. 32. 25 About the time that the document cameras arrived, the staff at many of the districtelementary schools had attended trainings centered on the subject of student engagement.In years past, the district had paid for different professionals to train teachers inengagement strategies. When the district could no longer afford to pay professionals totrain teachers, it fell on the principals to encourage teachers to continue using thestrategies that they had been taught. Some of the principals got together and created aconcise reference of engagement activities to use in the classroom. It offered a name foreach activity, as well as a very brief description of how to carry it out. Many of theteachers felt that this was a useful tool to pick up and use. It was a tool that most teachersembraced. As this project evolved, it was apparent that the teachers needed somethingtangible to refer to when planning lessons that involved technology. The handbook thathad been given to them with ideas for engagement strategies was easy-to-use, concise,and non-threatening. After observing how teachers appreciated and used that handbook,the researcher decided that the handbook for document cameras had to be similar. Itneeded to be something that teachers would find helpful, useful, and encouraging. In thepast, some of the teachers were very hesitant to use technology, so this handbook neededto be easy to use.Project Components and Design The two objectives of this project were to 1) create a handbook that offeredactivity suggestions for how to effectively integrate a document camera as well as someuseful internet resources and 2) plan staff development trainings that addressed the use ofthe document camera.
  33. 33. 26 The research demonstrated the importance of teacher-centered staff development.All teachers had experiences with technology that affected how fully they implemented itin their classroom. In addition, there were external factors that influenced how welltechnology was integrated and put to use in the classroom. These factors included theavailability of technology, support from administration, and training (Baek, Jung, & Kim,2008). Using Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) studies regarding technological, pedagogical,and content knowledge (TPACK), it was clear that proper implementation had specificcharacteristics. The teacher had to have content, pedagogical, and technologicalknowledge. In addition, teachers had to be able to learn and implement areas ofcombined knowledge such as content-technological or pedagogical-content knowledge.Using the TPACK model and Harris and Hofer’s (2009) research on activity types, thelesson design needed to be focused on the concept that certain technologies are betterthan others in delivering content in a certain context. After reading the TPACK model, the researcher learned that Mishra andKoehler’s (2009) lesson planning strategy followed a model with a specific sequence.Mishra and Koehler suggested that teachers first choose the technology that they desire touse. After that was determined, then the teacher decided what content should be taught.This seemed appropriate for this project, since this project was focused on documentcameras and appropriate implementation of that specific technology. The design of the handbook using TPACK as a basis for planning lessons,however, the work of Judi Harris and Mark Hofer (2009) was very concise and based onthe TPACK model. As their activity-types were reviewed, they appeared to be a veryimportant concept that should be included in the handbook. Harris and Hofer’s table of
  34. 34. 27activity types was concise and seemed to be most appropriate for the purpose of thisproject. At this point in the handbook preparation, the researcher was certain that thehandbook would be created quickly. The outline for the handbook included the TPACKmodel and the activity-type tables created by Harris and Hofer. The tables were to bemodified to include information specific to document cameras. The research all pointedin one direction – until the discovery of Harris and Hofer’s (2009) approach to lessonplanning. Their research and planning model was set up so that the teacher first choosesthe content that he/she wants to teach, and then chooses the technology that would bestdeliver the content within the parameters of solid pedagogy. This planning approach,though it was the opposite of Mishra and Koehler’s (2009), seemed plausible because ateacher had to know what subject area he/she was going to teach before beginning toplan. The dichotomy between Harris and Hofer (2006) and Mishra and Koehler’s(2009) planning approaches caused the handbook creation to come to a halt. Theteachers at this suburban elementary school knew nothing of Mishra and Koehler orHarris and Hofer – yet the researcher felt tremendous responsibility to represent each ofthe planning approaches accurately and, ultimately, present the best method for planning.After more reading and discussion with colleagues and advisors, the researcherdetermined that perhaps both sets of researchers could be correct in their planningmethods. At some point, teachers had to plan in the way that is most comfortable forthem and made the most sense for the content being taught. Some teachers would alwaysplan lessons like Mishra and Koehler suggested, using the document camera, and then
  35. 35. 28selecting the content. Other teachers were more comfortable first selecting the content,then the technology that worked best with whichever standards were chosen as Harris andHofer suggested. This project was designed to take advantage of both approaches and not to be aproponent of one or the other. It was determined that Harris and Hofer’s (2009) tableswould be ideal for the handbook. The tables had excellent activities that included the useof document cameras. The outline that was created for the document camera handbookincluded modifying the tables to fit the purpose of this project. Out of respect for Harrisand Hofer and their work, the researcher wanted to gain permission from them to usetheir tables. Their Creative Commons Licensing does not allow for anything to bederived from, added to, or taken away from Harris and Hofer’s work. Some of thewording in the license was unclear, but after Harris clarified that portion, the tablescouldn’t be used in this project without modifying them. While they were a usefulresource, the licensing agreement prohibited anything to be derived from the material.Permission was obtained to put the tables in the Appendix as they were published withcredit being given to Harris and Hofer for their work. The target school district had recently published an engagement strategies bookletthat had easy to reference tables of activities. It seemed that a similar table would behelpful. The formatting of the table for this project was difficult. The researcher wantedthe table to be relevant, research based, and easy to use – yet needed to follow the termsof Creative Commons Licensing. With input from colleagues, four categories ofactivities were selected: direction instruction, assessment, inquiry, and problem basedactivities. While there was overlap in some of the areas, teachers were able to get solid
  36. 36. 29ideas in how to use their document cameras. Harris and Hofer (2009) suggested thatactivities and the technologies used would differ depending on the content. For thisproject, the researcher chose to create activities for the science content area. Planning staff development was an important part of this project. Staffdevelopment was an essential element in teachers integrating technology effectively.Based on the TPACK model and the findings of Baek, Jung & Kim (2008) and Taylor,Casto &Walls (2007), a conclusion was drawn that teachers’ willingness to integratetechnology was somewhat based on their training and comfort with technology. Itappeared that teachers are trained well in content and pedagogy. Preparing teachers usingthe TPACK model included both the application of the three knowledge areas and time tobe successful in using technology. Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross & Specht (2008)found that teachers’ positive experiences with computer technology were the greatestcontributor to integration. They proposed that perhaps these positive experiences boostedteachers’ confidence in using technology. Using these models, the trainings were to beactivity-based and specific to a particular content area. By modeling how to use thedocument camera and specific web-sites, teachers would have to opportunity to see thatusing document cameras was easy and effective. Due to the timing in the school year in which this project was completed, thetraining portion of this project could not be developed or implemented. During eachupcoming staff development session, the researcher will model three or more of theactivities presented in the handbook. There will also be time for teachers to ask questionsand get trouble-shooting help as needed. The researcher plans to utilize the websites thatappeared in the handbook as well. Many of these websites offered teaching strategies
  37. 37. 30and ideas for using technology. This process will span the course of a few months tomaintain a low-affective filter and the enthusiasm that teachers currently have fordocument cameras.Summary Using the design principles set forth by Harris and Hofer (2009), and Mishra andKoehler (2006), this project created a handbook that allowed teachers easy access tocontent-based activities using a document camera. The receipt of technology wasexciting for the staff, however, the teachers needed guidance in how to use it. Thisproject planned staff development and offered suggestions in how to successfullyintegrate document cameras. The focus on this project was the creation of a handbook toaid teachers in using document cameras. With an easy-to-use, concise manual, teacherswere able to reference activities based on student learning objectives.
  38. 38. 31 Chapter IV Document camera technology transformed the way that students learned andteachers presented lessons. When document cameras arrived at the northern Californiaelementary school in this study, there was an immediate need for staff development inproper implementation of the technology. Unfortunately, each document camera camewith merely an instruction manual for basic functions, but nothing was included thatwould give teachers support in how to implement the technology effectively. Prior to receiving the document cameras, the staff received training onengagement strategies accompanied by a booklet with useful engagement strategies set ina concise and easy-to-use format. After observing the enthusiasm over the engagementstrategies booklet, this project was conceived to create a research-based handbook withactivity and lesson plan suggestions for using a document camera as a useful resource forthe teachers. That handbook became the starting point for this implementation project.The overall goal of this project was to create resources to support teachers to developtheir own lessons that implement the use of document cameras to support studentlearning.Project Outcomes Two objectives were set to meet the goal of this project 1) create a handbook thatoffered activity suggestions for how to effectively integrate a document camera as well asuseful internet resources and 2) plan staff development involving the document cameraand useful websites. The handbook portion of this project required both research and format decisions.Teachers needed materials that were concise and easy to use. The aforementioned
  39. 39. 32engagement strategies handbook was well received and provided a simple table ofstrategies with the name of each and a short description of how to carry it out. Thisbecame the model for the product (see Appendix) in this study. It was hoped that thishandbook would be received with the same level of enthusiasm by the teachers. In 2009,Harris and Hofer’s research on lesson planning and activity types provided much neededinsight into a way to manage and organize the many activities in which technology can beintegrated. Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) gave extensive examples of technologiesthat were compatible with specific activities. Suppose a teacher wanted students to createa narrative writing about a past event. The technologies that Harris and Hofer found tobe most compatible with that activity were word processors and concept mappingsoftware. Although Harris and Hofer’s research does not prescribe a set of parametersfor integration, they created a very user-friendly model. The staff at the target elementary school had basic knowledge of how a documentcamera functions. However, there was knowledge required beyond simply knowing howthe technology worked. A teacher had to know how to successfully integrate technologyto maximize the effectiveness of the lessons presented. In 2006, Mishra and Koehler’sresearch on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) gave a model thatasked teachers to use their knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technology whendesigning student learning opportunities. This model of technology integration required ateacher to be thoughtful in how they intertwined the three core knowledge areas. Asuperb technology integrator was one who had a firm grasp on the content and pedagogyand was able to select the appropriate technology to foster student learning. Successful
  40. 40. 33integration balanced the three components of technology, content, and pedagogy (Mishra& Koehler, 2006). Similarly, staff development must be centered on the three knowledge areas(pedagogy, content, and technology) and acknowledge the needs and experiences of theteachers being trained. All teachers have had experiences that impact their willingnessand ability to integrate technology. These factors included: a) positive teaching experiences with technology b) teacher’s comfort with computers c) beliefs supporting the use of computers as an instructional tool d) training and support e) motivation f) teaching efficacy (Mueller et al., 2008). The researcher planned to focus on two to three of the activities listed in theAppendix during each staff development session.Timeline and Recommendations for Implementation This project was created and planned to be executed over an entire school year.The intended timeline was to have teachers receive the handbook and simple instructionsat the beginning of the school year. In the 2011-2012 school year, this project will befield tested at the target elementary school. During successive staff developmentmeetings, the researcher will present two to three lessons and activities from thehandbook. By modeling the activities, teachers will have the opportunity to ask questionsand collaborate with colleagues prior to actually trying the activities in their ownclassroom.
  41. 41. 34 The handbook contains specific activities that were developed on the TPACKframework. When implementing staff development, the trainer must first consider theaudience, their experiences, and their technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge.Keeping in mind the research by Mueller et al. (2008), we know that teacher’s technologyintegration depends on the following factors: (a) positive teaching experiences withtechnology; (b) teacher’s comfort with computers; (c) beliefs supporting the use ofcomputers as an instructional tool; (d) training and support; (e) motivation; (f) andteaching efficacy. Using what is known about the teachers at the target elementaryschool, the researcher will focus training on the needs of the teachers in an environmentthat is supportive, encouraging, and relaxed. Some teachers are very comfortable withtechnology and will be able to take the handbook and use it without any problems. Otherteachers will need more one on one training with modeling of specific actions andactivities.Limitations and Further Development One unavoidable limitation of this project was presented by the timing of theschool year in which the project was developed. The fall trimester did not allow for thestaff development time to be set aside in order for the handbook to be disseminated andprofessional development implemented. Due to the timing in the school year when thisproject was developed, the researcher has yet to carry out the staff development portionof this project. The staff development portion of the project is paramount to the successof implementation. Ultimately, when teachers are comfortable with the idea, it would benefit staff tohave an interactive website where teachers can post their lesson ideas as well as feedback
  42. 42. 35on lessons that have already been taught. This forum would be a useful way for everyoneto grow professionally and provide a place for educators to share lesson plans, expresstheir frustrations, and share successes.Conclusion This project grew out of a desire for the researcher’s colleagues to be excited andwilling to jump into technology despite their hesitancy with the proverbial “unknown”.Throughout the course of this project, the researcher learned how to approach staffdevelopment and how to be effective in teaching the staff. The handbook required moreresearch than what was originally expected, but the outcome provided solid lesson planideas that were research-based. The researcher looks forward to introducing the staff tothe work of Harris and Hofer (2009) as well as the research done by Mishra and Koehler(2006).
  43. 43. 36 ReferencesBaek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting the facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Computers and Education, 50(1), 224-234.Betrus, A., & Molenda, M. (2002). Historical evolution of instructional technology in teacher education programs. TechTrends, 46(5), 18-33.Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599-621.Clemmons, K. & Hayn, J. (2009). Why we can’t live without our document cameras: Effective classroom strategies to integrate technology and interactive instruction. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 2492-2496). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Eteokleous, N. (2008). Evaluating computer technology integration in a centralized school system. Computers and Education, 51(2), 669-686.Harper, V. (2003). The digital divide (DD): A reconceptualization for educators. AACE Journal, 11(1), 96-103. Norfolk, VA: AACE.Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE).
  44. 44. 37Harris, J., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.Hew, K., Brush, T. (2006). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology Research Development, 55(3), 223-252.Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6Mayer, R., Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.Mayer, R. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. (2003). Not “what” but “how”: Becoming design-wise about educational technology. In Zhao, Y. (Ed.), What should teachers know about technology: Perspectives and practices (pp. 99-122). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-102.Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  45. 45. 38Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning and Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18.Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., Specht, J. (2008). Indentifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1523-1537.Pew Charitable Trust. (2010). Millenials: Confident. Connected. Open to change (Kohut, A., Taylor, P., Keeter, S., Parker, K., Morin, R., Cohn, D., Lopez, M., Smith, G., Fry, R., Wang, W., Christian, L., Pond, A., Clement, S., Eds.). Retrieved from http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/millennials-confident- connected-open-to-change.pdfPittman, J. (1999). The need for training standards in new technologies for inservice teachers. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 578-584). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.Pusey, P., Sadera, W. & Kenton, J. (2007). The Technology Coordinator: An Analysis of the Interactions and Perceptions that Influence Effectiveness. In R. Carlsen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 1660-1663). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Schulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  46. 46. 39Taylor, L., Casto, D., Walls, R. (2007). Learning with versus without technology in elementary and secondary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 798-811.Watson, G. (2006). Technology Professional Development: Long-Term Effects on Teacher Self-Efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 151-166. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Young, L. (2003). Bridging theory and practice: Developing guidelines to facilitate the design of computer-based learning environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(3). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/viewArticle/90/84
  47. 47. 40Appendix: Document Camera Handbook

×