Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014

1,056

Published on

A small minority become 21st century teachers with learner-centered classrooms. This study examines 7 of those teachers and their perceptions of development, coming from 4 ubiquitous computing schools …

A small minority become 21st century teachers with learner-centered classrooms. This study examines 7 of those teachers and their perceptions of development, coming from 4 ubiquitous computing schools with SES differences. Using findings, participants better understand innovative teacher needs and envisage further work on teacher development.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,056
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • http://ramawtar.deviantart.com/art/Web-development-image-350076326
  • Any stats on this?
  • World change
  • “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” Albert Eistein
  • Kids in rows & modern image - AddSwitch to Wordhttp://focus.mnsun.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ch_fr04SCnorthpark-ORIG.jpg
  • Take notes in word
  • There are stages that people move through & there are things that help people move through the Stages – Forces (need a metaphor – Football? Karate? Playing an instrument? Learning to sew?
  • Roger’s Innovation-Decision Process. An innovation can be a thing, practice or both (Straub, 2009). Rogers (1995) postulates the innovation-decision process consists of five stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. The knowledge stage is parsed into awareness-knowledge and how-to knowledge where the individual plays a passive role by observing the changes. The persuasion stage is mainly affective, where the person is dominated by the feelings associated with the innovation and actively seeks information about the innovation so it can be evaluated. How the person is persuaded will lead to the adoption or the rejection of the innovation, but if favorable, the person decides to accept the innovation leading to the decision stage after which the individual implements. Implementation of the innovation requires full action where the person actually changes as a result of the innovation even though a degree of uncertainty may remain. In the last stage, confirmation, the person engages in re-invention. In summary, invention is the process of idea discovery; adoption is implementing the innovation that was invented by someone else; reinvention is when the invention becomes the users and takes on the nuances on of the particular context.
  • Switch to Word to List – Regina will help
  • Ertmer and Ottenbreitt (2010) identified internal variables that affect teacher’s ability to change: Knowledge, self-efficacy, and pedagogical beliefs which is supported by other theoretical writing and scientific studies(Achinstien, Ogawa, & Speiglman, 2004; Palmer, 1990).
  • Learning – Constructivist & Belief in the Value of Tech & Belief in Selves All teachers aim to develop thoughtful citizens (Anthony, 2012b; Bennett, Finn, & Cribb, 1999; Dewey, 1938; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004) albeit with differing praxis which is often attributed to teachers’ beliefs that can be a catalyst or obstacle to creating knowledge age learning environments. Constructivist beliefs tend to be learner-centered, (An & Reigeluth, 2011-2012; Cornelius-White, 2007; Howard, McGee, Schwartz, & Purcell, 2000; Pajares, 1992), and therefore, conducive to technology integration while encouraging student knowledge construction (Etmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Levin & Wadmany, 2007).However, studies show that belief and attitude alone does not change praxis (Brinkerhoff, 2006; Buehl & Fives, 2009; Hattingh & de Kock, 2008; Levin & Rivka, 2006-2007; Sockman & Sharma, 2008). In-service teachers, who aspire to conduct learner-centered teaching, fall short of student centered praxis (Li & Ni, 2010) even in technology rich schools (Palak & Walls, 2009). There is a correlation between teacher’s positive attitudes, time with technology and teacher enjoyment of technology with student use (Abbitt, 2011; Park & Ertmer, 2007-2008; Valli & Buese, 2007). With pre-service teachers, Rogers & Wallace (2011) found that even with low technology anxiety, only a small correlation exists between innovativeness and technology integration. The lack of needed innovativeness is often attributed to the much-needed teacher modeling of technology integration (Abbitt, 2011; Cuban, 2002; R. K. Rogers & Wallace, 2011).http://d6673sr63mbv7.cloudfront.net/archive/x373696974/g258000000000000000bfc97515145894272df34175607a22ddff0ab227.jpghttp://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmyweb.usf.edu%2F~aheindel%2FPBSsection2.html&h=0&w=0&sz=1&tbnid=uwKBVTYKejB3bM&tbnh=184&tbnw=275&zoom=1&docid=Pcx0bo2_-Co9NM&ei=uOf4UtuiM8b4yAGWs4DYCw&ved=0CAIQsCUoAA
  • Levin & Nevo (2009) studied ten teachers who implemented a learner-centered constructivist curriculum in 3-6 grades. All teachers developed more constructivists belief systems over three years. This study demonstrated the following: 1.) teachers’ beliefs can evolve, including their role as greater facilitators to help the students through self-regulated knowledge construction. 2.) teachers can hold multiple conflicting beliefs at the same time, and 3.) curriculum can impact beliefs. Other studies show similar results indicating that it is easier to change practice than belief (Inan & Lowther , 2010; Levin & Wadmany, 2007).Shiner et al. (2009) found that teachers’ attitudes changed during teacher technology training workshops focused on creativity and problem solving. Pre/post survey findings revealed that teachers felt more confident afterward, specifically in terms of creative problem solving learning and believing that they could teach problem solving skills rather than relying on students innate abilities. The study shows that teachers’ beliefs about students learning can evolve. http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/205/f/8/Politico__Chicken_and_Egg_by_babylon_sticks.jpg
  • The external forces of curriculum, organizational and societal structure either support or hamper teacher development (R. K. Rogers & Wallace, 2011) showing administrative and colleague support as imperative (Bonifaz & Zucker, 2004; Hanson & Carlson, 2005; Overbay, Mollette, & Vasu, 2011). Anthony (2012) conducted a qualitative study finding three system components necessary to support teacher development: supportive school policy for technology integration; distributed leadership among teachers; and customized professional development.
  • Inan & Lowther (2010) and Ritzhaupt, Dawson & Cavanaugh (2012) conducted large survey studies examining the direct and indirect effects of teacher characteristics and school-level factors on teacher’s technology integration. Studies found that teacher readiness, teacher beliefs, professional development, education level, computer availability, number of years with technology had a positive significant direct effect on technology integration. Teacher age had no significant relationship, but class size had an inverse effect. The findings demonstrate the importance of the school culture. Situated learning- Teachers learn best in situated learning environments whether that situated learning environment uses a model of collaborative apprenticeship, professional development in undergraduate or graduate education face-to-face or distance education (Caskey & Carpenter, 2012; Davis et al., 2009; E. Glazer, Hannafin, & Song, 2005; E. M. Glazer, Hannafin, Polly, & Rich, 2009; Ping, Wong, Choy, & Jing, 2010).In a study of teacher leaders, Glazer et al. (2009) found that peer teachers who interacted more, were also more likely to advance in their development, and teachers who focused on student learning were more likely to overcome obstacles. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2842/8803690296_ea997d4b34.jpg
  • Multiple levels of analysis were used in order to examine, categorize and test findings to condense data into meaningful themes (Yin, 2003). The software HyperResearch© . There were approximately 250 open codes. Field notes and lesson plans were treated as evidence to support the areas about which the teachers spoke. The third level of analysis began after the second interview. The codes used across cases determined the themes (Yin, 2003) by mapping like codes to determine similarities and differences, while remaining cognizant to the divergent voice. DAfter themes were developed, they were compared to teacher’s development stages (Sanholtz et al., 1997) and the innovation – decision process (Rogers, 1995). Two independent coders read the transcripts of all teachers’ interviews to identify block quotes that aligned to knowledge age learning environments. (See Table 4 for percentage of agreement)Trustworthiness of Data
  • Image – Show linear & global
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinksherbet/6961599565/in/photostream/On the positive side, ““You can’t be a bad teacher and teach here.” (charter)
  • http://www.wcpss.net/blog/2011/02/brentwood-elementary-students-celebrate-national-engineering-week/http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2764/4178265189_4785cf3fa5_m.jpg
  • Switch to Word to List – Regina will help
  • “My fear of technology… putting everything in files, on the web, sort of went down when I saw the quick reaction of their confidence. When I saw their confidence, I had confidence in me.” Colleague confidence in Jessica built her confidence. http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6034/6263687602_57133509bd_o.jpg
  • Wyatt shared a belief-changing anecdote: “One of the kids just flipped up his laptop, went on to Google and typed it in (the question) and he raised his hand.” The student yelled out, “I know the answer!” Wyatt was bewildered by the student’s responses and declared, “You know you cheated,” since the student used the Internet to find the answer. But, the student retorted, “I didn’t cheat!” Wyatt then realized that searching the Internet for an answer was what he did, and reflected, “I think that’s what we do now.” His pedagogy was evolving. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Teacher.jpg
  • Anne believed that the computer made “education more accessible, and they (students) don't have to rely on just me.” Anne described what this meant in her classroom:We could put so much more responsibility, honestly, on the kids. That really elated me because kids don't learn when you give them information and say, “Here's what you need to know.” You don't learn that way...nobody learns that way. Kids learn when you say...look here's this really cool thing...see what you can find out.http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5549/12079947126_3d9c423e38.jpg
  • In order to effectively plan, six of the seven teachers found that they needed to plan for a month or more at one time. Some teachers were overwhelmed with the resources for making projectsThis gave her anxiety since she considered herself more linear. Consequently, Samantha developed a project making process that was more linear, while not “losing the big picture and get lost in the details.”
  • Teachers valued student interest, six of the seven teachers looked specifically for student “disinterest” as a sign for an instructional change.For example, Anne thrived on student creativity with new projects. She noted, “They come up with so many wildly inventive wonderful things,” and she made new rubrics to accommodate their projects.
  • “The difficult thing is, if a student doesn't do a good job or doesn't do a job at all, then you've completely skipped an important piece of information which you were responsible for.” Taylor explained that he did not have the time to engage 30 students in projects in just 45 minutes, but could with the block of 90 minutes. From the classroom structure to praxis, teachers had to self-justify the means of technology in order to continue with implementation.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Andrew_Classroom_De_La_Salle_University.jpeg
  • Switch to Word to List – Regina will help
  • Watch video Based on this study, it is suggested that researchers examine teachers’ reflection on societal changes, and teacher’s reflection on negative teaching practices. It is clearly known that reflection can induced significant change when supported (Perry, 2004). In order to educate for the knowledge age, researchers (F. M. Duffy, 2010; Reigeluth & Karnopp, 2013; Robinson, 2011; Watson, Watson, & Reigeluth, 2012; Y. Zhao, 2012) espouse educators’ need to understand the school’s initial purpose in relation to societal needs, so that in reflection teachers challenge the original structures, which are steeped in traditions, but do not fully incorporate what is known about learning today (Banathy, 1996; Cuban, 2002; Etmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
  • Watch video Based on this study, it is suggested that researchers examine teachers’ reflection on societal changes, and teacher’s reflection on negative teaching practices. It is clearly known that reflection can induced significant change when supported (Perry, 2004). In order to educate for the knowledge age, researchers (F. M. Duffy, 2010; Reigeluth & Karnopp, 2013; Robinson, 2011; Watson, Watson, & Reigeluth, 2012; Y. Zhao, 2012) espouse educators’ need to understand the school’s initial purpose in relation to societal needs, so that in reflection teachers challenge the original structures, which are steeped in traditions, but do not fully incorporate what is known about learning today (Banathy, 1996; Cuban, 2002; Etmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
  • Feeling of vulnerability - “I think that most of my colleagues want to be content experts, and I'm talking probably throughout the nation, in the world and in the profession of teaching. The more you are the master of the content, the more the kids will respect you, the more your colleagues will respect you. The easier it is for you: as the people struggle, you stand there and laugh saying “I know all of this.” Johansson and Kroksmark (2004) studied the intuition of teachers and found that they rely on the past instincts in a teaching scenario. “When the teaching situation no longer stays within the teacher's frame, a pedagogical breakdown of the teacher's preparation happens” (p.370). Sometimes, teachers revert to old habits that reflect the old beliefs, therefore the process of change can take – Transitional Mumbo“two steps forward, and one step back” (Brookfield, 1990 p.52). Eventually, when people discard their old assumptions, and become entrenched in uncertainty of ways to act, a pedagogical void exists with the emotion of the loss and grieving (Aubusson, Steele, Dinham, & Brady, 2007; Brookfield, 1995; Nolan & Meister, 2000)
  • The term workflow can be defined as, “The set of relationships between all the activities in a project, from start to finish”(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/workflow?s=t). There is research on project based learning (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009; Tamim & Grant, 2013; Vega & Brown, 2013), but little research on creating projects (Nolan & Meister, 2000)
  • Teachers need to go beyond cognitively understanding how to use technology but need to acquire a disposition that requires courage to change instruction. http://bepositivemom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/courage.jpg
  • Switch to Word to List – Regina will help
  • Transcript

    • 1. 21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development Beth Rajan Sockman PH.D & Regina Sayles East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania
    • 2. Most teachers do NOT reach an “inventive stage” of teacher development, even with ubiquitous computing, the stage needed for teaching for the knowledge age.
    • 3. Times are changing…
    • 4. Industrial Age Vs. Knowledge Age Industrial Age Knowledge Age  Standardization  Customization  Top-down organization  Team-based organization  Compliance  Initiative  Conformity  Diversity  CEO as King  Customer as King Adapted from Duffy, 2010
    • 5. Converging Dynamics Learning Theory LEARNER Centered Classrooms!
    • 6. Learning – Meta-Analysis  Learner-Centered Teacher-Student Relationships (Cornelius-White, 2007)  examined 119 studies showing that learner-centered strategies positively correlated to student affective, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes by reducing drop-out rates, resistant behavior, & increased student participation  Problem Based Learning (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009)  Reviewed 10 Meta-analysis students and teachers are motivated in problem-based learning environments, and that long-term retention increases
    • 7. Converging Dynamics Technology LEARNER Centered Classrooms!
    • 8. Technology in Classrooms  What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis and Validation Study (Tamin, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmidv, 2011)  25 meta-analyses with minimal overlap in primary literature,  encompassing 1,055 primary studies  Greater student achievement with technology  Greater difference when students created rather than merely viewed.
    • 9. Converging Dynamics Global Needs LEARNER Centered Classrooms!
    • 10. Converging Dynamics Learning Theory Technology Global Needs LEARNER Centered Classrooms!
    • 11. It is all about being fair… Picture from http://weknowmemes.com/tag/please-climb-that-tree/
    • 12. What would it look like if teachers were teaching for the 21st Century?
    • 13. Take Aways!  Describe 2 major developmental change models  Identify Internal & External forces that influence change  Evaluate the way this research extends what we know  Reflect on your own learning environment to describe the possible internal/external forces and/or where teachers are in developmental stages
    • 14. How do we get there?  Nation  School – One to one? Doesn’t always work!  Teachers – The focus of this study
    • 15. Extend-knowledge construction versus traditional education with Tech ACOT, 1995
    • 16. Technology as enabler for new paradigm of education
    • 17. Most teachers do not reach, so What would it take for teachers to develop into a knowledge age educator?
    • 18. Development Processes (stages) & Forces that influence 1 2 3 4 PROCESS Stages 5 Forces
    • 19. Stages of Technology Integration 10 Year Study 1 to 1 (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997) Invention Appropriation Adaptation Adoption Entry Focus
    • 20. Entry and Adoption DISPOSITION  Learn Computer Basics  Teachers gain confidence  Most common - Testing software.  Teachers have a positive attitude  Skill and Drill  Test score increase  Off load  Internet resources - play
    • 21. Stage 3 Adaptation Disposition Teacher excited Student Initiation  In Daily lesson plans (word processing, spreadsheets, intera ctive white board, internet)  Increase Student productivity  Engagement increase Teacher threatened  Students initiate learning  Teachers react differently to student initiation!  More entertainment
    • 22. Stage 4 Appropriation Milestone!  Interdisciplinary  Interdependent Groups begin Disposition  More learner centered  May over compensate
    • 23. Stage 5 - Invention Classroom BUZZES. Teacher sees the students and themselves as learning together! Students may challenge the teacher. Project Based Interdisciplinary Team Taught Customization Learner Centered
    • 24. Roger – Adoption Innovation Confirmation with Invention Implementation Persuasion Knowledge State – awareness Knowledge & How To knowledge
    • 25. What are the things that affect the teacher moving through the stages?
    • 26. Internal Forces Self-efficacy Ertmer and Ottenbreitt (2010)
    • 27. Belief Belief Learnercentered ≠ = Practice Teacher centered Brinkerhoff, 2006; Buehl & Fives, 2009; Hattingh & de Kock, 2008; Levin & Rivka, 2006-2007; Li & Ni, 2010; Palak & Walls, 2009; Sockman & Sharma, 2008
    • 28. Belief Vs. Practice – Chicken or Egg Practice can influence belief Inan & Lowther , 2010; Levin & Wadmany, 2007; Levin & Nevo,2009
    • 29. External Forces Anthony, 2012; Bonifaz & Zucker, 2004; Hanson & Carlson, 2005; Overbay, Mollette, & Vasu, 2011
    • 30. Both External & Internal – Culture! Collaborative culture & Situated learning (Caskey & Carpenter, 2012; Davis et al., 2009, Glazer, 2009) Class size  Inverse relationship (Ritzhaupt, Dawson & Cavanaugh,2012)
    • 31. Question  1. From an innovative teachers’ perspective and observations of the environment, what are the valuable experiences including the salient internal and external forces in the process of becoming an innovative teacher within a contemporary learning environment?  2. How do the experiences support, challenge or add perspective to what we know about teacher change especially, when looking at the need to develop teachers for the knowledge age?
    • 32. Method
    • 33. Instrumental Case Study (Yin, 2003 & Stake,2000) Interview 7 cases Teachers – 2.5 hours Observations Classroom & School 35 Hours of Interview and Observation Time Document Analysis Lesson Plans NCLB school statistics Websites Newspaper
    • 34. Participants Boarding School 37 Traditional Public City School 28 Traditional Public Rural School 46 35 Public Charter School 25 Years with oneto-one Total Years Experience Participant Age Case/School Standardized test performance of students Grade 9 Earth Science Grade 8 Reading 9 3 Not Available 50% Caucasian 50% Minority Low income 4 3 Reading 55% Proficient Math 70% Proficient 570 Pupils 460 Free/reduced lunch Latino 65%; Caucasian 25% African 10% Grade 12 Grade 10 English Grade 12 Grade 10 History Grade 5 & 6 All major content areas 13 4 9 4 5 2 Grade Taught & Subject Reading 80% Proficient Math 78% Proficient Reading 60% Proficient Math 60% Proficient Student Demographics 1015 Pupils 160 Free/reduced lunch Caucasian 98%; African 4%; Latino 5% 100 Pupils 18 Free/ reduced lunch Latino 6%; Caucasian 87%; African 3%; Asian 3%
    • 35. Interviews Questions 1. Please tell me about yourself, anything that might shed some light on your decision to become a teacher. 2. Could you go back in time for me? Do you remember when you and the students made the move to one-to-one computers? What was the story behind this for you? 3. Now that you have had ubiquitous computing, can you tell me what your classroom looks like now? How did you get there? If you were to compare your transition to something, some picture or analogy – what was it like for you? 4. What is your job now – as a teacher? What do you hope to do this year? Please tell me what this one-to-one computing meant for you and your students. Rationale 1. Rationale: Ascertain belief system and influencing internal/external forces (Kuhn, 1999; Palmer, 1997). 2. Rationale: Unearth the attitude and emotions in the transition to ubiquitous computing (Fullan, 1993; Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004; Saunders, 2012). 3. Rationale: Understand the current teacher role and then, uncover how he/she developed (Brookfield, 1990; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1992; Tondeur et al., 2012). 4. Rationale: Gain a sense of evolving philosophy – the paradigm that the teacher holds (Covey, 1989; F. M. Duffy, 2010; Senge, 2000).
    • 36. Analysis Software HyperResearch© Interviews transcribed Approximately 250 open codes Trustworthiness – participant checks
    • 37. Findings - Valuable Experiences with Salient Forces in the Journey & Stages
    • 38. Forces: Teacher Identity Growth  Identity growth: teachers comparing themselves to others.
    • 39. Forces: Beliefs about Teaching and Learning & Teaching and Learning Skills Shaped with Technology Beliefs: all teachers held a belief that there can be multiple representations of reality or identified within constructivism – research never said… Praxis: Influence by undergraduate and graduate college, teacher workshops, formal colleague feedback, personal colleague feedback, and observation of students influenced the category.
    • 40. Forces: Joy & Fear Fear: when students did not comprehend the content or waste time JOY: when observing students who deeply understood information, displayed creativity, or self initiated extended learning
    • 41. What surprises or confirms your experience and why/
    • 42. Findings - Stages Appropriation Implementation AdaptationImplementation Adoption Persuasion Entry& Awareness Knowledge Invention & confirmation reinvention
    • 43. Stage 1 Entry – Awareness Knowledge. Theme 1: Dissatisfaction with the status quo influenced teachers’ perception of classroom needs to include authentic learning using technology.  “awareness-knowledge” (Rogers, 1995) - an awareness of societal needs  Boring past teachers
    • 44. Stage 2 Adoption – Persuasion. Theme 2: Change evoked strong emotions that evolved over time with awareness of the technology needed
    • 45. Stage 3 Adaption - Implementation. Theme 3: Small trials with computers opened doors to create options for pedagogical change. One of the kids just flipped up his laptop, went on to Google and typed it in (the question) and he raised his hand.” The student yelled out, “I know the answer!” Wyatt was bewildered by the student’s responses and declared, “You know you cheated,” since the student used the Internet to find the answer. But, the student retorted, “I didn’t cheat!” Wyatt then realized that searching the Internet for an answer was what he did, and reflected, “I think that’s what we do now.”
    • 46. Stage 4: Appropriation - Implementation. Theme 4: Technology influenced a disposition toward collaborative growth.
    • 47. Stage 5 Invention – Confirmation with Reinvention – 3 THEMES
    • 48. Theme 5: Technology aided in project-based learning while illuminating new challenges Planning projects was more complex than traditional lesson planning. “I could see the logic” of projects, but they were “more a spider web, intertwining and connecting in so many ways.”
    • 49. Theme 6: Observations of engaged creative students reinforced various instructional methods in technology rich environments.  Direct instruction, project based learning, creativity
    • 50. Theme 7: Experience with technology-integrated project based learning raised concerns for learning and traditional scheduling
    • 51. Appropriation Implementation Invention & confirmation reinvention AdaptationImplementation Adoption Persuasion Entry& Awareness Knowledge Did anything surprise, confirm or concern you? Why?
    • 52. Discussion  Using stages & forces helped  Awareness knowledge - Key  Collaborative culture – Situated cognition
    • 53. Discussion  In the study, the beginning developmental stage was motivated by individual dissatisfaction which is more completely described with awareness knowledge based on Innovation-Decision Process (E. Rogers, 1995)
    • 54. Collaborative Culture (stages 2,3,4)  Fears – wasting time, colleague disappointment  Joy – student creativity  Administrative support  Colleague Sharing  Teacher experimentation
    • 55. Further Research: How to use Dissatisfaction Workflow Activity/ learning alignment
    • 56. Tech Courage  “You have to be, if not tech savvy, kind of tech courageous...not afraid to just go out there and experience…”
    • 57. Where are your teachers? Where could you research?
    • 58. Thanks!  Beth Rajan Sockman Ph.D.  bsockman@esu.edu  http://www.linkedin.com/in/rajansock  https://twitter.com/rajansock  Groups  AECT – Systemic Change Division http://systemicchange.wordpress.com/  ISTE  Twitter #edreform  Linked In - http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Systems-ThinkingDesign-Change-in-4985248  Voices of Vision - William Spady vovspady@gmail.com
    • 59. References  Please request access through Mendeley!  Beth Sockman – and you can see all references!

    ×