Download File (ppt)

4,767 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
4,767
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Download File (ppt)

  1. 1. Videoconferencing and Elluminate as follow up to TPD in rural middle schools Margaret Blanchard, Jennifer Sharp, & Lauren Greene
  2. 2. The Issues <ul><li>Increased focus on students’ readiness for 21 Century skills </li></ul><ul><li>Little evidence that science and mathematics teachers are using technology </li></ul><ul><li>Professional development of teachers a central strategy for achieving changes </li></ul><ul><li>PD follow-up is effective, but challenging with teachers at a distance </li></ul>
  3. 3. Context—21 Century Teaching & Learning Program <ul><li>Rural, high poverty middle schools in NE North Carolina </li></ul><ul><li>3-day Summer PD </li></ul><ul><li>Fall/Spring refresher </li></ul><ul><li>day </li></ul><ul><li>Summer 1: 15 teachers </li></ul><ul><li>Summer 2: 30 teachers </li></ul><ul><li> (6 from Summer 1) </li></ul><ul><li>6 districts/7 schools </li></ul><ul><li>1 Technology person/ </li></ul><ul><li>county </li></ul>
  4. 4. Central Question <ul><li>Is videoconferencing </li></ul><ul><li>a feasible strategy for supporting teachers in rural, historically underserved schools? </li></ul>
  5. 5. Study Design <ul><li>Controlled Study </li></ul><ul><li>Two, 1-hour follow-up sessions encouraged </li></ul><ul><li>6 districts in NE North Carolina, 29 teachers, at 7 middle schools </li></ul><ul><li>▫ ½ teachers – Face-to-Face (3 counties/4 schools/14 teachers) </li></ul><ul><li>▫ ½ teachers – Videoconferencing (3 counties/3 schools/15 teachers) </li></ul>
  6. 6. Details of Follow-up Sessions <ul><li>Teachers invited to participate </li></ul><ul><ul><li>During workshops, emails, phone calls, and school visits </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Follow-up sessions consisted of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Help with selected technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“Walk through” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Editing curriculum materials </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Data Sources <ul><li>Videotape/audiotape of technical support session </li></ul><ul><li>Videotape of classroom lesson </li></ul><ul><li>Data source focus of this paper: </li></ul><ul><li>Satisfaction survey (Blanchard & Sharp, 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Familiarity Survey (SERVE) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Likert scale 1-5 on familiarity with 20 technologies </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Research Questions <ul><li>When comparing Videoconferencing (VC) and Face-to-Face (FF) technical support sessions: </li></ul><ul><li>- Do teachers’ rates of participation differ? </li></ul><ul><li>- Do teachers’ stated levels of satisfaction differ? </li></ul><ul><li>- Do reported strengths & weaknesses differ? </li></ul><ul><li>- Do mean scores on the Technology Familiarity Survey differ? </li></ul><ul><li>- Do teachers find alternative ways to get support , and does this vary by treatment method? </li></ul>
  9. 9. Do teachers’ rates of participation differ? <ul><li>Face-to-Face: </li></ul><ul><li>-64% (9) participate in face-to-face follow-up </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But 42% (6) actually teach & tape lesson </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Videoconferencing: </li></ul><ul><li>- 40% (6) participate in videoconferencing follow-up </li></ul><ul><li>- 40% (6) teach & tape lesson </li></ul>
  10. 10. Do teachers’ stated levels of satisfaction differ? <ul><li>Satisfaction survey item topics: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Was relevant to my needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enhanced my understanding of ways to use technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Helped me gain new information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Will assist me in integrating technology into the curriculum </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Face-to-Face: 4.5/5 </li></ul><ul><li>Videoconferencing: 4.1/5 </li></ul>
  11. 11. Do reported strengths and weaknesses differ? <ul><li>Number of strengths cited </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Face-to-Face – 16 (100%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Videoconferencing – 4 (50%) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Number of weaknesses cited </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Face-to-Face – 1 (11%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Videoconferencing – 1 (17%) </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Do teachers’ mean scores on Technology Familiarity Survey differ by treatment method? FF: 4.5/5 VC: 4.1/5 Name Technology Post July Tech 1 Tech 2 Post May Support Type Teacher 1 Temperature 2 5 5 5 VC Teacher 1 TI84 2 3 4 5 VC Teacher 1 Light 2 2 5 5 VC Teacher 1 Doc Camera 1 5 5 5 VC Teacher 2 Doc Camera 1 3 5 5 FF Teacher 2 TI84 2 3 3 2 FF Teacher 2 Temperature 5 3 5 5 FF Teacher 2 pH 5 3 5 5 FF
  13. 13. Do teachers find alternative ways to get support, and does this vary by treatment method? <ul><li>Face-to-Face: 44% (4 teachers) sought additional help </li></ul><ul><li>Videoconferencing: 17% (1 teacher) sought additional help </li></ul><ul><li>Additionally, all of the teachers sought additional help from the technical support person who videotaped the lesson(s) </li></ul>
  14. 14. Challenges <ul><li>Very difficult to get teachers to participate in either type of session </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers needed help but were afraid to use new technologies and needed substantial help </li></ul><ul><li>Jen was asked to help when she came to videotape, regardless of VC or FF </li></ul><ul><li>We were committed to helping teachers employ new technologies </li></ul>
  15. 15. Discussion of Findings <ul><li>Slightly harder to get teachers to participate in VC </li></ul><ul><li>No real differences in satisfaction by method </li></ul><ul><li>Technical familiarity closely linked to technical support session: </li></ul><ul><li>teachers receive help with the technologies they use, then report less familiarity with the technologies they did not use </li></ul>
  16. 16. Implications <ul><li>Technical support through videoconferencing is a viable option </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing individuals who can help at school sites would be a ‘tapped’ resource </li></ul><ul><li>It’s not enough to teach it once: Teachers need refreshers on technologies they haven’t used recently </li></ul><ul><li>Participation/Change issue trumps delivery method </li></ul>
  17. 17. Teacher n Face-to-Face Videoconferencing Assigned n 14 15 Participated n (t-test, p=0.1772) 9 6 Rates of participation in FF/VC session 64% 40% Rates of implentation in teaching/taping lesson 42% 40% Item 1. Level of satisfaction with sessions 4.5/5 4.1/5 2. Number of strengths cited (% of teachers reporting positives) 16 (100%) 4 (50%) 3. Number of weaknesses cited 1 (11%) 1 (17%) 4. Scores on familiarity with technology* 4.5/5 4.6/5 5. Number of teachers who seek additional support 4 (44%) 1 (17%)
  18. 18. Vernier Probeware Vernier Probeware Presentation Equipment Magnetic Field Sensor Gas-Pressure Sensor mimio Dual-Force Sensor pH Probe Document Camera Go! Motion Sensor Conductivity Probe Projector Temperature Probe Heart Rate Monitor Graphing Calculators Light Sensor Laptop computer with accessories

×