Action Research Proposal Presentation - DRAFT

16,095 views

Published on

too cluttered still, I know. I am still working make it less wordy. I tend to be verbose. :P

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Comment
11 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
16,095
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
91
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
11
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Action Research Proposal Presentation - DRAFT

    1. 1. Teacher Training and Classroom Technology Implementation Action Research Proposal Overview Presentation Marc Stephens University of Phoenix EDD577 Professor Ben Molina, Jr. January 7, 2008
    2. 2. Failure to Integrate <ul><li>The problem is some high school teachers are not implementing technology in a fully integrated manner. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Superficial use, centered on the technology itself </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of technology training and support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing pedagogical beliefs can have both positive and negative effects on integration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reluctance to undergo pedagogical change can hinder integration. </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Is there really a problem? <ul><li>Evidence suggests that many teachers do not use technology in sophisticated ways (Rakes et al, 2006, p. 412). </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence suggests that up to 80% of teachers use computer technology less than 50% of the time in classroom instruction (Bauer & Kenton, 2005, p. 535). </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence suggests that time spent learning a new technology will increase the likelihood of its use in the classroom (Bauer & Kenton, 2005, p. 534). </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence suggests that teachers with student-centered pedagogical beliefs are more likely to succeed in technology integration. (Levin & Wadmany, 2006, p. 160). </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence suggests that when the quality of technology integration is not ensured, time spent with technology may do students more harm than good (Lei & Zhao, 2007, Conclusions). </li></ul>
    4. 4. Setting: Suburban High School <ul><li>Mid-west United States </li></ul><ul><li>Middle-class suburban neighborhood </li></ul><ul><li>Virtual school district recently received NCLB grant for this school to pay for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One laptop per teacher (plus productivity and educational software tools to tie into the school technology network) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A computerized whiteboard system for each classroom </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Classroom computers at the ratio of three students per computer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Upgrades to the school’s computer lab, media library and state-of-the-art TV production studio </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Team/Support staff to help with teacher training, instructional design assistance, and day-to-day maintenance of the equipment. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Subjects are 16 teachers possessing a broad range of technological sophistication and classroom practices. </li></ul>
    5. 5. What can we do about it? <ul><li>The goal is to have useful technology fully integrated into the classroom in a manner that enhances learning. </li></ul><ul><li>Determine why some classroom teachers gain benefits from technology while others do not. </li></ul><ul><li>Provide training in technology integration to classroom teachers that can engage the flow of student learning and motivates student achievement. </li></ul><ul><li>Provide opportunities for teachers to grow in knowledge and professional practice. Use technology as a catalyst for change. </li></ul>
    6. 6. Three-fold solution strategy <ul><li>DETAILS framework </li></ul><ul><li>IMPACT model </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Instruction </li></ul>
    7. 7. DETAILS Framework <ul><li>D etermining E ducational T echnology A nd I nstructional L iteracy S killsets </li></ul><ul><li>Provides three assessment tools that can help evaluate three key factors pointing to how to approach the classroom teacher’s technology training: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Level of Technology Implementation (LoTi) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal Computer Use (PCU) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Current Instructional Practices (CIP) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Provides a means of comparison between pre- and post-intervention technology integration levels. </li></ul><ul><li>Prior research conducted with DETAILS suggests it is a strong, valid assessment tool. </li></ul><ul><li>Information on the DETAILS framework is available at the website: </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.loticonnection.com/DETAILS.html </li></ul>
    8. 8. The IMPACT Model <ul><li>IMPACT: Guidelines for North Carolina Media and Technology Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Team </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Three full-time staff positions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Facilitator </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Library and Media Coordinator </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Assistant/Technician </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Works closely with classroom teachers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Instruction in how to use the new equipment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assistance designing classroom instruction utilizing the new equipment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>911 when things break down (Technician on-call plus trained student technology aides) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Information on the overall IMPACT model is available at the website: </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.ncwiseowl.org/impact/ </li></ul>
    9. 9. Technology Instruction <ul><li>Technology team members will work with each classroom teacher one-on-one for a one hour session per week: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Instruction informed by the classroom teacher’s DETAILS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focused on how to use the technology in the teacher’s specific setting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guided by Constructivist learning principles </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The classroom teacher will conduct a one hour session per week with their students: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Held in the school’s computer lab, media library or TV production studio. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The technology team provides direct support for the teacher in technologically-integrated classroom activities. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gives the teacher the ability to get feedback on instructional practices and integration while working concurrently with both their students and the technology team. </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Underlying Training Principles <ul><li>The technology team’s teacher-educators will follow these six underlying constructivist principles for conducting the technology integration curriculum. </li></ul><ul><li>(Lebow 1993, p. 5-12) </li></ul><ul><li>Acknowledge that change can be challenging and frightens some teachers. </li></ul><ul><li>Some teachers are better prepared for technology integration than others. </li></ul><ul><li>Provide a context for learning that supports both autonomy and relatedness. </li></ul><ul><li>Model technology as the medium for learning another subject, not as the subject of learning itself. </li></ul><ul><li>Support self-regulated learning. </li></ul><ul><li>Strengthen the learner’s tendency to engage intentional learning processes such as exploring errors. </li></ul>“ Tell me and I will forget. Show me and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand.” - Confucius
    11. 11. Recommendations for the future <ul><li>If this research is successful: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implement program in other schools in the district for further investigation into differences between grade levels (grade school, middle school, college level) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Further trials of the intervention design with refinement of the assessment tools and instructional design, informed by this first trial. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Revisit this same group of subjects in the future to search for technological and pedagogical recidivism, and seek feedback from the teachers after they have had the time to live with these technological and pedagogical changes. What is working? What is not? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>If this research is unsuccessful: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Investigate where the process failed and why. </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Feedback time! <ul><li>Thank you for attending this presentation! </li></ul><ul><li>Questions? </li></ul><ul><li>Comments? </li></ul><ul><li>Points of discussion? </li></ul><ul><li>If you feel more comfortable contacting me privately please send email to placeholder@email.edu </li></ul>
    13. 13. References 1 of 3 <ul><li>Bai, H., & Ertmer, P. (2008). Teacher Educator's Beliefs and Technology Uses as Predictors of Preservice Teachers Beliefs and Technology Attitudes. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education , 16(1), p93-112. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from EBSCO. </li></ul><ul><li>Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward Technology Integration in the Schools: Why It Isn't Happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education , 13(4), 519-546. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from ProQuest. </li></ul><ul><li>Bradburn, F. B. (2007). A Program With Impact. T H E Journal , 34(1), 55-52. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from EBSCO. </li></ul><ul><li>Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Teachers Construct Constructivism: The Center for Constructivist Teaching/Teacher Preparation Project. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (pp. 263-275). New York, New York: Teachers College Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Glazer, E., & Hannafin, M. (2008). Factors That Influence Mentor and Teacher Interactions During Technology Integration Collaborative Apprenticeships. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education , 16(1), p35-61. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from EBSCO. </li></ul><ul><li>Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What Happens When Teachers Design Educational Technology? The Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal Of Educational Computing Research , 32(2), 131-152. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from EBSCO. </li></ul>
    14. 14. References 2 of 3 <ul><li>Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education , 49(2), 2 84-297. Retrieved from ProQuest. </li></ul><ul><li>Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design: Five Principles Toward a New Mindset. ETR&D , 41(3), 4-16. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from EBSCO. </li></ul><ul><li>Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers' Beliefs and Practices in Technology-based Classrooms: A Developmental View. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 39(2), 157-181. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from ProQuest. </li></ul><ul><li>Lightfoot, J. (2005). Integrating emerging technologies into traditional classrooms: a pedagogic approach. International Journal of Instructional Media , 32(3), 209-225. Retrieved Novem ber 17, 2007, from Thomson Gale. </li></ul><ul><li>Matzen, N., & Edmunds, J. (2007). Technology as a Catalyst for Change: The Role of Professional Development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 39(4), 417-430. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from ProQuest. </li></ul><ul><li>Moersch, C. (2001). Next Steps: Using LoTi as a Research Tool. Learning & Leading with Technology , 29(3), 22-27. Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http://www.loticonnection.com/articles.html </li></ul>
    15. 15. References 3 of 3 <ul><li>National Business Education Alliance. (2006). DETAILS Questionnaire. The LoTi Connection . Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://www.loticonnection.com/DETAILS.html </li></ul><ul><li>National Business Education Alliance. (2006). Handout Modules. The LoTi Connection. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://www.loticonnection.com/freehandouts.html </li></ul><ul><li>NC DPI Instructional Technology Division. (2006). IMPACT: Guidelines for North Carolina Media and Technology Programs. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from http://www.ncwiseowl.org/impact/default.htm </li></ul><ul><li>NC DPI Instructional Technology Division. (2006). Technology Facilitator Job Description. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from http://www.ncwiseowl.org/kscope/impact/positions/tech_facilitators.html </li></ul><ul><li>Perkins, D. N. (1992). What Constructivism Demands of the Learner. In T. Duffy & D. Johnassen (Eds.) Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation (pp. 161-165). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. </li></ul><ul><li>Rakes, G., Fields, V., & Cox, K. (2006). The Influence of Teacher's Technology Use on Instructional Practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 38(4), 409-424. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from ProQuest. </li></ul>

    ×