differences among students, teachers, and administrators on the quality and effectiveness of...
TRANSCRIPT
Differences among Students, Teachers, Differences among Students, Teachers, and Administrators on the Quality and and Administrators on the Quality and Effectiveness of Technology IntegrationEffectiveness of Technology Integration
Ben Smith Ben Smith Towson University Towson University
Friday, April 21, 2023Friday, April 21, 2023
Background Information
Physics Teacher / Science Chair, Pennsylvania
Doctoral Student at Towson UniversityKeystone Technology IntegratorSTAR Discovery Educator
Educational Technology Consultant - EdTechInnovators
ISTE Board of Directors - PK-12 Representative
ISTE Faculty - Professional Development
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
BackgroundOne School’s Technology
Classrooms for the Future (CFF)
17 Mobile Labs
Interactive Whiteboards
Student Response System
Projectors
ProbesQuickTime™ and a
decompressorare needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
PATI Survey
PATI Survey
PATI Survey
Problem
Teachers and Administrators agree that 21st century skills are important to integrate
Teachers and Administrators disagree on the definition (level and quality) of technology integration
How do different groups differ in their definition of technology integration?Do administrators, teachers, and students agree on the amount of use of technology tools for curricular activities?How do administrators, teachers, and students differ in their perception of technology integration?
Significance: Investigate why there is a gap between teachers and administrators
Research Questions
Methodology
Mixed Method
QuantitativeSurvey Questions to Students, Teachers, and Administrators
QualitativeInterviews with Students, Teachers, and Administrators
Instruments
Surveys Interview Protocol
Survey Questions
Florida Innovates
Survey
Importance of Technology
Essential
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Not at All
No Basis for Answer
Frequency of UseEvery Day
Several Times per Week
Once per Week
Once per Month
Once per Marking Period
Not at All
Analysis & Results
Differences among groups
Scheffè’s Interval
Coding Interview results
Interview Responses
Lack of consistency in defining technology integration
Teacher ThemesMention of students
Technology should engage students
No mention of thinking skills
Administrator ThemesNo mention of students - focus on teacher actions
Technology should expand what is currently done in the classroom
Interview - Why are there differences?
TeachersTechnology Users get noticed
Administrators are not in classroom enough
AdministratorsTeachers may lack training or knowledge
Frequency of Use
Question: How often do you use / expect the following technologies are used to learn in this class?
Admin Mean (N=4)
Teacher Mean
(N=29)
Student Mean
(N=151)
F Score P Value (alpha = 0.05)
F Critical Difference in
Perception
Drill and Practice 2.75 1.66 1.42 4.8592 0.0088 3.0461 Yes
Creativity Tools 4.00 1.83 1.83 7.2596 0.0009 3.0459 Yes Simulation Tools 3.00 1.03 1.39 12.6232 0.0000 3.0461 Yes Tool Based 4.50 2.45 2.31 4.5799 0.0115 3.0459 Yes
Research Tools 4.50 2.40 2.56 4.4551 0.0129 3.0461 Yes Communication 4.50 1.66 1.56 13.1362 0.0000 3.0467 Yes
Collaboration 4.50 1.76 2.19 7.1159 0.0011 3.0461 Yes
Differences Among Groups
Question: How often do you use /
expect the following
technologies are used to learn in
this class?
F Critical
Difference in
Perception
Scheffé's Interval Admin-Teacher
Difference Between Admin-Teacher
Scheffé's Interval Admin-Student
Difference Between Admin-Student
Scheffé's Interval
Teacher - Student
Difference Between Teacher - Student
Drill and Practice 3.0461 Yes 2.6122 No 2.4812 No 0.9934 No Creativity Tools 3.0459 Yes 3.9816 Yes 3.7896 Yes 1.4960 No
Simulation Tools 3.0461 Yes 3.4860 Yes 3.3182 Yes 1.3106 No
Tool Based 3.0459 Yes 4.0347 Yes 3.8401 Yes 1.5159 No Research Tools 3.0461 Yes 3.6915 Yes 3.5137 Yes 1.3878 No
Communication 3.0467 Yes 5.4008 Yes 5.1309 Yes 2.0563 No
Collaboration 3.0461 Yes 4.8102 Yes 4.5690 Yes 1.8294 No
How Important to Learning is this Technology?
Question: What is the importance of each of the following technologies used to learn in this class?
Admin Mean (N=4)
Teacher Mean
(N=29)
Student Mean
(N=151)
F Score P Value (alpha = 0.05)
F Critical
Difference in Perception
Word Proce ssing 4.00 3.31 2.36 10.211 0.000063 3.046 Yes
Spreadsheets 3.00 2.41 2.01 2.908 0.057116 3.046 No
Creativity Tools 3.75 2.55 1.84 12.681 0.000007 3.046 Yes
Simulations 2.75 1.32 1.47 4.452 0.012976 3.046 Yes
Presentation Tools 4.00 2.89 2.46 5.501 0.004797 3.046 Yes
Research Tools 4.00 3.28 2.56 6.828 0.001388 3.046 Yes
Wikis 2.75 2.07 1.99 1.165 0.314303 3.046 No
Blogs 2.25 1.92 1.64 1.483 0.229701 3.046 No
Web 2.0 3.00 1.96 1.41 9.348 0.000138 3.046 Yes Communication Tools 3.00 2.45 1.68 5.803 0.003611 3.046 Yes
Differences Among Groups
Question: How important do you feel each of the following technologies is to learning in this class?
F Critical
Difference in
Perception
Scheffé's Interval Admin-Teacher
Difference Between Admin-Teacher
Scheffé's Interval Admin-Student
Difference Between Admin-Student
Scheffé's Interval
Teacher - Student
Difference Between Teacher - Student
Word Proce ssing 3.046 Yes 5.6279 Yes 5.4105 Yes 1.8813 No
Spreadsheets 3.046 No - - - - - - Creativity Tools 3.046 Yes 4.6151 Yes 4.3833 Yes 1.7543 No Simulations 3.046 Yes 2.4985 No 2.3681 No 0.9623 No Presentation Tools 3.046 Yes 3.3664 Yes 3.1976 Yes 1.2803 No Research Tools 3.046 Yes 4.1024 Yes 3.8971 Yes 1.5611 No Wikis 3.046 No - - - - - - Blogs 3.047 No - - - - - - Web 2.0 3.046 Yes 3.7557 Yes 3.5596 Yes 1.4465 No Communication Tools
3.046 Yes 3.5006 Yes 3.3251 Yes 1.3314 No
Next Steps
Further defining technology integration
Taxonomy AnalysisTaylor - Tutor, Tool, Tutee (1980)US Dept of Education (Means, et. al, 1993)Moeresch - LoTi (1995)Russell - Stages in Learning New Technology (1995)Bruce & Levin - Taxonomy for the Use of Comptuers (1997)Vessels - Modified Levels of Use (1998)Bailey - Taxonomy of Technology-Fostered Cognitive Objectives (2002)Russell, Bebell et. al. - Categories of Teacher Technology Use (2003)Tomei - Taxonomy for the Technology Domain (2003)
A New Taxonomy
Taxonomy Strengths
Designed from student perspective and aligned to student actions
Pragmatic for teachers and administrators
Aligned to cognitive processes
Associated with constructivist style of teaching and learning
Aligned to Levels of Use
Common Language
Expected Use of Learning Activities
Question How often do you use / expect the following types of activites to take place in this class?
Admin Mean (N=4)
Teacher Mean
(N=29)
Student Mean
(N=151)
F Score P Value (alpha = 0.05)
F Critical Difference in
Perception
Observing 4.00 3.24 3.57 1.0396 0.3557 3.0461 No
Integrating 4.50 2.75 2.73 2.5143 0.0838 3.0461 No
Producing 3.00 2.03 2.10 1.0823 0.3410 3.0461 No
Exploring 2.50 1.86 2.23 1.2788 0.2809 3.0461 No
Collaborating 2.50 2.45 2.29 0.2021 0.8172 3.0461 No
Applying 2.50 1.82 2.22 1.2093 0.3008 3.0461 No
Creating 2.00 1.93 2.02 0.0568 0.9448 3.0461 No