Videoconferencing and Elluminate as

follow up to TPD in rural middle schools

Margaret Blanchard, Jennifer Sharp, & Lauren Greene

The Issues

• Increased focus on students’ readiness for 21 Century skills

• Little evidence that science and mathematics teachers are using technology

• Professional development of teachers a central strategy for achieving changes

• PD follow-up is effective, but challenging with teachers at a distance

Context—21 Century Teaching & Learning Program

• Rural, high poverty middle schools in NE North Carolina• 3-day Summer PD • Fall/Spring refresher

day• Summer 1: 15 teachers• Summer 2: 30 teachers

(6 from Summer 1)• 6 districts/7 schools• 1 Technology person/ county

Central Question

Is videoconferencing a feasible strategy for supporting teachers in

rural, historically underserved schools?

Study Design

• Controlled Study• Two, 1-hour follow-up sessions encouraged 6 districts in NE North Carolina, 29 teachers, at

7 middle schools▫ ½ teachers – Face-to-Face (3 counties/4

schools/14 teachers)▫ ½ teachers – Videoconferencing (3 counties/3

schools/15 teachers)

Details of Follow-up Sessions

• Teachers invited to participate– During workshops, emails, phone calls, and school

visits

• Follow-up sessions consisted of:– Help with selected technology– “Walk through”– Editing curriculum materials

Data Sources

• Videotape/audiotape of technical support session

• Videotape of classroom lessonData source focus of this paper:• Satisfaction survey (Blanchard & Sharp, 2007)• Technology Familiarity Survey (SERVE)– Likert scale 1-5 on familiarity with 20 technologies

Research Questions

When comparing Videoconferencing (VC) and Face-to-Face (FF) technical support sessions:

- Do teachers’ rates of participation differ? - Do teachers’ stated levels of satisfaction differ? - Do reported strengths & weaknesses differ? - Do mean scores on the Technology Familiarity Survey

differ?- Do teachers find alternative ways to get support, and

does this vary by treatment method?

Do teachers’ rates of participation differ?

• Face-to-Face:-64% (9) participate in face-to-face follow-up– But 42% (6) actually teach & tape lesson

• Videoconferencing:- 40% (6) participate in videoconferencing follow-up- 40% (6) teach & tape lesson

Do teachers’ stated levels of satisfaction differ?

• Satisfaction survey item topics:1. Was relevant to my needs2. Enhanced my understanding of ways to use

technology3. Helped me gain new information4. Will assist me in integrating technology into the

curriculum• Face-to-Face: 4.5/5• Videoconferencing: 4.1/5

Do reported strengths and weaknesses differ?

• Number of strengths cited– Face-to-Face – 16 (100%)– Videoconferencing – 4 (50%)

• Number of weaknesses cited– Face-to-Face – 1 (11%)– Videoconferencing – 1 (17%)

Do teachers’ mean scores on Technology Familiarity Survey differ by treatment method? FF: 4.5/5 VC: 4.1/5

Name TechnologyPost 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

Do teachers find alternative ways to get support, and does this vary by treatment method?

• Face-to-Face: 44% (4 teachers) sought additional help

• Videoconferencing: 17% (1 teacher) sought additional help

Additionally, all of the teachers sought additional help from the technical support person who videotaped the lesson(s)

Challenges

• Very difficult to get teachers to participate in either type of session

• Teachers needed help but were afraid to use new technologies and needed substantial help

• Jen was asked to help when she came to videotape, regardless of VC or FF

• We were committed to helping teachers employ new technologies

Discussion of Findings

• Slightly harder to get teachers to participate in VC

• No real differences in satisfaction by method• Technical familiarity closely linked to technical

support session: teachers receive help with the technologies

they use, then report less familiarity with the technologies they did not use

Implications

• Technical support through videoconferencing is a viable option

• Increasing individuals who can help at school sites would be a ‘tapped’ resource

• It’s not enough to teach it once: Teachers need refreshers on technologies they haven’t used recently

• Participation/Change issue trumps delivery method

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%)

Vernier Probeware

Vernier Probeware

Presentation Equipment

Magnetic Field Sensor

Gas-Pressure Sensor mimio

Dual-Force Sensor pH Probe DocumentCamera

Go! Motion Sensor Conductivity Probe Projector

Temperature Probe Heart Rate Monitor Graphing Calculators

Light Sensor Laptop computer with accessories