effects of a wiki and long-term, collaborative...
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 1
Effects of a Wiki and Long-Term, Collaborative Professional Development on
Technology Integration
Ellen Adams
University of West Georgia
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 2
Abstract
One of the key barriers to successful technology integration in the classroom
is inadequate and ineffective technology professional development (PD) for
teachers. This literature review examines two components of PD – long-
duration and collaboration – that have found to be more productive than
traditional methods in preparing teachers to incorporate technology into
their instruction. Collaboration falls into several categories: learning
communities, whole-school approaches, mentoring, coaching, and informal
meetings. But in every category, researchers have determined that a
collaborative style of PD raises teachers‟ technology skill levels and their
confidence in applying it. In addition, long-term PD has been found to be
more effective than the traditional workshop model because teachers have
more time to experiment with and explore the technology they are required
to learn. This paper also investigates how wikis have been used among pre-
service teachers to foster collaboration and build resources. Theoretically, a
combination of all three characteristics – long-duration, collaboration, and
wiki use – would produce the ideal circumstances for technology PD.
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 3
Effects of a Wiki and Long-Term, Collaborative Professional Development on
Technology Integration
Over the past few decades, an extraordinary amount of money has
been spent on equipping American classrooms with technology. According
to Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2008), the amount is well over $60
billion; but despite this, computers are still underused in the classroom.
Although there are undoubtedly multiple reasons for this disparity, a primary
factor is that teachers feel they are ill-equipped to incorporate technology
into their lessons, partly due to a lack of adequate training (Lowther, Inan,
Strahl, and Ross, 2008). Countless research studies have been performed in
an effort to determine the most effective way to train teachers to integrate
technology in the classroom. But, educational researchers Fullan and
Stiegelbauer (1991) made three recommendations about professional
development (PD) in schools. One of these stressed the importance of
making PD part of the school culture, so that it is incorporated throughout
the curriculum and not viewed as an isolated event, and so that it is
supported by all faculty and staff.
To date, several different models of technology PD have been tried,
including traditional workshop-style trainings. In this type of training,
sometimes referred to as “sit-and-get”, teachers receive one-time training
on specific technology devices or applications, and then are on their own to
determine how to integrate what they have learned into their curriculum.
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 4
Yet according to a study by Brinkerhoff, “traditional sit-and-get-training
sessions without follow-up support have proven ineffective in impacting
teachers‟ technology integration” (Brinkerhoff, 2006). Currently, the
education community generally agrees that high-quality PD should have
certain characteristics to be successful, such as long duration, follow-up
support, and collaboration and community-building among the participants
(Martin, Strother, and Beglau, 2010).
Other PD models have recently been attempted as alternatives to the
traditional workshop model, many of which incorporate various forms of the
collaboration specified by Martin et al. Collaboration may be structured or
informal, even to the extent that it sometimes happens accidentally. In
addition, it can be one-on-one, or in a group setting, like learning
communities. At times it even takes the form of coaching or mentoring. In
addition, research has shown that effective PD provides time for teachers to
experiment and explore with technology over a period of time (Brinkerhoff,
2006), thus supporting the notion of a longer-duration training.
Although collaboration and ongoing exploration with technology are
positive attributes of a PD program, there is a component to effective PD
that may still be missing. Productive collaboration would result in the
creation of shared lessons and resources, but there must be an efficient way
to store and retrieve them. Although shared networked drives are one
possibility, they can be difficult to organize and maintain. A school wiki, on
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 5
the other hand, would allow resources to be easily organized and would
provide for a central location accessible from home or from school. With the
implementation of a wiki, the fruits of teachers‟ collaborative efforts will be
shared by, and ultimately benefit, everyone in the school.
The challenge for PD designers is to create a program that will fill the
gaps left by other, less effective PD programs. Repeatedly, studies have
indicated that collaboration and duration are crucial elements for PD
programs, but studies on wiki use for collaboration are scarce. Therefore,
this literature review seeks to answer the question: would long-term,
structured collaboration, combined with the use of a school wiki for sharing
resources, increase effective technology integration in K-12 classrooms?
Methods for Gathering Resources
In gathering the literature for this review, I started by doing a number
of searches using ERIC at EBSCOHost. Initially, searches were launched
using the keywords technology, training, and teachers in the title of the
article, along with making sure the parameters were in place to only retrieve
peer-reviewed, journal articles with full text available, and those published
since the year 2000. Most of the results dealt with pre-service teachers
instead of in-service teachers. Next, I searched for the terms technology,
professional, and development. Unfortunately, many of these articles were
not formal research studies but several were usable, particularly those that
examined specific PD models.
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 6
The next several searches focused on looking for key terms in the
abstract and the title. In various combinations, I searched for the terms
technology, teacher, coach, integration, collaboration, collaborative learning,
and learning communities in either the abstract, the title, or both. The
search was also expanded to include the Academic Search Complete
database. These searches produced many results, but some were too
specific and others too far away from the key subjects. However, because I
had previously read the article by Sugar (2005) about using instructional
technologists as coaches, I searched for other articles by the same author
and found another study by Sugar and Wilson that explored mentoring.
Locating articles on wiki use proved to be quite difficult. Most studies
of wikis focused on using them with students, or in contexts too different
from collaboration. However, I discovered two studies on using wikis with
pre-service teachers that captured the kind of data that could be generalized
to the in-service teacher population.
Overall, although there were over 45 articles in my list, many were
eliminated due to not being closely related to my topic. However, some
researchers authored or co-authored multiple studies. Therefore, it is clear
that there is a significant level of experience to support the research.
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 7
Discussion
Long-Term PD
According to Boyle, Lamprianou, and Boyle (2005), certain types of PD
are more likely to provide sustained learning opportunities, which means
“sufficient time, activities, and content necessary to increase knowledge and
encourage meaningful changes in their classroom practice” (p. 5). In each
of the studies reviewed, the PD extended over approximately two years,
although the specific PD activities varied. For instance when Boyle et al.
surveyed a group of teachers in England, they were in their second year of a
long-term PD program, which included study groups, mentoring, research
and inquiry, and on-site or online courses. Jonathan Brinkerhoff (2006)
conducted a study of a PD program that included two weeks of full-day
training in two subsequent summers, as well as five in-service training days
throughout each of two school years. Martin, Strother, and Beglau (2010)
evaluated an initiative where teachers underwent 250 hours of PD, and
combined training with follow-up coaching visits. In all of these cases,
teachers received technology instruction and then took the time to explore
what they had learned, experimenting with new techniques and ideas in
their classrooms, before reconvening for additional training.
In each study, most of the actual PD activities were also of a long-term
nature, instead of the traditional sit-and-get training. For example,
Brinkerhoff (2006), Boyle et al. (2005), and Martin et al. (2010) all
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 8
described collaborative PD practices taking place among teachers, such as
sharing technology lesson ideas and examples, and making time for
discussion and reflection. In addition, one study reported that, as a group or
individually, teachers were required to complete technology-related projects
and exercises that would eventually become lessons, and to self-assess
those lessons. PD leaders also encouraged all teachers to master certain
basic technology skills, such as file management and effective Internet
searching (Brinkerhoff, 2006). In another study, participants made
connections between the PD content and their own instructional practices as
they discussed ideas and created projects (Martin et al., 2010). Many of the
PD practices were also hands-on and involved the kind of inquiry-based
learning that teachers wanted for their own students (Boyle et al., 2005;
Martin et al., 2010). Support groups allowed teachers to coach, mentor, and
observe each other, which usually took place during actual instruction and
were therefore easier to sustain over an extended time period (Boyle et al.,
2005). Boyle et al. remarked that “in comparison to the traditional „one-hit‟
workshops, these types of activities are usually longer in duration, allow
teachers the opportunity to practice and reflect upon their teaching and are
embedded in ongoing teaching activities” (p. 5).
The results of all three studies were similar. Brinkerhoff (2006)
reported an increase in technology skills among participants, and both
Brinkerhoff and Martin et al. (2010) revealed that teachers were less fearful
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 9
of, and more confident in, technology integration. Boyle et al.‟s (2005)
findings indicated that, as a result of the long-term PD, 75% of teachers
made changes in at least one aspect of their teaching, and 61% changed the
way they planned for teaching. Teachers involved in study groups reported
the highest percentage of change in teaching styles. In Boyle et al.‟s study,
teachers also revealed that observation and sharing practices were the two
most popular features of their PD program. In their study, Martin et al.
documented better lesson plan quality as a result of the PD program, and
recommended PD designers create programs that included long-duration,
ongoing coaching, and close connection to practice. Brinkerhoff‟s findings
suggested that the long-duration PD was a key factor in the program‟s
success, since there was a significant increase in computer self-efficacy
between the end of the first long training session and the end of the entire
PD program. In summarizing the necessary steps to increased technology-
based instruction, Brinkerhoff stated that “for these changes to occur,
teachers need opportunities to apply newly acquired skills to personal use,
experiment with the effectiveness of technology in the classroom, and collect
student data to justify conclusions” (p. 38).
Collaboration
Some common themes exist among many of the research studies that
relate to PD. For instance, when PD incorporates elements of collaboration,
both communication and interaction among teachers increases (Ross &
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 10
Lowther, 2003). And, teachers sharing projects and lessons they have
developed stimulates more creativity and ideas, thus compounding the
productivity of the group (Duran, Brunvand, & Fossum, 2009). Furthermore,
when teachers support and encourage each other, they develop more
confidence in their technology skills and become more positive about
including it in their instruction (Lowther, Inan, Strahl, & Ross, 2008; Sugar,
2005; Ross & Lowther, 2003). Collaboration also serves as the ongoing
support that is so necessary for teachers to assimilate technology content
received in training (Hughes, Kerr, & Ooms, 2005).
In 2005, William Sugar and Kenneth Wilson conducted a study in two
southeastern U.S. school districts to explore alternatives to traditional
teacher in-services. Results showed that the most recommended
alternatives involved some type of collaborative PD. However, collaboration
can fall into one of several categories. On a larger scale, collaboration can
be a more structured group event such as a whole-school approach to
increasing technology use, or the presence of learning communities
throughout the school. Conversely, collaboration can occur between just
two people, as in situations where teachers have coaches from either inside
or outside of their schools, or where teachers with more technology
experience mentor those with less experience. In addition, there is a kind of
collaboration that is informal and occurs naturally during the course of a
teacher‟s day.
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 11
Whole-school approach. Phelps and Graham‟s 2008 study of a PD
initiative in New South Wales, Australia revealed that behind a whole-school
approach to technology training is the assumption that effective PD requires
teachers to change their attitudes, values, and beliefs. In fact, the focus of
this PD program was developing teachers‟ abilities to keep learning, and the
learning was influenced by affects, motivation, and strategies. The schools
involved in the study established certain whole-school implementation
strategies, such as goal-setting, mentoring and support, reflection,
discussion, and celebration of achievements. In addition, teachers were
encouraged to try new things, and this risk-taking was more effective when
the school administration reinforced and modeled it first.
Phelps and Graham‟s study (2008) uncovered some key factors about
successful technology PD. First, strategies like reflection and discussion
inspired many conversations and idea-sharing about technology. Secondly,
findings indicated that teachers need to have support when challenges arise,
and more importantly, they need to know where to find that support. One
teacher commented that “to be an effective ICT user, one does not have to,
and indeed cannot, know it all” (p. 128). Additional outcomes included
acknowledging the importance of practicing skills in order to retain
knowledge, not being afraid to ask questions, and being willing to learn from
and with students. Ultimately, many teachers realized they often had the
ability to solve a technology problem themselves. On the more practical
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 12
side, the focus on goal-setting and achievement led to greater efficiency in
tasks like searching the Internet, using tools to create digital music and
stories, and working with some of the more advanced Google applications.
Finally, one of the most telling results was how much the success of the PD
program relied on school leadership and a change in the school culture.
Learning communities. In each of the learning community (LC)
studies examined for this review, the structure of the LC differed slightly. In
Hughes et al.‟s (2005) study, the LCs were referred to as “content-focused
technology inquiry groups” (p. 367), or “collaborative inquiry” (p. 368). In
this situation, the teachers had a distinct purpose which was to explore the
connection between technology integration and students‟ content-specific
learning. On the other hand, Ross and Lowther (2003) investigated a school
reform design that included structured collaboration for the purposes of
reflection, discussion, and the shared creation of common projects that were
then implemented by all group members. A study conducted by Duran,
Brunvand, and Fossum (2009) used LCs to initiate collaboration between
distinct groups of teachers – pre-service, in-service, and university faculty.
In this instance, the PD designers hoped the three groups would learn from
each other, thereby taking advantage of each other‟s strengths and
knowledge.
One theme common to all three studies was the idea of sharing. LCs
met collaboratively to share ideas, but also to share the teachers‟ successes
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 13
and failures so they could learn from one another. Additionally, they shared
lessons and projects so that the sum of their productivity was available to
everyone (Hughes et al., 2005; Ross & Lowther, 2003; Duran et al., 2009).
Duran et al. (2009) noted that sharing projects inspired more creativity
among the group members. Even teachers who did not teach the same
content were able to adapt lessons to fit their instruction. In two of the
studies, the LCs evolved from being instructional planning groups to a place
where members could share accomplishments, solicit feedback, and ask
questions of each other. This was especially important when there were one
or two experts in the group who could offer more experience than the others
(Hughes et al., 2005; Duran et al., 2009).
These experts were also critical in a particular case where a teacher
needed scaffolding for technology learning in order to move toward being
independent in her technology integration. However in the same study, the
authors presented an interesting point regarding teachers tapping into the
share expertise too much. This raised issues of whether certain teachers
could sustain their use of technology when they had to rely so heavily on the
help of others (Hughes et al., 2005).
The findings of all three studies varied only slightly. Ross and Lowther
(2003) discovered not only a greater use of technology and cooperative
learning when teachers worked in LCs, but also a genuine sense of
enjoyment. “Teachers enjoyed collaboratively planning common projects
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 14
that were implemented by all the teachers in their group, with some
incorporating team teaching into certain aspects of the projects” (p. 233).
Additionally, principals reported that collaborative groups were one of the
most effective elements of the PD program (Ross & Lowther, 2003).
Duran et al. (2009) found that teachers appreciated the collaboration,
but they reported increased motivation and enthusiasm for technology as
well. In their program, the in-service teachers were able to help the pre-
service teachers with classroom management and curriculum, while the pre-
service teachers helped the in-service teachers with technology. They
concluded that LCs provided an effective means of gaining both technical
and pedagogical support. Hughes et al. (2005) claimed their research
illustrated the importance of collaboration and technology integration within
an LC, and went so far as to assert that for teachers, “the propensity to
sustain their integration is inextricable from their ability to continue learning
within their inquiry community” (p. 377).
Mentoring. In contrast to learning communities, mentoring usually
involved either one-on-one or one-to-many collaborative PD. In Miller and
Glover‟s study (2007), the PD took place after the diffusion of interactive
whiteboards in a secondary school. Although the initial installation was
followed by issues such as confusion with the software, mechanical
problems, and frustration with the learning curve, eventually, a few teachers
emerged as experts who took responsibility for staff support. This resulted
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 15
in teachers training and mentoring each other in the use of the whiteboards
during rather informal sharing times. While these teachers became mentors
out of necessity, the mentor teachers studied by Sugar and Wilson (2005)
went through train-the-trainer sessions to learn how to tutor and mentor
each other. In addition to collaborating on specific projects for the
classroom, the mentors collaborated on developing an actual PD program
itself, drawing on their own experiences of integrating the whiteboards into
their curriculum. This type of mentoring also followed more of a situated
approach, where the mentor worked with one or more teachers on specific
technology applications for their classrooms.
In both studies, the researchers determined that mentoring is more
appropriate for individual needs than traditional in-service trainings have
been. As with research on learning communities, the greatest need in both
mentoring studies was for teachers to be able and willing to share their
experiences and grow together (Miller & Glover, 2007; Sugar & Wilson,
2005). In comparing mentoring to traditional technology training, Sugar and
Wilson wrote, “teachers collaborate and learn together, as opposed to
learning in isolation in a typical professional development workshop” (p. 92).
According to Miller and Glover (2007), mentoring provides time for learning
and experimenting, especially using a hands-on, constructivist methodology.
In fact, findings revealed that one of the reasons teachers did not value
traditional PD was because off-site training was separated from the hands-
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 16
on environment. In addition, one of the study‟s recommendations was that
teachers begin working with either an internal or external mentor from an
early stage in the technology implementation. Results from Sugar and
Wilson‟s study (2005) showed that 70% of teachers who were mentored
once a week said that it had improved their teaching. The research also
mentioned that some PD programs had incorporated online mentoring, which
offered electronic collaboration in a virtual environment. However, Sugar
and Wilson (2005) acknowledged a negative correlation between level of
expertise and one-to-one training because “quite possibly, teachers who
have more technology experience do not need the assistance of a technology
coach” (p. 96). Clearly, there will always be some PD differences between
the needs of beginning, average, and advanced technology users, as well as
between teachers with varying levels of technology confidence (Sugar &
Wilson, 2005).
Coaching. Coaching as a form of collaboration can be manifested in
slightly different ways. In one study carried out by Lowther, Inan, Strahl,
and Ross (2008), the authors evaluated a program in Tennessee called
TnETL, which provided full-time, on-site technology coaches who helped
teachers create lessons to stimulate critical-thinking skills in students, thus
preparing them to meet the state standards. Similarly, Barron, Dawson, and
Yendol-Hoppey‟s investigation (2009) of the Microsoft Peer Coaching
program examined a project that trained teachers to serve as peer coaches
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 17
who would help other teachers both develop their technology skills and
create technology-rich lessons. In 2005, William Sugar, in another study on
alternatives to traditional technology PD, assessed the effects of pairing an
instructional technologist with one teacher who met weekly in a situated
learning context.
In all of these studies, as with the other forms of collaboration,
coaches and teachers worked together to create and share lessons and
resources (Lowther et al., 2008; Sugar, 2005; Barron et al., 2009). In
Lowther at al.‟s study (2008), even administrators took part in the training
and coaching opportunities. However, so that teachers did not learn a skill
and then eventually forget it because they did not apply it quickly enough,
the TnETL program in Lowther et al.‟s study (2008) also focused on “just in
time” support, where coaches helped teachers to learn new skills exactly
when they needed them. Similarly, in Sugar‟s study (2005), instead of the
coach dictating what they would cover, the coaches and teachers discussed
whatever the teacher wanted, from changing ink cartridges to learning a
specific application. Teachers were also required to create certain projects,
such as PowerPoint presentations, spreadsheets, and web pages. Coaches
would communicate with their teachers via email in between coaching
sessions. This situated approach to coaching allowed a relationship to grow
between the coach and teacher based on trust and mutual respect. Barron
et al. (2009) also observed that in a successful teacher/coach affiliation, a
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 18
rapport built on trust had to exist. However, these authors also noted that
the technology integration needed to extend over a period of time in order to
foster a deep understanding. Consequently, the program leaders initiated
collegial study groups for reflecting on teacher practices, critically analyzing
each other‟s performances, and setting goals.
Not surprisingly, the results of these three studies revealed similar
themes to those of other studies on collaboration. Teachers developed more
positive attitudes towards technology (Lowther et al., 2008; Barron et al.,
2009), and greater self-confidence in their use of technology (Lowther et al.,
2008; Sugar, 2005). Furthermore, two studies reported the implementation
of more effective lessons in a student-centered environment (Lowther et al.,
2008; Sugar, 2005), which, in one study, led to an increase in students‟
technology experience and an improvement in their critical-thinking skills
(Lowther et al, 2008). One of the findings from Barron et al.‟s study (2009)
indicated the importance of teachers having time for experimentation, but
also stressed the need for creating an entire school culture focused on
teacher inquiry and change. Similarly, Sugar (2005) pointed out that
principals believed the teachers‟ projects were especially effective in building
technology skills, thus implying that administrative buy-in was critical in the
PD‟s success. Sugar also concluded that situated PD coaching is an excellent
alternative to traditional workshops, as evidenced by one teacher
commenting, “I think many teachers would feel more comfortable with
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 19
computers if they had the chance to work one-on-one with a „coach‟” (p.
566). Another teacher succinctly observed, “It is the most worthwhile
service that I have been involved with. I learn exactly what I need” (p.
555). Finally, Sugar summarized what all the studies suggested are the
most crucial traits for a technology coach to demonstrate: good listening,
patience, friendliness, empathy, reassurance, and encouragement (Sugar,
2005).
Informal. In an interesting departure from examining PD programs
based on structured collaboration, Heidi Stevenson (2004) performed an
exploratory study on the nature of informal collaboration and its effects on
technology integration in schools. She chose two low-income schools in
Southern California that had already established an emphasis on
incorporating technology into instruction. Stevenson defined informal
collaboration as “direct interactions between at least two parties who
voluntarily engage in, and have full discretion over, the process of working
towards the goal of their choice” (p. 129-130).
Six major assertions emerged from Stevenson‟s (2004) data.
Interestingly, the first revealed that when seeking information on technology
use, teachers “value informal collaboration as a more effective method of PD
than organizationally planned or sponsored activities” (p. 133). For instance,
they may brainstorm with other teachers who have used the technology,
which then helps them acquire ideas that keep their teaching up-to-date
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 20
(Stevenson, 2004). The second assertion of Stevenson‟s study indicated
that informal technology collaboration often takes place spontaneously, and
teachers do not consciously separate it from conversations on other
subjects. This implies that a teacher may be having a casual conversation
with another teacher, and something will stimulate the discussion of a new
technology in the classroom.
Thirdly, Stevenson (2004) asserted that informal collaboration is
affected by two factors: time and the perceived potential for getting
information on their specific needs. In fact, one teacher commented, “I
know that if I go to someone else who has that information, another
teacher, that person also knows why I want that information” (p. 136). This
comment suggested that the other “expert” teacher also understands the
urgency and timeliness of providing their assistance. Assertion four stated
that the “specific needs” mentioned in the third assertion primarily focus on
either curriculum needs or how-to and troubleshooting questions. In fact,
Stevenson concluded that acquisition of curriculum ideas was a primary
reason for collaboration. The tendency for teachers to seek out different
kinds of people, depending on what they need, was the fifth assertion.
Generally, two kinds of people – grade-level colleagues and technology
specialists – offered the most support. Grade-level colleagues tended to be
familiar with the curriculum and technology specialists could provide support
with a program or device.
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 21
And finally, Stevenson (2004) asserted that teachers accept a few
people as “informally recognized experts” (p. 140) who can supply help with
both curriculum and troubleshooting. Usually, these experts have
proficiency in one particular area, but they seem to genuinely enjoy talking
with people about technology, are happy to assist others and, perhaps most
importantly, are non-threatening. Stevenson also explained that teachers‟
reasons for choosing who they collaborate with and why they collaborate
were the most meaningful data to come from her study.
Stevenson (2004) concluded that informal collaboration appeared to
contribute to teachers‟ technology PD and to their work with students. She
also questioned why some teachers engage in informal collaboration and
some do not. But, she surmised that the presence of informal collaboration
has to do with the culture of the school, a point that Phelps and Graham
(2008) echoed with regard to whole-school collaboration PD.
Wiki Use
A wiki is an Internet site that allows member users to add, edit, and
delete shared content. Research conducted on wiki use for the purpose of
collaboration among teachers is minimal, and in fact, the only studies done
took place in a college setting among pre-service teachers. However, those
two evaluations gleaned some interesting and encouraging results. In 2008,
Foulger, Williams, and Wetzel investigated a PD program called Innovations
Mini-Teach that required pre-service teachers to experiment with various
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 22
technologies in peer groups independent of the instructor, because of time
constraints in covering all the material in class. Although the primary
purpose was to better understand how technology can be integrated into
instruction, one of the goals of the program was to contribute to a collection
of ideas and materials by using a wiki. In another study, researchers
Matthew, Felvegi, and Callaway (2009) examined a language arts methods
class where contribution to the class wiki was a required element. These
pre-service teachers were to complete class readings, in-class activities, and
tutoring, and then share what they had learned on the class wiki.
Both studies presented many advantages of using a wiki for
collaboration. For instance, students could dig deeper into certain class
topics by reading and rereading material in order to increase their
understanding of it. Instructors also noted that, when looking for material to
post on the wiki, students even started looking for connections between the
wiki content and other classes, outside activities, and their own teaching
practices (Matthew et al., 2009). Furthermore, the authors referred to the
wiki as a “never-ending course” (Foulger at al., 2008, p. 36) and in both
studies, wikis were described as a review source that would be very valuable
in the future (Foulger et al., 2008; Matthew et al., 2009). One student, in
commenting on learning the specifics of creating a certain project, noted, “so
it might not have been something I grasped right at the time, but if I want
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 23
to use that innovation I can go back there and learn it step by step” (Foulger
et al., 2008, p. 36).
Another advantage of wikis was that the knowledge gained by one
member of the wiki is owned by everyone, and by building on each other‟s
work, the wiki becomes a collection of enhanced knowledge (Foulger et al.,
2008; Matthew et al., 2009). In addition, because all wiki contributors are
responsible for the learning of all members, the pre-service teachers took
ownership of it. One student in Matthew et. al‟s study (2009) explained,
“when you work hard on something and collaborate with others you want to
see how it progresses and changes, and I know I want to see how others
add to this project” (p. 63). Another participant in the study referred to the
“two heads are better than one” adage by commenting, “when you
collaborate with your peers, I feel that it is easier to come to a conclusion or
express an idea” (p. 61).
For the course instructors, the wiki provided insights into the
collaboration among the pre-service teachers, as well as illuminating their
reflections (Matthew et al., 2009). The wikis also contributed to
constructivism, because the pre-service teachers participated in authentic
learning activities. Furthermore, the virtual nature of the wiki removed the
classroom walls so the pre-service teachers‟ communities of practice could
be “situated in various learning contexts” (Matthew et al., 2009, p. 54).
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 24
Although the results from both studies were overwhelmingly positive,
the authors presented some challenges to wiki use. For instance, issues
arose with group dynamics within the communities of practice when some
pre-service teachers failed to deliver on their commitments. Additionally, for
those pre-service teachers whose technology skills were less developed than
their partners, using the wiki was frustrating and somewhat intimidating
(Foulger et al., 2008). In particular, students expressed frustration over
some of the characteristics of shared documents, such as not being able to
edit at the same time as someone else, or not knowing to refresh their
browsers periodically. However, advanced technology skills were not
necessary for wiki use, and the pre-service teachers discovered that
collaborating on the wiki actually taught them new technology skills
(Matthew et al., 2009).
Overall, students felt that, even though work on the wiki was time-
consuming, the time and effort they put into it was worthwhile.
Furthermore, using the wiki gave them ideas to use in their future
classrooms. They realized the value of having their students collaborate to
build shared knowledge because “they came to understand that meaningful,
authentic class assignments requiring collaboration resulted in deep
learning” (Matthew et al., 2009, p. 64). One recommendation for the future
maintained that learning founded on collaboration and strengthened by tools
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 25
such as a wiki should be attempted across disciplines and grade levels
(Foulger et al., 2008).
Conclusion
Several common results resonated throughout the literature, such as
an increase in teachers‟ confidence towards using technology, improvement
of teachers‟ technical skills, and a more positive attitude towards technology.
And over and over again, the benefits of collaboration are emphasized,
regardless of whether the collaboration took place in groups or one-on-one.
The studies also indicated that the traditional workshop-style of PD is one of
the reasons technology has not been well received at many schools, and that
effective PD is an ongoing process that depends on teachers getting the
support and resources they need. But, it is also clear that the education
community is moving towards a different model of PD.
In the area of collaboration, several themes recur in the research.
Collaborative goal-setting; sharing ideas, lessons, resources, challenges, and
achievements; and giving and receiving feedback during collaboration is
mentioned time and time again (Stevenson, 2005; Lowther et al., 2008;
Miller & Glover, 2007; Sugar, 2005; Hughes et al., 2005; Ross & Lowther,
2003; Duran et al., 2009; Sugar & Wilson, 2005; Phelps & Graham, 2008).
Another prominent theme was the value of obtaining assistance and support
via collaboration, either through the help of an expert, or simply talking
through the problem with fellow teachers (Sugar, 2005; Sugar & Wilson,
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 26
2005; Barron et al., 2009; Hughes et al., 2005; Duran et al., 2009; Phelps &
Graham, 2008). In most cases, PD that incorporated collaboration also
involved making time to discuss and reflect. Teachers often met in collegial
study groups and reflected on their own and others‟ teaching practices and
how technology-enhanced lessons would impact those practices. Reflection
also included critically analyzing each others‟ performances (Stevenson,
2005; Barron et al., 2009; Sugar & Wilson, 2005; Hughes et al., 2005;
Phelps & Graham, 2008).
Other ideas that surfaced many times in the literature included using
collaboration, particularly in the form of coaching or mentoring, in a situated
PD approach (Lowther et al, 2008; Sugar, 2005; Sugar & Wilson, 2005;
Duran et al., 2009). Having the ability to explore and experiment with
technology in a hands-on, constructivist manner was also important to many
of the teacher participants in the studies (Barron et al., 2009; Miller &
Glover, 2007; Sugar & Wilson, 2005; Duran et al., 2009; Phelps & Graham,
2008). And finally, the importance of having the administration support the
collaborative efforts was discussed many times. Involvement of the school
administration was significant in affecting a change in school culture, which
was seen as a crucial element of successful collaborative PD (Lowther et al.,
2008; Phelps & Graham, 2008; Sugar, 2005; Barron et al., 2009; Hughes et
al., 2005; Ross & Lowther, 2003).
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 27
In the research studies on long-term PD efforts, the ideas that seemed
to recur focused on giving teachers adequate time between formal trainings
for exploring, and experimenting with, the new technologies. This included
opportunities for active learning, such as observations and feedback. Long-
term PD also offered ongoing support for teachers in the form of experts or
technical assistance (Brinkerhoff, 2006; Martin et al., 2010; Boyle et al.,
2005). In addition, two of the studies on long-term PD advocated that some
form of collaboration be incorporated into the program as well (Martin et al.,
2010; Boyle et al., 2005).
The wiki studies also had several common ideas. According to both
articles, wiki use by pre-service teachers fostered a sense of community and
allowed all wiki members to benefit from each others‟ work. Consequently,
all wiki members felt a sense of ownership and had a stake in ensuring the
quality of the resources available there. Furthermore, results showed that
the pre-service teachers planned to take advantage of the material on the
wiki in their future roles as in-service teachers. And, as was the case with
studies on long-term PD, the wiki studies also espoused the collaboration
aspect of wiki use (Foulger et al., 2008; Matthew et al., 2009). Clearly,
collaboration was the common denominator in all of the reviewed literature.
There were very few discrepancies between the various studies. The
authors who examined wiki use discussed some issues the pre-service
students had with weak technology skills and how that affected the ease of
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 28
using the wiki. Group dynamics also created some challenges for students
when some wiki members did not deliver resources they had promised
(Matthew et al., 2009). There were very few negative outcomes in any of
the collaboration studies. However, Sugar and Wilson (2005) reported a
negative correlation between a teacher‟s level of expertise and the success
of one-to-one training. In the study that Sugar (2005) conducted on his
own, he also acknowledged that the situated coaching program was not
necessarily appropriate for all teachers, but would probably be more
effective with teachers who were reluctant and/or skeptical about adopting
new technologies.
On a personal note, in my own school environment, I have seen
evidence of the success of all three components of this literature review.
Collaboration occurs on a regular basis between teachers working at the
same grade level, and in some cases, between those at different grade
levels. Although collaboration does not always involve technology, the
majority of the progress made in increasing effective technology integration
at my school is the result of teachers sharing resources, providing support
and encouragement, and mentoring each other. In addition, as discussed in
Stevenson‟s study on informal collaboration (2004), some of the
collaboration takes place in the hallways and break room, or during planning
time. Consequently, I was not surprised that almost all of the collaboration
studies were overwhelmingly positive.
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 29
Likewise, I also saw evidence of the benefit of long-term PD during the
2009-2010 school year. Our county installed interactive whiteboards in all
classrooms in our school and although our teachers received an initial
overview in using the boards, that was not the end of the training. The
county contracted with Kennesaw State University to have an instructional
technologist conduct a series of ongoing classes from December through the
following May, offering beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels of
training. To a huge extent, our whiteboard implementation was successful
because of this ongoing training.
Similarly, I have seen how effective wikis can be when used for
collaboration. As the only media specialist in my school, I rely on the
experience and expertise of my fellow media specialists in the county. A few
years ago, our county-level support team constructed a wiki and set up all
county media specialists as members. Since then, the wiki has grown to
include sample lessons for all grade levels, information about our OPAC,
CRCT practice questions on media-related subjects, and much more. At one
point, when the wiki had grown and become a bit disorganized, members of
our county‟s Media Leadership Team reorganized it to make it easier to
navigate. The existence of the wiki prevents us from having to repeatedly
send out countless emails requesting help and resources.
The incorporation of all three components of this review – long-
duration, collaboration, and wiki use – in a PD program is a natural
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 30
progression. The nature of structured collaboration, with teacher groups
meeting regularly, implies that it will be an ongoing activity. Yet,
collaboration needs to be formalized so that the lessons and resources
created by the collaborative groups are not lost or forgotten, and so that
teachers are not continually “reinventing the wheel.” Consequently, using a
wiki to organize materials and make then accessible to everyone makes
perfect sense. Furthermore, a wiki can either be managed by one or two
people, or can be updated by everyone, depending on the technology skills
of its users. As a matter of fact, a final advantage to wiki use is the
possibility of improved technology skills as teachers learn a new application.
Future Research
Due to the scarcity of studies on wiki use for teacher collaboration,
future research should investigate this issue. Specifically, researchers
should answer the question: how does the use of a wiki for teacher
collaboration affect the integration of technology? Although this study would
be primarily qualitative, it is possible the study could be mixed. For
instance, if the participating schools used an electronic form of submitting
lesson plans, data could be collected on how many technology-enhanced
lessons were conducted during the study. Qualitative data would come from
pre- and post-study surveys or questionnaires, and classroom observations
conducted by the researchers. In addition, data could be gleaned from
monitoring postings and changes on the wiki itself. For this study,
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 31
participants would be teachers in schools where there is already a
reasonable amount of technology, preferably interactive whiteboards, LCD
projectors, and laptops for every teacher. The study would begin by
choosing a group of teachers who were recognized as technology experts
and were willing to participate. These teachers would be trained in how to
use the wiki and, with the help of the research team, would create the wiki
structure, establish a set of guidelines for wiki use, and upload lessons and
other resources that were already being shared in some way.
Once the wiki structure was in place, participants would be selected
based on technology skill level and willingness to participate (the technology
skill levels would be varied). Participants would complete a survey on their
self-assessed technology integration habits, including how much and what
kind of technology they use on a regular basis. The teacher participants
would then be trained on how to obtain lessons and supporting files from the
wiki, and would begin to have weekly meetings with the team of experts.
During these meetings, the experts would review new material on the wiki
and explain its uses so that teachers could begin to use it. In addition,
experts would encourage discussion and reflection among the participants.
This study would last for an entire school year, but the researchers would re-
evaluate the participants at the midpoint and then again at the end of the
year. The observation data would be analyzed based on the number of
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 32
recorded instances of teachers using material obtained from the wiki. And, a
comparative analysis of pre- and post- survey data would also be conducted.
Because negative attitudes towards technology can be contagious, and
thus sabotage efforts towards effective collaboration, a research study based
on William Sugar‟s recommendation (2005) for future research could be very
helpful. Sugar‟s research (2005) focused on using instructional
technologists as technology coaches, but according to Sugar, additional
studies need to be done to answer the question: will having a technology
coach change the attitudes and practices of more skeptical and reluctant
teachers, or of teachers who are resistant to change? Like Sugar‟s study
(2005), this additional study would also be qualitative. Researchers could
conduct pre- and post- surveys and interviews, as well as performing
ongoing observations. In addition, the technology coaches could keep
documentation of the topics covered in each meeting.
Participants would be selected from results of a pre-study
questionnaire where they would classify themselves as either skeptical or
resistant to change, but would also accept that there is potential value for
technology in the classroom. The reluctant teachers would be paired with a
coach, preferably an instructional technologist but possibly a media specialist
or computer instructor. The coach and teacher would initially set goals and
define projects that could be created using technology, then would meet on
a weekly basis. During these meetings, they would discuss topics chosen by
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 33
the teacher but if those topics were exhausted, the coach would offer topics
for discussion. The coach would also maintain a journal detailing each
meeting. Along with the researchers, the coach would be partially
responsible for monitoring the teacher‟s use of technology, observing him or
her at least once a week, and providing feedback to the teacher.
Furthermore, the coach would be in the classroom to help the teacher each
time a new technology was attempted. This PD program would last
approximately four to six months. Data would be evaluated by performing
comparative analyses on the pre- and post- surveys, coding the interview
data according to recurring themes, and using a structured tracking log
when making classroom observations.
A third possibility for future research could focus on collaboration in
the form of LCs, and would combine collaboration with long-term PD. This
research study would answer the question: would ongoing, structured
learning communities improve teachers‟ attitudes towards technology and
increase the frequency of technology use in the classroom? Again, the study
could be strictly qualitative, or might be a mixed methods study if the
number of occurrences of technology in a teacher‟s lesson plans could be
tracked. Data would be gathered via surveys or questionnaires that would
be completed at various intervals in the study. In addition, a member of the
LC would record the discussions at each meeting.
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 34
Participants for this study would be teachers in a variety of grade
levels and subject areas, and with varying degrees of confidence and
attitudes towards technology. A heterogeneous group would be the best
way to generalize the results to a larger population. The study would begin
with a self-assessment of teachers‟ use of and attitudes towards technology
in the classroom. Teacher participants would then be assigned to a learning
community of no more than six people, and each learning community would
choose one teacher as the leader. During each meeting, community
members would recount technology successes and challenges since the last
meeting, and at least one teacher member would present a new technology
and how it could be used in the classroom. Before the meeting ended, the
group would establish goals to accomplish before the next meeting.
The communities would meet for one semester, and an evaluation
would be performed by the researchers to determine what progress had
been made before continuing the study into the next semester. Data would
be analyzed by comparing survey results at each interval, transcribing the
minutes of each meeting, and coding the data by category. In addition,
researchers would analyze the transcript and assign an overall rating based
on the attitudes displayed during the meeting. These ratings would also be
compared to each other to determine if a trend was emerging.
Overall, the studies evaluated for this literature review indicate that
researchers are getting closer to determining the ideal model for teacher PD
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 35
in technology. As researchers continue their studies, the topics need to help
fine tune the PD process. By executing the studies mentioned above, the
educational research community can ultimately help all teachers have
classrooms where technology is stimulating, interactive, and effective in
improving student learning.
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 36
References
Barron, A. E., Dawson, K., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). Peer coaching and
technology integration: An evaluation of the Microsoft peer coaching
program. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(1), 83-
102. doi:10.1080/13611260802658561
Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2005). A longitudinal study of teacher
change: What makes professional development effective? Report of
the second year of the study. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 16(1), 1-27. doi:10.1080/09243450500114819
Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development
academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology
integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 39(1), 22-43. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., & Johnson, C.W. (2008). Disrupting class:
How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New
York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Duran, M., Brunvand, S., & Fossum, P. R. (2009). Preparing science teachers
to teach with technology: Exploring a K-16 networked learning
community approach. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology - TOJET, 8(4), 21-42. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Foulger, T. S., Williams, M., & Wetzel, K. (2008). We innovate: The role of
collaboration in exploring new technologies. International Journal of
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 37
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 28-38. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost
Fullan, M. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational
change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (ED 354 588)
Hughes, J. E., Kerr, S. P., & Ooms, A. (2005). Content-focused technology
inquiry groups: Cases of teacher learning and technology integration.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 367-379. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost
Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Strahl, J., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology
integration "work" when key barriers are removed? Educational Media
International, 45(3), 195-213. doi:10.1080/09523980802284317
Martin, W., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T., & Culp, K.
(2010). Connecting instructional technology professional development
to teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 43(1), 53-74. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Matthew, K. I., Felvegi, E., & Callaway, R. A. (2009). Wiki as a collaborative
learning tool in a language arts methods class. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(1), 51-72. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2007). Into the unknown: The professional
development induction experience of secondary mathematics teachers
using interactive whiteboard technology. Learning, Media and
Technology, 32(3), 319-331. doi:10.1080/17439880701511156
WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 38
Phelps, R., & Graham, A. (2008). Developing "Technology Together,"
together: A whole-school metacognitive approach to ICT teacher
professional development. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,
24(4), 125-133. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Ross, S. M., & Lowther, D. L. (2003). Impacts of the Co-nect school reform
design on classroom instruction, school climate, and student
achievement in inner-city schools. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 8(2), 215-46. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Stevenson, H. J. (2005). Teachers' informal collaboration regarding
technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2),
129-144. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Sugar, W. (2005). Instructional technologist as a coach: Impact of a situated
professional development program on teachers' technology use.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 547-571.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/200082817?accountid=10661
Sugar, W., & Wilson, K. (2005). Seeking alternatives to inservice technology
workshops from teachers' perspectives. Journal of Computing in
Teacher Education, 21(4), 91-98. Retrieved from EBSCOhost