insights on integrating technology iste 2016 -annual ... · integrate technology successfully. •...

InsightsonIntegratingTechnology

ISTE2016-AnnualConference,Denver,CO

DR.BARBARAMcCLANAHAN(ASSOCIATEPROFESSOR),DR.CRYSTALJENSEN(ASSISTANTPROFESSOR),

DEPARTMENTOFEDUCATIONALINSTRUCTION&LEADERSHIPSOUTHEASTERNOKLAHOMASTATEUNIVERSITY,DURANT,OK

DR.ANNESLOAN,PH.D.

PROFESSIONALS FORTHE21ST CENTURY:COMPETENT,COMMITTED, ANDETHICAL

ABSTRACTA survey completed by 1,309 teachers and administrators across three states was conducted to understand the perceptions of both groups as to how teachers used technology in their classrooms and their perceptions of the training they received for technology use. By cross-tabulating the data and analyzing for significance, the researchers were able to draw several conclusions including how teachers integrated technology, and how much professional development was most closely related to the highest levels of implementation.


INTRODUCTION● Surveyresearch samples 3U.Sstates● Purpose: Explore teachers’ actual preparation andintegration ofinstructional

technologies intheclassroom forrecommendations toadministrators forfurtheraction.

● Results: Suggest varyingtechnology integration =less inlowergradelevels, moreinnovative levels ofTPACKinhighergrades.Facultyobservations leading toconcerns regarding teacher usemodels suchasTPACKandSAMR

● Decision tocreate asurveytodocument accuracyofobservations


Whatspecifictechnologies areactuallybeingused intheschoolsandclassrooms oftheparticipants?

Howarethese technologies beingused intheschoolsandclassrooms oftheparticipants?

Howmuchandwhatkindofprofessional support isbeingprovided foruseofvarious technologies intheschoolsandclassrooms oftheparticipants?

Howeffectivedotheparticipants perceive this support tobe?

RESEARCHQUESTIONS


METHODS● Literature review conducted ● Online survey created, reviewed, and validated with university program

administrator/director, 9 university-level researchers, and one K-12 teacher/I.T. technician prior to dissemination to study population.

● Survey administered = 8 demographic questions and 8 questions developed by a group of university professors/researchers. A copy of the survey may be requested from Dr. Barbara McClanahan ([email protected]).

● Over 1,300 participants—Teachers, pre-service teachers, and administrators—completed the survey over a five-week period in the spring of 2014.

● Data was cross-tabulated and analyzed using chi-square tests.


RESULTS- More high school teachers than elementary and middle school teachers reported using technology for purposes that cannot be accomplished by pencil and paper alone, while more middle school teachers opted for “add-on” and elementary teachers preferred “alternative use” (Table 2).


RESULTS- Table 2 reveals that only 29.9% of elementary teachers in the survey, 27.4% of middle school teachers, and 39.9% of high school teachers actually reported using technology for purposes that could not be accomplished using paper and pencil.


RESULTS- Initial training from 1-5 hours showed most positive effect on increasing technology integration at the more advanced levels of TPACK - Beyond 5 hours of training, teachers tended to integrate technology at the primary levels of TPACK


RESULTSTable 8 - Large Campus’ Initial Tablet Training Compared to Planning for Tablet Use


RESULTSTable8: Medium Campus’

Initial Tablet Training Compared to Planning for Tablet Use


RESULTS- In terms of effective classroom technology integration, teachers benefitted most by personalized, in-class room, and sustained mentoring


RESULTSTable 9 – Large Campus’ Follow-up Tablet Training Compared to Planning for Tablet Use


RESULTSTable 9 - Medium Campuses’ Approach to Planning for Tablet Use


RESULTSTable9 – Medium Campus’

Follow-up Tablet Training Compared to Planning for Tablet Use


LIMITATIONS

- Self-reporting data- Small regional universities- Anonymous responses- Responses may not be generalizable


IMPLICATIONSOverall, this study reveals. . .

●Teachers at lower grade levels (K-5): Not as likely to use technology for anything other than substitution or augmentation as those in upper grades.●Type and length of training/professional development for technology implementation has a detectable impact on whether and how teachers use technology in their classrooms.


FUTURERECOMMENDATIONS

• First, teachers need on-going staff development provided through in-house coaching and peer support in order to integrate technology successfully.

• Second, teachers need additional planning time, which may be provided as simply as using early release days to allow for peer coaching, software and resource exploration, and sustained monitoring and accountability to insure effective technology integration in the classroom (Levin & Schrum, 2013).


References1. Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple-measure are more revealing.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 45-63. 2. Clark, C., Boyer, H., Alexander, C., Rudo, Z., & Pan, D. (2001, November). Making education dollars work: Understanding resource

allocation. Insights on Educational Policy, Practice, and Research, Number 14. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/policy/insights/n14/

3. Martin, M., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T., & Culp, K. M. (2010). Connecting instructional technology professional development to teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 53-74.

4. Mishra, V. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.

5. Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaic, R. Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). The Interactive Whiteboards, Pedagogy and Pupil Performance Evaluation: An evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project: London Challenge, Research Report RR816. London: Department for Education and Skills.

6. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1). Retrieved from http://eps415gse.pbworks.com/f/A_Pedagogy_of_Multiliteracies_Designing_Social_Futures.htm

7. Puentedura, R. (2003). A matrix model for designing and assessing network-enhanced courses. Retrieved 11-21-15 from http://www.hippasus.com/resources/matrixmodel/

8. The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. (April 19, 1997). President awards new technology grants today.Retrieved 11/22/15 from http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/New/NetDay/tlc.html

9. Weathersbee, J. C. (2008). Impact of Technology Integration in Public Schools on Academic Performance of Texas School Children(Master's thesis). Retrieved from https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/3481/fulltext.pdf?sequence=1

EXTEND:THANKYOU…

19

Jensen,C

..(EDU

C331

3)

This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Please credit Dr. Barbara McClanahan, Dr. Crystal Jensen @crystal_jensen, and Dr. Anne Sloan

ContactsDr.BarbaraMcClanahan: [email protected]

Dr.Crystal Jensen: [email protected], Twitter:@crystal_jensen, Website: http://www. drcrystaljensen.com

Dr.AnneSloan:[email protected]

insights on integrating technology iste 2016 -annual ... · integrate technology successfully. •...

Documents