View
51
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
ATTACKING THE TECHNOLOGY GAP: Encouraging Veteran Teachers to Incorporate Technology. Mollie Dwyer mdwyer@aacps.org ED 670 Summer 2011. Campbell, M. ( June 20, 2000) Ariadne Cartoon. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue23/cartoon/Image1.jpg . Area of Focus Statement. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
ATTACKING THE TECHNOLOGY GAP: Encouraging Veteran Teachers to Incorporate Technology
Mollie Dwyermdwyer@aacps.org
ED 670Summer 2011
Campbell, M. ( June 20, 2000) Ariadne Cartoon. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue23/cartoon/Image1.jpg
Area of Focus Statement Incorporating technology trend
Variation of technology skills between novice and veteran teachers
AACPS focused on “attacking the achievement gap” since 2006 (Maxwell, 2011, title)
Area of Focus (continued)
Attacking the technology gap will help attack the achievement gap
Focus: find ways to encourage veteran teachers to incorporate technology in their classrooms more regularly
Personal Lens Technology has always been my
strength
Few technology courses at Towson University; mostly self-taught
Worked in five AACPS as intern or special education assistant
Personal Lens (continued)
Co-workers have been amazed by my use of technology
Some ask me to show them how Others have little to no interest to learn
Mostly veteran teachers who have little to no interest to learn
Personal Lens (continued)
Most recent observation of technology use:
Multiple 5th grade classrooms Math, science, social studies with different
teachers Two veteran teachers: uncomfortable and
became frustrated easily Novice teacher: incorporated with ease
Setting Public elementary school in Anne
Arundel County
2010-2011 school year: 601 students 63% Caucasian 16% African-American 6% Hispanic 4% Asian <1% Native Hawaiian and Indian
Key Terms Achievement Gap:
difference between the performance of all student groups and the Anne Arundel County Public School (AACPS)-identified standards (Maxwell, 2011)
Technology Gap: varying uses of technology in classrooms
taught by novice and veteran teachers
Key Terms (continued)
Veteran Teacher: taught more than 10 years
Novice Teacher: taught less than 10 years
Technology: computers, software, or interactive devices
that enhance lessons
Research Question
How can I encourage veteran
teachers to incorporate
technology in the classroom?
Rationale Contribute toward closing the
technology gap, so teachers can focus more on the achievement gap
County-wide purpose to allow all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, or social status, make the most of their talents (Maxwell, 2011)
Literature Review Positive Outcomes of Incorporating
Technology:› “The power of new technology is that it
opens an incredible number of doors for teachers to help students learn in the most engaging way” (LaFee, 2010, p. 50).
› Anderson (2005) explains using technology for high-order thinking and problem solving can lead to increased success.
Literature Review (continued)
› Students’ learning can be enhanced and extended when technology is incorporated (Vasinda & McLeod, 2011).
› For example, students made podcasts to record their lines in Readers Theatre which extended their learning to include their families when they were able to listen to the podcast at home (Vasinda & McLeod, 2011).
Literature Review (continued)
Negative Outcomes of Incorporating Technology:› Anderson (2005) states, “technology use
widens the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ (p. 148).
› Poor and urban students are less likely to be exposed to high-order thinking with computers(Anderson, 2005).
Literature Review (continued)
› “The introduction of new technology alone does not guarantee improved learning experiences, or greater learning outcomes” (Prieto et. al, 2011).
› New technology has to be paired with pedagogy and content to be a success (Polly, 2011).
Literature Review (continued)
Veteran Teacher Views of Technology:› Snoeynik (2002) found inexperienced
teachers wanted to feel comfortable with the technology before attempting to teach with it.
› One veteran teacher said, “That was nice, but I could never do it” (Snoeynik, 2002, p. 103).
Literature Review (continued)
› Research has found teachers feel more comfortable learning technology when they are able to learn hands-on and have support from novice teachers (Plair, 2008; Becker, 1994; Polly, 2011).
› Veteran teachers will also be more effective incorporating technology when they are excited and eager to try it. Camhi (2010) quoted a teacher of 13 years
saying, “I feel like a kid in a candy shop” (p.15).
Literature Review (continued)
Summary:› The students we are teaching today, in the
21st century, come into school with a large amount of technology knowledge, so all teachers need to incorporate technology to ‘keep up’ with their students (Riel, 1994; Means, 2010; LaFee, 2010; Vasinda & McLeod, 2011; Prieto et al., 2011).
Methodology Teacher/Action Research:
› “systematic and intentional inquiry carried out by teachers” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990, p.3)
› “research done by teachers for teachers” (Mills, 2000, p.12)
› problem solving process where the problem comes from a teacher noticing something could have been done better (Mertler, 2000)
Methodology (continued)
Qualitative Methods:› Johnson (2002) explains teacher research
is predominately qualitative because teachers study the world around them.
› data collection methods that may foster more personal responses than quantitative methods
Example: Student interview instead of test scores
Participants Fifth grade and special education
teachers› 10 teachers total
5 novice and 5 veteran
› Fifth grade students
Preliminary Data Collection Observation
Teacher Surveys
Students Surveys
Teacher Interviews
Evaluation of Intervention Observation
Teacher Interviews
Procedures of Verification Guba’s (1981) Procedures:
› Constant participant at the site
› Triangulated data: observation, surveys, interviews
› Exact quotes used as raw data
› Member checks to ensure correct interpretation
Procedures of Verification (continued)
Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen’s (1994) criteria:› Democratic Validity
Include multiple perspectives Novice teachers Veteran teachers Students
Ethical Considerations Permission from administration
Project will be discussed in detail to allow teachers and students to decide if they want to participate
Participants may stop participating at any time, with no consequence
Ethical Considerations (continued)
Ensure Confidentiality› All participants will be given a number
› All data will be kept securely on my personal computer
› All data will be destroyed at the end of project
Proposed Interventions Professional Development Workshop:
› Held afterschool for one hour
› 5 novice teachers will showcase technology available at school
› 5 veteran teachers have opportunity to practice with technology and ask questions
Proposed Interventions (continued)
Mentor Program:› Veteran teacher paired with novice teacher
› Meet to collaborate 30 minutes, once a week for eight weeks
› Goal: veterans gain confidence and ease of incorporating technology
Members of Action Research Team
Mollie Dwyer- lead researcher
Veteran and Novice teachers
5th grade students
Negotiations Permission from administration
Consent from teachers
Permission from parents
Assent from students
TimelinePhase and Time Action
Phase 1
1 week prior to workshop
Teacher and student surveys and interviews to determine need of intervention
Phase 2
Afterschool for one hour
Professional development workshop hosted by novice teachers
Phase 3
Begins 1 week after workshop, continues for 8 weeks
Novice and veteran teacher partnership intervention
(30 minutes afterschool, once a week)
Phase 4
1 week after mentor program ends
Post-intervention teacher and student surveys and interviews to evaluate interventions
Resources Needed Computer lab for professional development
workshop
Surveymonkey.com
Tape recorder
School’s technology including: SMART boards, document cameras, and various websites
Porter, B. http://www.issues.cc/complaints/technology/kids-and-pricy-technology-dont-mix
References Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own school: An
educator’s guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Anderson, N. (2005). ‘Mindstorms’ and ‘mindtools’ aren’t happening: Digital streaming of students via socio-economic disadvantage. E-Learning, 2(2), 144-152.
Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3).
Benedis-Grab, G. (2011). Sharing digital data: A plant growth experiment is strengthened when students collaborate digitally. Science and Children, 42-46.
Camhi, S. (2010). Extreme makeover: How the 2009 sylvia charp award winner used technology to transform a once struggling school district. Learning and Leading with Technology, 12-15.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational researcher, 19(2), 2-11.
References (continued)
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Frank, K. A., Zhoa, Y., Penuel, W. R., Ellefson, N., & Porter, S. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends: Experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education, 84(2), 137-156. doi: 10.1177/0038040711401812
Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.Educational communication and technology, 29(2), 75-91.
Hedburg, J. (2011). Towards a disruptive pedagogy: Changing classroom practice with technologies and digital content. Educational Media International, 48(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2011.549673
Johnson, A. (2002). A short guide to action research (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
LaFee, S. (2010). Taking the “i21” initiative. Education Digest: Essential Reading Condensed for Quick Review, 76(3), 47-51.
References (continued)
Maxwell, K. (2011, January 23). Attacking the achievement gap: A battle for our children’s future. Severna Park Patch. Retrieved from http://severnapark.patch.com/articles/attacking-the-achievement-gap-a-battle-for-our-childrens-future-4
Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285-307.
Mertler, C. (2006). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mills, G. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Plair, S. K. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and fluency. The Clearing House, 82(2), 70-74.
Polly, D. (2011). Examining teachers’ enactment of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mathematics teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(1), 37-59.
References (continued)
Prieto, L. P., Villagra-Sobrino, S., Jorrin-Abellan, I. M., Martinez-Mones, A., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2011). Recurrent routines: Analyzing and supporting orchestration in technology-enhanced primary classrooms. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1214-1227. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.011
Riel, M. (1994). Educational change in a technology-rich environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4).
Schaffhauser, D. (2009). Which came first: The technology or the pedagogy? T. H. E. Journal, 36(8).
Snoeyink, R. (2002). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85-111.
Vasinda, S., & McLeod, J. (2011). Extending readers theatre: A powerful and purposeful match with podcasting. Reading Teacher, 64(7), 486-497. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.7.2
Appendices Consent Forms
› Appendix A: Teacher Consent Form› Appendix B: Parent Consent Form› Appendix C: Student Assent Form
Appendix D: Teacher Survey Appendix E: Student Survey
Recommended