Effects of a Wiki and Long-Term, Collaborative ...stu.westga.edu/~eadams10/MEDT8484/8484_literature_review_ewa.… · WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 3 Effects of a Wiki and

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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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 &


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.


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


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


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


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


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-


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


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


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


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


(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.


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


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


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).


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


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,


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).


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


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.


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


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,


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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

http://search.proquest.com/docview/200082817?accountid=10661

Documents

Effects of a Wiki and Long-Term, Collaborative ...stu.westga.edu/~eadams10/MEDT8484/8484_literature_review_ewa.… · WIKI AND LONG-TERM, COLLABORATIVE PD 3 Effects of a Wiki and