26
Feature Article The Teaching Using Technology Studio: Innovative Professional Development to Meet the Needs of English Learners SUSAN O’HARA CAMMY HUANG Stanford University ROBERT PRITCHARD Sacramento State University SHANNON PELLA University of California at Davis This study investigated the impact of an innovative professional development initiative on teachers’ ability to use technological resources to improve English learners’ academic language. The Teaching Using Technology Studio, a collaborative effort between school district and university personnel, was designed as a responsive professional development program for 16 upper elementary teachers in California. Prepost scores on a knowl- edge/use scale and a Teacher Technology Proficiency Assess- ment, as well as teacher reflections, interviews, classroom observations, and field notes, showed significant changes in the teachers’ knowledge of and ability to use technology to develop activities and lessons designed to impact academic language development. Student scores on district benchmark assessments and on the annual state assessment suggest that teachers’ partic- ipation in this professional development initiative led to posi- tive academic language outcomes for the English learners in their classrooms. doi: 10.1002/tesj.58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 T E S J 5 8 B Dispatch: 11.10.12 Journal: TESJ CE: Journal Name Manuscript No. Author Received: No. of pages: 22 PE: Manikandan TESOL Journal 0.0, xxxx 2012 1 Ó 2012 TESOL International Association

Tesol o'Hara

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Tesol o'Hara

Citation preview

  • Feature Article

    The Teaching Using TechnologyStudio: Innovative ProfessionalDevelopment to Meet the Needs

    of English Learners

    SUSAN OHARACAMMY HUANG

    Stanford University

    ROBERT PRITCHARDSacramento State University

    SHANNON PELLAUniversity of California at Davis

    This study investigated the impact of an innovative professionaldevelopment initiative on teachers ability to use technologicalresources to improve English learners academic language. TheTeaching Using Technology Studio, a collaborative effortbetween school district and university personnel, was designedas a responsive professional development program for 16 upperelementary teachers in California. Prepost scores on a knowl-edge/use scale and a Teacher Technology Proficiency Assess-ment, as well as teacher reflections, interviews, classroomobservations, and field notes, showed significant changes in theteachers knowledge of and ability to use technology to developactivities and lessons designed to impact academic languagedevelopment. Student scores on district benchmark assessmentsand on the annual state assessment suggest that teachers partic-ipation in this professional development initiative led to posi-tive academic language outcomes for the English learners intheir classrooms.doi: 10.1002/tesj.58

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    T E S J 5 8 B Dispatch: 11.10.12 Journal: TESJ CE:Journal Name Manuscript No. Author Received: No. of pages: 22 PE: Manikandan

    TESOL Journal 0.0, xxxx 2012 1 2012 TESOL International Association

  • Youngstown school district (pseudonym) is in anagricultural region of northern California and serves a communitywith a high population of English learners (ELs). The district wasawarded a grant that provided interactive whiteboards (IWBs),student laptops, and digital cameras in all of the districts fourth-and fifth-grade classrooms. The overarching goal of this grant wasto transform upper elementary school classrooms into technology-rich environments that support ELs access to the resources andlearning strategies needed to improve their academic languageand understanding of grade-level concepts. Special emphasis wasplaced on academic vocabulary and writing strategies in corecontent classes. In order to achieve this goal, Youngstown teachersneeded to learn how to use these technologies in meaningful ways,specifically for the academic language development of the ELs intheir classrooms. This study focused on developing, piloting, andassessing the impact of a particular professional development (PD)initiative on teachers instructional practices for teaching ELs andultimately on the academic language growth of the ELs in theirclassrooms. The PD program, the Teaching Using TechnologyStudio (TUTS), was designed and implemented by faculty fromStanford University and Sacramento State University incollaboration with school district leaders. Through theirparticipation in TUTS, Youngstown teachers developed theircapacity to transform their classrooms and fully utilize their grant-funded technologies to create more effective learningenvironments for the ELs in their classrooms.

    A CALL FOR IMPROVING ACADEMIC LANGUAGEDEVELOPMENT IN CONTENT AREASRecent waves of immigration into the United States have led to thepublic school enrollment of more than 14 million students forwhom English is not their first language, and demographic dataindicate that this trend will continue well into the future (Lopez,2006; Marzano, 2004). As a result, meeting the needs of ELs is anurgent focal area for educational practitioners and researchers inthe United States. Underscoring this urgency are the performanceresults of ELs on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    2 TESOL Journal

  • (NAEP), the nations only ongoing assessment of what studentsknow and can do in various subject areas. Only 4% of the fourthgrade scored at the proficient or advanced levels on the readingportion of the NAEP. NAEP reading test data specific to Californiashow that 25% of ELs score at or above basic and only 4% score ator above proficient. This is in comparison to 66% of English-only 1students who score at or above basic and 32% who score at orabove proficient (Rampey, Dion, & Donohue, 2009).

    In response to these and other data, practitioners andresearchers are increasingly calling for improved academiclanguage development in content area classrooms as a way toaddress the learning needs of ELs (Anstrom et al., 2010). Alsocontributing to these calls is the belief that academic language isone of the most important factors in the academic success of ELs;lack of proficiency in academic language has been increasinglycited as a major contributor to gaps in achievement between ELsand English-proficient students (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, &Rivera, 2006). In addition, the new Common Core State Standards,a national initiative of the Council of Chief State School Officersand the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,call for specific attention to academic language developmentacross all subject areas. However, academic language, whichincludes the vocabulary, syntax, and discourse styles of particularcontent areas, is complex and incorporates linguistic, cognitive,and sociocultural concerns (Kucer, 2005). In order to teach subjectmatter content to ELs, teachers must simultaneously teach therequisite academic language required for subject matter learningand the rigorous content that all students must master. Manyteachers struggle to attend to both the content demands andstudents linguistic needs in their instruction (Bryan & Atwater,2002; Rodriguez & Kitchen, 2005).

    Despite the urgent need for and enormous challenge ofsupporting ELs in the content areas, few teachers receive adequatepreparation and ongoing support to do so. In a survey of 5,300teachers of ELs in California, Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, and Driscoll(2005) found that in classrooms where 26%50% of the studentswere designated as ELs, more than half of the teachers had had nomore than one in-service PD session devoted to the instruction of

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    The Teaching Using Technology Studio 3

  • ELs over a period of 5 years. Moreover, approximately one-thirdof respondents complained that the EL-focused PD sessions theydid receive were of low quality and limited utility.

    Various academic language development needs can beaddressed simultaneously by promoting the use of visuallyengaging and language-rich technologies. Such technologies canbuild a multimodal background that fosters academic vocabularydevelopment and literacy among ELs. Research literature suggeststhat new technologies can (a) provide ELs with contextualizedauthentic learning opportunities; (b) help students developlanguage and literacy skills as they make connections among text,images, video, sound, and animation; (c) encourage students toconstruct meaning and to make connections to their priorknowledge; and (d) teach students to be strategic learners (Zhao,2003, 2005).

    A number of studies, which we conducted over the course of5 years, show a positive impact of participation in technology-enhanced units of instruction on upper elementary and middleschool ELs academic language development and contentunderstanding (OHara & Pritchard, 2008a, 2009; Pritchard &OHara, 2011). This body of work convinced us that the use of newtechnologies, including IWBs, podcasts, video, multimediapresentations, and voice threads, engages visual, auditory, andsensory learning modalities of ELs in conjunction with stimulatinginteractive activities. However, in order for teachers to beprepared to use such technologies in support of studentsacademic language development, the structure of PD models iscritical. If teachers are to fully utilize the potential of technologyand access to digital resources for the academic languagedevelopment of ELs, they must have access to generativeprofessional learning experiences that incorporate the sameinteractivity and attention to visual, kinesthetic, and auditorypaths to learning that they will be expected to develop withstudents (Miller, 2007). By engaging in an integrated process ofexplicit instruction with mentored support and both individualand collaborative experimentation, teachers can develop theircapacity to use technology in the same active and meaningfulways that they will provide to students.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    4 TESOL Journal

  • THE CONTEXTThe purpose of this study was to develop, implement, and assessthe impact of a PD initiative that engaged teachers in a yearlongstudio designed to increase their capacity to use technologies andcreate more effective learning environments for the ELs in theirclassrooms. The diverse northern California school district inwhich this study was conducted has an EL enrollment of 24%.Sixteen fourth- and fifth-grade teachers from three elementaryschools participated in the program, and the average ELenrollment in the target classrooms was 38%. 100 ELs in thoseclassrooms scored at a Level 3 or 4 on the California EnglishLanguage Development Test and basic on the California StandardsTest (CST) in reading/English language arts.

    Participating teachers engaged in 56 hours of PD designed by ateam of four university teacher educators who had extensiveacademic preparation and professional experience in the areas oftechnology usage, academic literacy, and language development.The primary PD facilitators were two university teacher educators,Paula and John, along with the two technology experts, Mike andCarol (all names are pseudonyms).

    THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODELThe PD consisted of eight 7-hour studio sessions that combineddemonstrations, experimentation with and design of technologylearning models, mentoring, and collaboration. The key outcomesfor TUTS were to (a) increase teachers technology proficiencyfor using a set of new technologies; (b) facilitate teachersdevelopment and enactment of instructional practices for usingtechnology to foster the academic language development of ELs,focusing specifically on academic vocabulary and writing skills inthe core content areas; (c) introduce teachers to a frameworkfor integrating technology into instruction in support of thesepractices; (d) assess the impact on teacher knowledge andinstructional practices associated with the PD; and (e) assess thegrowth in academic language achievement among ELs inparticipating teachers classrooms.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    The Teaching Using Technology Studio 5

  • TUTS was designed so that teachers would become activeparticipants in their own professional learning and would beprovided with the resources, including the time, materials, andintellectual support, they needed to develop and implement moreeffective and innovative lessons to meet the academic languageneeds of ELs. TUTS differed from other professional learningopportunities for teachers in part by focusing attention onexperimenting with new practices over an extended period oftime. The PD model included a balanced and integrated approachthat involved explicit instruction, individual and collaborativeexperimentation, and support in the use of technology, specificallyIWBs, podcasts, video, hypermedia authoring, and voice threads.The facilitators regular attention to the interests and needs ofparticipating teachers helped to balance explicit instruction withindividual and collaborative experimentation. Additionally, as theskill sets of participating teachers varied, the teachers support foreach other became critical to their knowledge development.

    Our model of PD combined a number of design elements,grounded in the research literature on effective professionaldevelopment (e.g., Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin 1995;Hawley & Valli, 1999; Knapp 2003; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Wilson& Berne, 1999), in an effort to foster teachers ability to create andimplement innovative lessons and help them develop a repertoireof technology-enhanced instructional strategies to meet the needsof ELs. These design elements lead to a PD model that displaysthe following characteristics situated in practice; focused onstudent learning; engages teachers in active learning; includesmodeling of instructional strategies; builds professional learningcommunities; designed to be sustainable; and integrates with otheraspects of the school and district.

    The content for the TUTS sessions was authentically situated inthe practice of teachers classrooms and schools. The teachersreworked and refined existing classroom curricula and units ofpractice to use technology for the academic language developmentof their ELs. A number of initial activities were focused on thelearning of ELs and were designed to build teachers foundationalknowledge and understanding of how ELs acquire language, theimportant role of academic language for EL learning of content,

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    6 TESOL Journal

  • and formative assessment techniques for ELs academic languagedevelopment. During this time teachers were introduced to aframework developed by Cummins (2005) to guide their thinkingabout implementing technology-supported instruction for secondlanguage learners (see Appendix A).

    In each of the TUTS sessions, teachers were engaged in activelearning and provided with studio time to rehearse newinstructional practices in a low-risk environment and to innovateand retool their instructional practices. The PD facilitators modeledinstructional strategies to provide participants with the opportunityto experience these strategies as learners and then reflect on theirlearning. This included modeling strategies for the use oftechnology more generally and its specific use for the academiclanguage development of ELs. For example, during one sessionPD facilitators led teachers through an activity in which theydeveloped digital immigration stories using a program calledVoiceThread. During this activity facilitators modeled strategiesfor developing authentic and meaningful writing assignments toengage students from culturally and linguistically diversebackgrounds and for using technology to scaffold writinginstruction for these students.

    The TUTS sessions were designed to foster professional learningcommunities at various levels. Teams of teachers from school sitesparticipated in TUTS, as did the districts coordinator forinstructional programs, the coordinator of assessment andaccountability, and technology coaches. These teams wereassigned specific school-based activities and tasks related to whatthey were learning in TUTS, and were asked to carry these out asa team between the whole-group TUTS sessions. For example,each participant was asked to design a lesson using technologyand targeting EL science vocabulary development. His or hercharge was to implement the lesson in each classroom, meet withthe school-based team to debrief, and choose a lesson to presentto the entire group at the next TUTS session. Between each ofthe face-to-face sessions, the teachers participated in onlinecollaborations and communications through a Wikispace (seeAppendix B for sample pages.) Teachers used this space to sharetechnology tips, lesson plans, and other resources, all related to the

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    The Teaching Using Technology Studio 7

  • activities and content from the face-to-face sessions. Thus,technology skills were enhanced as participants used differenttechnologies for specific activities tied to the foci of the PDsessions.

    Ongoing inquiry was sustained over time, focusing teachersattention on experimenting with new practices, engaging in cyclesof inquiry using artifacts of practice, discussing and adaptinglessons plans, and analyzing student work, all supported by thedistricts instructional leaders and the PD team. Including thecoordinators and technology coaches in the PD activities enabledthe PD to build the capacity within schools and the district tosustain the work beyond the time of the grant. The inclusion ofthese professionals also served to purposefully integrate this projectwith other aspects of district change. The program was designed incollaboration with these district leaders, was in response to adistrict initiative and stated need, and was aligned with thedistricts strategic goals.

    RESEARCH DESIGNThis study investigated the impact of an innovative professionaldevelopment initiative on teachers ability to use technologicalresources to improve ELs academic language. This studyaddressed the following research questions:

    1. What impact, if any, did participation in TUTS have on teachers capacity(knowledge and instructional practices) to integrate technology for the aca-demic language development of ELs?

    a. How, if at all, did teachers technology proficiency change followingthe PD initiative?

    b. How, if at all, did teachers knowledge and practices regarding aca-demic language development for ELs change following the PD initia-tive?

    c. How, if at all, did teachers knowledge and practices regarding inte-grating technology in support of academic language for ELs change fol-lowing the PD initiative?

    2. How did academic language achievement of ELs in participating teachersclassrooms change over the course of the project?

    This study used a mixed methods approach. Our quantitativemethods included the administration of a preknowledge/use scale

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    8 TESOL Journal

  • (see Appendix C) at our initial meeting and a postknowledge/usescale administered at the end of the study. This instrument wasused in previous studies (Pritchard & Monroe, 2002; OHara &Pritchard, 2008b) and was modified for use in this investigation.It was designed to measure participants self-report of theirknowledge and use of information related to the instructionalstrategies for integrating technology to enhance teaching ofacademic vocabulary and writing to ELs. In addition, a districtdesigned Teacher Technology Proficiency Assessment wasadministered to all teachers at the beginning and end of theproject. Based on California standards, English language artsbenchmark assessments of target students were given five timesthroughout the school year, and assessment scores were analyzedto determine growth across the project.

    Qualitative data collection and analysis included extensive fieldnotes during all PD sessions from observing teachers engaged inthe workshops and experimenting with technology. All sessionswere videotaped and audiotaped, and we collected open-endeddaily written reflections from each session. In order to study thenature of teachers engagement in this PD, we applied the contentanalysis and analytic induction method as well as the constantcomparative method (Merriam, 2003) to identify patterns and themesthat emerged from these data. In the academic year following thePD, a series of 44 observations were conducted in eachparticipating teachers classroom. In-depth field notes werecollected, and at times case study classrooms were videotaped.Teachers at the three school sites were also interviewed. Thesedata were coded for a set of instructional practices for technologyintegration and academic language development.

    Impact on Teachers Capacity to Integrate Technology for ELsAcademic Language DevelopmentThe preTeacher Technology Proficiency Assessment showed thatteachers came to the PD as nonusers or beginning users ofinteractive technologies (IWBs, podcasts, video, multimediapresentations, VoiceThreads), intermediate users of the Internet,and proficient users of word-processing tools. The assessmenthighlighted the fact that the majority of teachers used technology

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    The Teaching Using Technology Studio 9

  • for their own productivity but did not facilitate students use oftechnology to enhance learning. The postTeacher TechnologyProficiency Assessment showed that teachers had improved alltheir technology skills over the course of the program, and themajority had moved from nonusers or beginning users tointermediate users of the interactive technologies. Teacher growthin technology literacy is illustrated in Table 1. Teachers frequencyof use increased, and the integration of technology into theirteaching increased as well, as illustrated by Table 2.

    Our analyses of the data from the pre and postknowledge/use surveys suggest remarkable gains in teachers knowledge oftypes of methods to engage ELs in language development andactual use of such methods through technology. One importantfinding from these surveys was that after the PD, the teachers whohad reported moderate knowledge and low use had closed thatgap significantly. In other words, teachers not only knew more butwere using what they knew to a greater extent than when theproject began. Table 3 shows the pre and post mean scores andstandard deviations for overall knowledge and use reported by theteachers, which all show statistically significant prepost change asdetermined by a series of t-tests. On average, teachers came intothe PD program reporting a low level of knowledge (12 on thesurvey) about integrating technology into the curriculum in waysthat would promote students language development andunderstanding of grade-level concepts. They also came inreporting a low level of use of these instructional components intheir classrooms. Teachers reported a moderate to low level ofknowledge (23) about strategies needed to improve the Englishfluency of ELs and their understanding of grade-level concepts.

    TABLE 1. Teacher Technology Literacy PrePost Project

    Areas of proficient use Pre Post

    Internet use 66% 79%Email skills 33% 92%Interactive whiteboard 33% 46%Multimedia use 25% 75%Using video streaming 0% 15%

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    10 TESOL Journal

  • They reported a low level of use of these instructional componentsin their classrooms. The postprogram data show that on averageparticipants reported a moderately high knowledge (4) in all areas.Post data also show that participants reported moderately highuse (34) of all instructional components.

    Our qualitative findings based on analysis of teacher interviewsand 44 classroom observations during school site visits in thefollowing academic year suggest that teachers were usingtechnologies to teach academic language. Data indicate that mostteachers were using IWBs daily. Many of the lessons observedshowed teachers using the IWBs as a catalyst for languageproduction and academic vocabulary development. Furthermore,there were many examples of language production amongstudents that were directly connected to understanding contentarea concepts. Interview data support the notion that thealignment between the IWBs and the districts new curriculum,and the latters inclusion in the PD, had supported teacherssustained use of the IWBs.

    The following two excerpts from our classroom observationfield notes highlight ways in which teachers were integratingtechnology for academic language development. The first excerptis representative of what we observed in a number of participatingteachers classrooms, where teachers involved students inhypermedia authoring projects. The central purpose of most ofthese projects was to reinforce students understanding of newlylearned content-specific words and to assess their ability to usethese words in context. In most of the classrooms, students createdthese hypermedia products at the end of some unit of study,

    TABLE 2. Frequency of Technology Use and Integration by TeachersPrePost Project

    Technology tools used once a week or more Pre Post

    Handheld electronic devices 33% 54%Video-based presentation devices 33% 100%Video-based creation tools 33% 46%Technology tools for instruction in reading/language arts 33% 83%Technology tools to create instructional materials 67% 100%Technology tools to communicate with colleagues 67% 100%

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    The Teaching Using Technology Studio 11

  • TABLE3.

    Teacher

    Knowledge/Use

    ofInstructionalComponentsPrePostProject

    8

    Know

    ledg

    eof

    instructional

    components

    Use

    ofinstructional

    components

    Integrating

    technology

    Teaching

    English

    learners

    Integrating

    technology

    Teaching

    English

    learners

    Pre

    mean

    Postmean

    Pre

    mean

    Postmean

    Pre

    mean

    Postmean

    Pre

    mean

    Postmean

    2.19

    (0.59SD)

    4.06

    (0.66SD)

    2.28

    (0.76SD)

    4.07

    (0.50SD)

    1.86

    (0.66SD)

    3.64

    (0.58SD)1.98

    (0.70SD)3.69

    (0.70SD)

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    12 TESOL Journal

  • where they used the key vocabulary in explaining the content, andcreated hyperlinks between these vocabulary words and differentmedia used to represent their meaning.

    Excerpt 1. In Cynthias fourth-grade classroom, the studentshave been studying a science unit on earthquakes. On the day of theobservation, Cynthia is having students work on a hypermediareport on earthquakes, and students are focused on using thefollowing key vocabulary terms: scale, prediction,magnitude, fault,seismic, disaster, epicenter, aftershock, tsunami. To complete the projectCynthia grouped the ELs in her class into two heterogeneous groupswith different levels of language proficiency. The students worktogether and create slides on each of the target words using images,drawings, narration, and animation to describe their meaning. Next,the groupswrite sentences about earthquakes that include the targetwords. Finally, students create hyperlinks between the words in thesentences and the slide about that word. Groups present their finalreports using the IWBs.

    The second excerpt is also representative of how teachersimplemented practices from the TUTS program. A number ofteachers engaged students in the creation of multimodal texts tohelp scaffold the writing process and foster vocabularydevelopment.

    Excerpt 2. The students in Louises fifth-grade class have beenworking together to create digital stories about the immigrationexperiences of one member of their family. Students interviewedfamily members about their experiences and gatheredphotographs and short audio clips from these interviews. In pairsthe students combined photos, narration, and music to create theirmultimodal stories. On the day of the observation Louise haschosen one example and engages the class in a discussion of howthe images and sounds were used in each story to convey meaningand emotion. Students are then asked to work in small groups andgenerate a list of vocabulary words that could be used to conveythat same meaning and emotion, and Louise posts this list on thewhiteboard. Pairs of students come to the whiteboard and createdescriptive sentences that incorporate these words.

    A number of teachers had students work in pairs or smallgroups to complete activities similar to those described in these

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    The Teaching Using Technology Studio 13

  • two excerpts. Other teachers designed whole-class activities andused the IWB to structure and facilitate these activities. Theobservations and interviews revealed that technology use byteachers incorporated the use of IWBs more often than othertechnologies. According to the teachers, this was due in part to thefact that the new district curricula can be downloaded directly tothe IWBs, which enabled teachers to integrate that technology insupport of the new curriculum more easily than the othertechnological resources available to them. Another contributingfactor is that the district has focused more of its technical supporton the use of IWBs and not as much on the use of laptops. Allteachers interviewed indicated they would continue trying to findmeaningful ways to routinely integrate other forms of technology(e.g., laptops, digital cameras, Internet-based programs) into theirinstructional repertoire.

    Change in ELs Academic Language Achievement Over theCourse of the ProjectBased on California standards, English language arts benchmarkassessments of target students were given five times throughoutthe school year. From the first to the fifth benchmarkassessment, the number of correct answers by target studentsincreased 11.6% for fourth graders and 22.45% for fifth graders,yielding an average increase among the entire target group of17.02% during the 20102011 school year. In addition, pre- andpost-CST results in English language arts show a reduction inthe achievement gap between ELs and their English-onlycounterparts, as measured by the California StandardizedEnglish Language Arts test. Specifically, the target group of ELsscored 48 points below their English-only counterparts before theproject and 35 points below their English-only counterparts atthe end of the project.

    The data available, and the lack of a comparison group, make itdifficult for us to claim a direct link between changes in teacherknowledge and practice and the academic language achievementof ELs. However, prepost data collected during the project showthat the ELs technology proficiency increased and that thesestudents were using technology related to academic language

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    14 TESOL Journal

  • development with much greater frequency after the project thanwas the case before the project. Target students demonstratedimprovements in technology proficiency over the course of theproject, as illustrated in Table 4.

    In fact, classroom observations conducted after the projectshowed that in 89% of lessons student use of technology tools wasintegrated into lesson content and related to academic languagedevelopment. Together with the data on changes in teachersknowledge and instructional practices, these data suggest thatteachers participation in the professional development led topositive academic language outcomes for the ELs in theirclassrooms.

    CONCLUSIONFindings from this study suggest that PD models that areresponsive to the needs and interests of participating teachers andthat are situated in their practice, hold greater promise forauthentic and generative teacher knowledge development.Specifically, models of PD designed around the key research-basedpractices of effective PD can positively impact teacher knowledgeand practice for using technology to enhance the academiclanguage development of ELs.

    Learning how to use new technologies to further academiclanguage development of ELs requires teachers to develop

    TABLE 4. Target Students Growth With Technology ProficiencyPrePost Project

    Use of technologyPercentageincrease

    Using spreadsheets to enter and calculate numbers 44Using video cameras to make videos 17Using multimedia software to create projects and assignments 23Using interactive whiteboards to present information 37Using drawing or painting software once a week or more 19Evaluating Internet information for accuracy, relevance,completeness, and bias once a week or more

    22

    Using Internet to gather information once a week or more 12

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    The Teaching Using Technology Studio 15

  • knowledge and practice in three areas and to connect thesein their instruction: technology use, academic languagedevelopment, and the teaching of content. Learning to integratetechnology into an existing schema for teaching content to ELsrequires time to rehearse new teaching practices in a safeenvironment with peers and colleagues, enact practices inclassrooms with ELs, and reflect on the enactment and refineinstruction. This studio model of PD, designed around the keyprinciples of effective PD, provided time for teachers to learnhow to use the technologies in support of academic languagedevelopment of ELs through explicit modeling, individual andcollaborative experimentation, and expert and peer mentoring.The PD providers ability to determine and respond to the needsof teachers, by balancing modeling with appropriate support,was a critical component in what participating teachers reportedwere authentic and generative learning experiences that promiseto positively impact ELs academic language development andunderstanding of grade-level concepts.

    THE AUTHORSSusan OHara is an associate professor at the Stanford UniversityCenter to Support Excellence in Teaching. Her research focuses onprofessional development and instructional practices associatedwith improved outcomes for English learners.

    Robert Pritchard is a professor at Sacramento State University. Heis a language and literacy specialist who works with districts andcounty offices of education.

    Cammy Huang is the associate director of the Stanford UniversityCenter to Support Excellence in Teaching. Her work focuses oninteractive educational media, digital media initiatives, andprofessional development in these areas.

    Shannon Pella is currently an adjunct professor in the TeacherEducation program at University of California at Davis. Herresearch focuses on how teachers learn to support academicliteracy and language development of English learners.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    16 TESOL Journal

  • REFERENCES 2Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera,

    C. (2010). A review of the literature on academic English:Implications for K12 English language learners. Arlington, VA:George Washington University, Center for Equity andExcellence in Education.

    3Borko, H., Jacobs, J. K., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Videoas a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematicsprofessional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,417436.

    Bryan, L. A., & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and culturalmodels: A challenge for teacher preparation programs. ScienceEducation, 86, 821839.

    Cummins, J. (2005, February). Technology, literacy, and young secondlanguage learners: Designing educational futures. Paper presentedat the Technology in Support of Young Second LanguageLearners Colloquium, Palo Alto, CA.

    Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies thatsupport professional development in an era of reform. Phi DeltaKappan, 76, 597604.

    4Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachersprofessional development: Toward better conceptualizationsand measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181199.

    Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H.(2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English languagelearners: Research-based recommendations for instruction andacademic interventions (No. 2). Portsmouth, NH: Center onInstruction.

    Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening toteachers of English language learners: A survey of Californiasteachers challenges, experiences, and professional development needs.Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching andLearning.

    Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effectiveprofessional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession:

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    The Teaching Using Technology Studio 17

  • Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127150). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

    Knapp, M. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway.Review of Research in Education, 27, 109157.

    Kucer, S. (2005). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teachingreading and writing in school settings (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Lopez, O. (2006). Lighting the flame of learning for English languagelearners through the use of interactive whiteboard technology. RoundRock, TX: Corporation for Public School Education.

    Marzano, R. (2004). Building background knowledge for academicachievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

    Merriam, S. (2003). Qualitative research and case study applications ineducation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Miller, D. (2007). From technology to professional development: Howcan the use of an interactive whiteboard enhance the nature ofteaching and learning in secondary mathematics and modern foreignlanguages?. Washington, DC: International Society forTechnology in Education.

    OHara, S., & Pritchard, R. (2008a). Hypermedia authoring as avehicle for vocabulary development in middle school Englishas a second language classrooms. The Clearing House, 82(2),6065.

    OHara, S., & Pritchard, R. (2008b). Meeting the challenge ofdiversity: Professional development for teacher educators.Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 4361.

    OHara, S., & Pritchard, R. (2009). Vocabulary development in thescience classroom: Using hypermedia authoring to supportEnglish learners. Tapestry Journal, 1(1), 1529.

    Pritchard, R., & OHara, S. (2011). Using technology to improveacademic vocabulary development in STEM classrooms.AccELLerate!, 3(1), 519.

    Pritchard, R., & Monroe, S. (2002). Bridging the gap between readersand texts with strategic reading comprehension. Los Angeles, CA:Paper presented at the California State University ReadingConference. 6

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    18 TESOL Journal

  • Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views ofknowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacherlearning? Educational Researcher, 21, 415.

    Rampey, B. D., Dion, G. S., & Donohue, P. L. (2009). NationalAssessment of Educational Progress 2008: Trends in academicprogress. Washington, DC: National Center for EducationStatistics.

    Rodriguez, A. J., & Kitchen, R. S. (Eds.). (2005). Preparingmathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms: Promisingstrategies for transformative pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

    Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and theacquisition of professional knowledge: An examination ofresearch on contemporary professional development. In A.Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research ineducation, Vol. 24 (pp. 173209). Washington, DC: AmericanEducational Research Association.

    7Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2007). The use of the interactivewhiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy andmathematics: A case study. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 39(1), 8496.

    Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and languagelearning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICOJournal, 21, 727.

    Zhao, Y. (2005, February). Technology and second language learning:Promises and problems. Paper presented at the Technology inSupport of Young Second Language Learners Colloquium, PaloAlto, CA.

    APPENDIX A 9

    The teachers and instructional leaders were introduced to thefollowing framework, developed by Cummins (2005), to guidetheir thinking about implementing technology-supportedinstruction for second language learners.

    Does the technology-supported intervention:

    1. provide cognitive challenges and opportunities for deep processing ofmeaning?

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    The Teaching Using Technology Studio 19

  • 2. relate instruction to prior knowledge and experiences derived from studentshomes and communities?

    3. promote active, collaborative inquiry?4. promote extensive, engaged reading and writing across the curriculum?5. help students develop strategies for effective reading, writing, and learning?6. promote identity investment on the part of the student?

    APPENDIX B

    Wikispace Samples

    APPENDIX C

    Knowledge Use Scale Elements

    Instructional components related to technology

    1. How to promote, support, and model creative and innovative thinking andinventiveness using technology

    2. How to engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authen-tic problems using digital tools and resources

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    20 TESOL Journal

  • 3. How to promote student reflection using digital collaboration tools toreveal and clarify students conceptual understanding, thinking, planning,and creative process

    4. How to model collaborative knowledge construction by engaging in learn-ing with students, colleagues, and others in face-to-face and virtual envi-ronments

    5. How to design or adapt relevant learning experiences that incorporate digi-tal tools and resources to promote student learning and creativity

    6. How to develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable allstudents to pursue their individual curiosities and become active partici-pants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning,and assessing their own progress

    7. How to customize and personalize activities to address students diverselearning styles, working strategies, and abilities using digital tools andresources

    8. How to provide students with multiple and varied formative and summa-tive assessments aligned with content and technology standards and useresulting data to inform learning and teaching

    9. How to demonstrate fluency in technology systems and the transfer of cur-rent knowledge to new technologies and situations

    10. How to collaborate with students, peers, parents, and/or community mem-bers using digital tools and resources to support students success andinnovation

    11. How to model and facilitate effective use of current and emerging tools tolocate, analyze, evaluate, and use information resources to support researchand learning

    Instructional components related to teaching English learners

    1. How to bridge the gap between students current understanding of a con-cept and the level of understanding needed to successfully comprehendwhat they are reading

    2. How to promote active, in-depth processing of words and concepts by pro-viding students with opportunities to process word meanings at deeper andmore complex levels

    3. How to create a language and word-rich environment that promotes vocabu-lary development and word consciousness

    4. How to help students develop the ability to learn new words independentlyby teaching them independent word-learning strategies

    5. How to motivate students to write by providing frequent opportunities andstudent input on topics

    6. How to achieve an appropriate balance between writing conventions andpurposeful assignments

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    The Teaching Using Technology Studio 21

  • 7. How to develop authentic and meaningful writing assignments by buildingupon the existing resources that students from diverse backgrounds bringfrom their home environments

    8. How to utilize various teaching strategies and instructional approaches toscaffold writing instruction for students from culturally and linguisticallydiverse backgrounds

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28

    29

    30

    31

    32

    33

    34

    35

    36

    37

    38

    22 TESOL Journal

  • Author Query Form

    Journal: TESJArticle: 58

    Dear Author,During the copy-editing of your paper, the following queries arose. Pleaserespond to these by marking up your proofs with the necessary changes/addi-tions. Please write your answers on the query sheet if there is insufficient spaceon the page proofs. Please write clearly and follow the conventions shown onthe attached corrections sheet. If returning the proof by fax do not write tooclose to the papers edge. Please remember that illegible mark-ups may delaypublication.Many thanks for your assistance.

    Queryreference

    Query Remarks

    1 AUTHOR: English-only is a bit of aloaded term. Would it be accurate to saynative-English-speaking or English-speaking to replace this term throughoutthe article?

    2 AUTHOR: Please supply DOI numbersfor ALL journal references, if available.DOIs are required in journal referencesand can be obtained at http://www.cross-ref.org/guestquery

    3 AUTHOR: Borko et al. 2008 does notseem to be cited in the text. Please indi-cate where it should be cited or deletefrom references.

    4 AUTHOR: Desimone 2009 does not seemto be cited in the text. Please indicatewhere it should be cited or delete fromreferences.

  • 5 AUTHOR: Unless Pritchard & OHara2011 is a one-page article, please providepage range.

    6 AUTHOR: Please provide month of con-ference in Pritchard and Monroe 2002.

    7 AUTHOR: Wood & Ashfield 2007 doesnot seem to be cited in the text. Pleaseindicate where it should be cited or deletefrom references.

    8 AUTHOR: It seems as though the col-umns headers are not aligned correctlyover the columns. Please advise how itshould look

    9 AUTHOR: Please provide title for Appen-dix A.

  • O n c e y o u h a v e A c r o b a t R e a d e r o p e n o n y o u r c o m p u t e r , c l i c k o n t h e C o m m e n t t a b a t t h e r i g h t o f t h e t o o l b a r :

    S t r i k e s a l i n e t h r o u g h t e x t a n d o p e n s u p a t e x t

    b o x w h e r e r e p l a c e m e n t t e x t c a n b e e n t e r e d .

    H i g h l i g h t a w o r d o r s e n t e n c e . C l i c k o n t h e R e p l a c e ( I n s ) i c o n i n t h e A n n o t a t i o n s

    s e c t i o n .

    T y p e t h e r e p l a c e m e n t t e x t i n t o t h e b l u e b o x t h a ta p p e a r s .

    T

    h i s w i l l o p e n u p a p a n e l d o w n t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e d o c u m e n t .

    T

    h e m a j o r i t

    y

    o f

    t o o l s

    y

    o u w i l l u s e f o r a n n o t a t i n g

    y

    o u r p r o o f w i l l b e i n t h e A n n o t a t i o n s s e c t i o n ,

    p i c t u r e d o p p o s i t e . W e v e p i c k e d o u t s o m e o f t h e s e t o o l s b e l o w :

    S t r i k e s a r e d l i n e t h r o u g h t e x t t h a t i s t o b e

    d e l e t e d .

    H i g h l i g h t a w o r d o r s e n t e n c e . C l i c k o n t h e S t r i k e t h r o u g h ( D e l ) i c o n i n t h e

    A n n o t a t i o n s s e c t i o n .

    H

    i g h l i g h t s t e x t i n

    y

    e l l o w a n d o p e n s u p a t e x t

    b

    o x w h e r e c o m m e n t s c a n

    b

    e e n t e r e d .

    H i g h l i g h t t h e r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n o f t e x t . C l i c k o n t h e A d d n o t e t o t e x t i c o n i n t h e

    A n n o t a t i o n s s e c t i o n .

    T y p e i n s t r u c t i o n o n w h a t s h o u l d b e c h a n g e dr e g a r d i n g t h e t e x t i n t o t h e

    y

    e l l o w

    b

    o x t h a t

    a p p e a r s .

    M

    a r k s a p o i n t i n t h e p r o o f w h e r e a c o m m e n t

    n e e d s t o

    b

    e h i g h l i g h t e d .

    C l i c k o n t h e A d d s t i c k y n o t e i c o n i n t h eA n n o t a t i o n s s e c t i o n .

    C l i c k a t t h e p o i n t i n t h e p r o o f w h e r e t h e c o m m e n ts h o u l d

    b

    e i n s e r t e d .

    T y p e t h e c o m m e n t i n t o t h e y e l l o w b o x t h a ta p p e a r s .

  • I n s e r t s a n i c o n l i n k i n g t o t h e a t t a c h e d f i l e i n t h e

    a p p r o p r i a t e p a c e i n t h e t e x t .

    C l i c k o n t h e A t t a c h F i l e i c o n i n t h e A n n o t a t i o n ss e c t i o n .

    C l i c k o n t h e p r o o f t o w h e r e y o u d l i k e t h e a t t a c h e df i l e t o b e l i n k e d .

    S e l e c t t h e f i l e t o b e a t t a c h e d f r o m y o u r c o m p u t e ro r n e t w o r k .

    S e l e c t t h e c o l o u r a n d t y p e o f i c o n t h a t w i l l a p p e a ri n t h e p r o o f .

    C

    l i c k O K .

    I n s e r t s a s e l e c t e d s t a m p o n t o a n a p p r o p r i a t e

    p l a c e i n t h e p r o o f .

    C l i c k o n t h e A d d s t a m p i c o n i n t h e A n n o t a t i o n ss e c t i o n .

    S e l e c t t h e s t a m p y o u w a n t t o u s e . ( T h e A p p r o v e ds t a m p i s u s u a l l y a v a i l a b l e d i r e c t l y i n t h e m e n u t h a t

    a p p e a r s ) .

    C l i c k o n t h e p r o o f w h e r e y o u d l i k e t h e s t a m p t oa p p e a r . ( W h e r e a p r o o f i s t o b e a p p r o v e d a s i t i s ,

    t h i s w o u l d n o r m a l l y b e o n t h e f i r s t p a g e ) .

    A l l o w s s h a p e s , l i n e s a n d f r e e f o r m a n n o t a t i o n s t o b e d r a w n o n p r o o f s a n d f o r

    c o m m e n t t o b e m a d e o n t h e s e m a r k s . .

    C l i c k o n o n e o f t h e s h a p e s i n t h e D r a w i n gM a r k u p s s e c t i o n .

    C l i c k o n t h e p r o o f a t t h e r e l e v a n t p o i n t a n dd r a w t h e s e l e c t e d s h a p e w i t h t h e c u r s o r .

    T o a d d a c o m m e n t t o t h e d r a w n s h a p e ,m o v e t h e c u r s o r o v e r t h e s h a p e u n t i l a n

    a r r o w h e a d a p p e a r s .

    D o u b l e c l i c k o n t h e s h a p e a n d t y p e a n yt e x t i n t h e r e d b o x t h a t a p p e a r s .