A Case Study: How Do Faculty at High School M Implement Technology in their Curricula? Michael B. Garcia ISED 797 Fall 2010 Hyun

Transcription

1 A Case Study: How Do Faculty at High School M Implement Technology in their Curricula? Michael B. Garcia ISED 797 Fall 2010 Hyun

2 Part I- Introduction Statement of the Problem The high school being examined, which will be referred to as High School M for the purposes of this study, is a small, single gender private Catholic school that relies, predominantly, on a population of 500 students and their families to maintain the income needed to function as an educational institution. There are several options for private education in the area and the school emphasizes several aspects of the school community in order to remain competitive with the recruitment of prospective students. One area that is highlighted by the school in its recruitment efforts is the amount of technology that is available throughout the entire campus. There is a strong commitment by the administration to remain current with new technologies and the faculty has been asked to implement these technologies in the classroom. However, Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) noted that instructional uses of technology in the classroom are low-level, meaning that it is used to support tradition teacher-directed instruction or focuses on the development of student s technical skills. Furthermore, Inan & Lowther (2010) state that technology can be grouped primarily into three broad categories: technology for instructional preparation, technology for instructional delivery, and technology as a learning tool. Coupling with the use of technology are the experiences and attitudes of teachers towards technology. Rather than focusing on the environmental factors, such as resources and accessibility, the key area of interest for researchers today is the individual differences in beliefs, attitudes, and skills among teachers (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Zhao et al., 2002). There 1 P a g e

3 are many factors that affect the use of and successful implementation of technology in the classroom. From their study, Mueller et al (2008) stated that both experience with computer technology and attitudes toward technology in the classroom as important variables that predict differences between teachers who successfully integrated computer technology from those who did not (pg. 1532). Research Question, Hypothesis, & Propositions The proposed research question is How does the faculty at High School M implement technology in their curricula? In answering this question, teacher belief will be revealed as one of the essential factors that explains technology use. Additionally, information will be uncovered to support the following propositions: The faculty of High School M has not been properly trained to use or assess the technologies provided for instruction. The technology provided to the faculty of High School M is not being utilized effectively in the classroom and curricula. Research Design The research method used for this investigation is a case study with a mixed method approach. Quantitative data to be collected include the types of technology used by teachers during instruction, frequency of the technology use, and a measure of the faculty s confidence with using the technology. Qualitative information explores the effectiveness of technology as a teaching strategy/tool. 2 P a g e

4 Operational Definitions The terms technology, faculty, curriculum, and belief have been defined for the context of this study. Technology- For the purposes of this study, technology is used to refer to the computer equipment, computer programs, and multimedia equipment available for use at High School M. Faculty- Only members of High School M that teach a class will be considered faculty. Administrators and support staff have not been included as subjects of interest in this study. Curriculum- Curricula are the topics, assessment tools/instruments and activities used in the classroom instruction for any specific subject. Belief- Feelings and attitudes about a topic. Statement of Ethical Considerations Before research begins, permission from administration must be obtained to use school hours to conduct surveys, interviews, and observations. Also, permission must be granted to use the school name as part of the discussion of the study. The possibilities of harm to participants include feelings of embarrassment or inferiority in comparison to their colleagues based on their technological skills. Faculty members may be hesitant to answer honestly or participate in fear that the data gathered could be used as a part of a performance review for the following year s contract offerings. To remedy this, before the study begins, participants will be provided with a thorough description of the research process and provide a thorough explanation of how the results will be used. They will also be briefly 3 P a g e

5 reminded before each survey, interview and classroom observation. Confidentiality will be emphasized by indicating that data collected will remain anonymous. To gather some information in a timely manner, group interviews by department will be favored over individual interviews due to time constraints and impacted schedules. There is a possibility of confidentiality issues while discussing specific instructional techniques between members of team taught courses. (As a school policy, team taught courses should be instructed in identical manners.) Individual interviews will be offered as an option to those that do not want to share instructional practices in front of other colleagues. Rationale High School M has a set of Expected Student Learning Results (ESLR) that was created as part of their most recent accreditation. One section of the ESLRs states: A High School M graduate is a student in pursuit of academic excellence who uses technology competently and responsibly. This statement is one of the building blocks of the curriculum and it is imperative that research is done to ensure that this occurring. During the school year, a technology survey (Appendix A) was distributed to all faculty and staff at High School M. There was a poor response rate with only 32% of the faculty responded to the survey. The survey came in three parts with part one asking subjects to describe the frequency of use of different technology during class by checking one box of a four-point Likert scale ranging from Daily to Never with a fifth option of Not Applicable. If the technology was used by the respondent they were asked to provide a brief explanation of how it was used and if it was student-centered, teacher-centered, or both. The second part of the survey was in a similar format, however, the respondents were to consider what 4 P a g e

6 technologies students were required to use outside of class. Finally, respondents had a set of free response questions in which they indicated what technology they would like in their classroom and what professional development opportunities they would like to have offered. The survey had two stated purposes. The first was to examine what technology is currently being integrated into classrooms and courses. The second was to allow us to see how other departments and teachers are using technology so that we may all learn from each other. However, after survey results were collected they were not shared with the faculty and staff to achieve the second purpose of the survey. Also, there was no follow up to determine the validity of responses on the survey and the A new investigation will provide High School M with information it needs to gain insight on the use of technology in the curricula and determine the attitudes and beliefs of its faculty. In turn, this will provide direction to create specific professional development opportunities to improve technology implementation. Part II- Annotated Bibliography Introduction In locating studies related to the technology use at High School M the literature review focused on teacher attitudes, results of technology integration, technology survey examples and professional development. Secondary teachers or high school teachers were the main group of interest while searching for these topics. The sources range in topics from looking at factors that affect technology integration to theory on framework of technology knowledge to instrumentation and their reliability. 5 P a g e

7 Topics of the Annotated Bibliography The studies that have been gathered for this research fall under three main categories. First, with the increase in technology in today s classrooms there is research available that examines why it is not being used to full potential. Next, instrumentation tools were investigated to be used as a part of this study. Finally, studies and articles were reviewed that will support and guide the types of professional development that will be offered after correlating the results of the research. Annotated Sources Teacher characteristics and environmental factors on technology integration Inan, F., & Lowther, D. (2010). Factors Affecting Technology Integration in K-12 Classrooms: A Path Model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), Retrieved from ERIC database. The purpose of Inan and Lowther s study was to examine the effects of teachers individual characteristics and environmental factors on teacher s technology integration. It was designed to explain relationships between these factors by using previous research and tested with data gathered through teacher surveys. The following research questions were examined: 1. Do teachers demographic characteristics influence their technology integration? 2. Do teachers beliefs, readiness, and computer proficiency influence their technology integration? 3. Do school characteristics influence teachers technology integration? 4. Do teachers computer proficiency, beliefs, and readiness mediate the indirect effects of teachers characteristics and school-level factors on teachers technology integration? 6 P a g e

8 Information was gathered from 1,382 teachers employed at 54 schools participating in the first year of the Tennessee EdTech Launch One and Two of the No Child Left Behind act using the Teacher Technology Questionnaire. The main results of the study showed that: Teachers demographic characteristics (years of teaching and age) negatively affect their computer proficiency. Teachers demographic characteristics (years of teaching and age) negatively and teachers computer proficiency positively affect their technology integration. Teachers beliefs and readiness positively influence their technology integration. School-level factors (availability of computers, technical support, and overall support) positively influence teachers beliefs and teachers readiness. Teachers beliefs and readiness mediated the indirect effects of school- and teacherlevel factors on teachers technology integration. This study provides areas of interest to focus on in the case study of High School M in terms of technology. For example, teacher demographics and how it is related to computer proficiency and technology integration will be a focus in this case study. Additionally, the study suggested that observations be used as another source of data which will be included in this study. It also provides a framework to create questions for the interview portion of the case study. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for Classroom Technology Innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), Retrieved from ERIC database. The purpose of this study by Zhao et al was to empirically address the question: Why don t teachers innovate when they are given computers? They examined the conditions under 7 P a g e

9 which technology innovation can take place in classrooms by following a group of K-12 teachers for one year who attempted to implement technology projects in their classrooms. As a result of the study, the researchers found eleven factors that impact the degree of success of classroom technology integration. Furthermore, these factors were placed into one of three interactive domains, the innovator, the innovation, and the context. The innovator (teacher) contained the following factors: technology proficiency, compatibility between teacher pedagogical beliefs and the technology and social awareness. The innovation domain contained distance from school culture, distance from existing practice, distance from available technological resources, dependence on others, and dependence on technological resources. Finally the context contained human infrastructure, technological infrastructure, and social support. In conclusion, the researchers suggest that to integrate technology in teaching, teachers need to know the affordances and constraints of various technologies and how specific technologies might support their own teaching practices and curricular goals. They also point out the problems with current efforts to prepare teachers to use technology. They suggest that technology standards for teachers include the social and pedagogical contexts and implications of technology. They encourage teacher education institutions to broaden their views of the kind of preparation and support pre-service and in-service teachers need to integrate technology in their teaching. The factors that Zhao et al identify provide the case study of High School M with areas of interest to keep in mind while correlating the data from surveys and observations. This can 8 P a g e

10 assist with determining what attitudes and beliefs the faculty has towards technology integration. Instrumentation Lowther, D., Inan, F., Strahl, J., & Ross, S. (2008). Does technology integration work when key barriers are removed?. Educational Media International 45(3), Retrieved from ERIC database. The purpose of this study is to determine the degree to which the Tennessee EdTech Launch (TnETL) initiative accomplished the program goals. It was structured to address whether participation in TnETL: (a) Raise student achievement in treatment (program) schools compared with control schools? (b) Improve teacher skill levels in, and attitudes toward integrating technology with curriculum and state standards? (c) Foster greater use of research-based teaching practices while increasing academically focused instructional time and student attention and engagement? The study identified key barriers to technology integration which included the following factors: availability and access to computers, availability of curriculum materials, teachers beliefs, teachers technological and content knowledge, and technical, administrative, and peer support. The subjects involved were 26 schools, 13 of which were part of the TnETL program and 13 were not. They participated in the study for three years ( ). The matched pairs of schools were formed according to locale, grade levels, number of students, percent qualified for free/reduced lunch, ethnicity, and achievement. Achievement was based with the following 9 P a g e

11 criteria: elementary = reading and math; middle school = algebra; high school = biology. There were 12,420 student and 927 teachers that participated in the study with a combination of grades PreK-8 and included six high schools. The results of the study include: Program students out-performed or performed as well as control students in all instances Teachers who participated in the TNETL program revealed more positive attitudes toward technology integration, and significantly more confidence to complete computer tasks than the control teachers Instructional strategies implemented in TnETL program schools were more reflective of research-based practices that accommodate technology integration than in control classes. This provided the basis for the instrumentation tools that will be used in the case study of High School M. By following this model it led to further investigation into the types of surveys and observation methods to use and their reliability. Sterbinsky, A., Ross, S., & Memphis Univ., T. (2003). School Observation Measure Reliability Study. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP), Retrieved from ERIC database. This study by Sterbinsky & Ross was done to determine the reliability of the School Observation Measure. Prior to this observation tool, measures of classroom practices have relied on classroom observations but only at a teacher, student, or classroom level. An observation instrument must be used at the school level and also measure a wide variety of classroom practices that may be implemented due to the different models that schools adopt. Currently the only observation tool that fulfills these requirements is the SOM. 10 P a g e

12 The study included approximately 1,110 SOMs that were done in 137 low performing schools in the south east region of the United States. The number of SOMs conducted per school in this sample ranged from a low of two to a high of 12, with a mode of eight SOMs per school. To test the reliability, first a G (Generalizability) study, which estimates variability due to SOMs based on current SOM data was performed. Then a D (Decision) study which applies the results of the G study to a range of possible future scenarios. The study provided ample evidence of reliability for the SOM in several contexts. On average, the phi coefficient across all SOM items was.74 for five observations and.82 for eight observations at a school. Additionally, the percentage of variance attributable to observations was less than 1% while the percentage of variance attributable to differences between schools was 37% and the error term was 62%. Drawing from this research, the proposed case study provides reliability to use this observation tool. It also gives the suggestion that at least five SOMs should be performed to maintain adequate levels of reliability. This will suggestion will be applied to the case study. Support for professional development Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying Discriminating Variables between Teachers Who Fully Integrate Computers and Teachers with Limited Integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), Retrieved from ERIC database. The purpose of the study by Mueller et al was to survey in-service teachers who did, and did not integrate computers in their classrooms in order to identify the variables that best discriminated between these two groups at both the elementary and secondary school levels. It also examined variables that impact successful integration beyond identification of barriers and provided reasons for under-use. 11 P a g e

13 In the study, 185 elementary teachers and 204 secondary teachers from 94 elementary schools and 16 secondary schools in a midsized Canadian city were surveyed. The researchers concluded that both experience with computer technology and attitudes toward technology in the classroom are important variables that predict differences between teachers who successfully integrated computer technology from those who did not. From their results, they suggest that more than just professional development should be provided to increase use of technology in the classroom. It is suggested that teachers need to see positive outcomes and have successful practice to integrate computers in the classroom. Relating to this case study, the research provided by Mueller et al. indentified variables for secondary school teachers that must be addressed beyond professional development as: comfort with technology high frequency use of computers a need for positive experiences with technology in the classroom hands-on direct practice with computer technology attitudes towards computers as an instructional tool Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), Retrieved from ERIC database. In Mishra & Koehler s article, they describe the theory behind their framework for teacher knowledge, provide examples of their teaching approach and provide examples of methodological contributions that have resulted from their work. They address the following issues: 12 P a g e

14 1. They introduce their technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) framework for thinking about teacher knowledge and how it informs the debate on what teachers need to know (and how they might develop it. 2. They show how their pedagogical approach to teachers professional development, learning technology by design, leads to the development of TPCK. 3. They discuss and provide examples of how this framework has guided their research and analysis of the effectiveness of their pedagogical approach. Many of their findings can be used in the case study to first provide the faculty with reasoning for conducting this research and second to develop proper professional development that will align with some of their findings. These findings include that: Knowing how to use technology is not the same as knowing how to teach it The TPCK framework allows for us to make sense of the complex relationships that exist when teachers attempt to apply technology to the teaching of subject matter The TPCK framework can guide further research and curriculum development work in the area of teacher education and teacher professional development around technology Identifies what is important and not important in the discussions of teacher knowledge surrounding using technology for teaching subject matter. Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher Technology Change: How Knowledge, Confidence, Beliefs, and Culture Intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), Retrieved from ERIC database. In this paper, Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich examine technology integration through the lens of the teacher by asking What are the necessary characteristics, or qualities that enable teachers to leverage technology resources as meaningful pedagogical tools? In addition 13 P a g e

15 they investigate how schools can support teachers efforts. While responding to these questions, they discuss the literature related to four variables of teacher change: knowledge, self-efficacy, pedagogical beliefs, and subject and school culture. The paper continues by discussing the implications on teacher education (pre-service teachers) that arises as a result of the four variables of teacher change. However, more related to this case study they discuss the implications for professional development and offer specific suggestions as listed here: 1. Align experiences with existing pedagogical beliefs and knowledge. 2. Provide examples of other teachers successes emphasizing student outcomes. 3. Provide support for risk-taking and experimentation. 4. Expand the definition of good teaching to include technology integration. The suggestions provide early guidelines for the planning of professional development that may result from this case study. Part III- Procedures Overview The research of technology use at High School M will be broken down into three parts with all of the results being correlated to find relationships and provide a basis for a future action plan. Data will be collected using two technology surveys, an interview, and classroom observations of both teacher instruction and student activities. A request will be submitted to administration at the end of the current school year to have time built into the faculty orientation day for next school year to conduct the two technology surveys. This will provide the opportunity to get most, if not all, of the surveys 14 P a g e

16 completed as all faculty are required to be present. Follow up with any absent faculty members will be done within the first week of school to ensure all the surveys are completed. Group interviews will be scheduled with the department heads so they can be conducted during department meeting times before the end of September. Finally, ten randomly selected classes will be observed for 15 minutes each to obtain a perspective on teaching practices and technology used. (The number of classes and time of observation follows the format of the School Observation Method.) The observations will occur after the interviews and before December when several classes will be reviewing for finals. A minimum of five SOMs will be conducted to maintain adequate levels of reliability (Sterbinsky & Ross, 2003). The research team will consist of the following members of the technology committee: Assistant Principal Director of Technology Educational Technology Director Assistant Network Administrator Three volunteers from the Faculty Technology Committee. Each member will be trained on how to conduct the group interviews and what to look for during teacher/classroom observations. Population and Sample The sample selected for this study is a convenience sample since it is a case study and furthermore, the researchers are currently employed at High School M. The school has a 15 P a g e

17 total of 40 teachers that will be included in the study that have the following demographic breakdown: Sex Distribution 90% female 10% male Age Range 17.5% % % % % 65 and over Years of Service at High School M (will be changed to years of teaching after survey data is collected) 37.5% 0-5 years 17.5% 6-10 years 7.5% years 15% years 2.5% years 12.5% years 7.5% years Ethnicity 72.5% White 10% Hispanic 7.5% Asian 10% Other Instrumentation Teacher Surveys Teacher Technology Questionnaire (TTQ) (Appendix B) - The TTQ examines teacher perceptions of technology by rating their level of agreement with 20 statements regarding five technology-related areas: impact on classroom instruction, impact on students, teacher readiness to integrate technology, overall school support for technology, and technical support. 16 P a g e

18 A Likert-type scale is used to rate each item with the options that range from (1) = strongly disagree to (5) = strongly agree. Technology Skills Assessment (TSA) (Appendix C) The TSA is used to assess teacher perceptions of their technology ability as indicated in the National Education Technology Standards for Students grades 6-8 (Marvin, Lowther & Ross, 2002). Teachers rate How easily they can use software features to complete 47 tasks related to computer basics, software basics, multimedia basics, Internet basics, advanced skills, and using technology for learning using a Likert-type scale ranging from not at all to somewhat to very easily. Interview (Appendix D) The interview protocol is a set of author created questions that will be used in department group interviews. The purpose of the interview is to gain additional insights beyond the questions on the TTQ and TSA. For example, the demographics of each faculty member can be further investigated beyond what was accessible from the faculty section of the High School M website. Other questions will provide the opportunity to relate use and attitudes to specific technologies. Also, it asks for specific suggestions on the needs of the faculty in terms of professional development. The interviews will be conducted by members of the technology committee. Training on how to conduct the interview will be done to offer guidelines to prevent bias and to offer suggestions on additional probing or clarifying questions that can be asked beyond the scripted set of questions. 17 P a g e

19 Classroom Observations School Observation Measure (SOM) (Appendix E) While a researcher does an observation, they will use the SOM to examine if 26 instructional strategies were used during the class (Ross, Smith, & Alberg, 1999). The frequency is recorded using a five-point rubric that ranges from (0) = not observed to (4) extensively observed. The target strategies include traditional practices, like direct instruction and independent seatwork, and alternative predominantly student-centered methods associated with educational reforms, like projectbased learning, inquiry, and using technology as a learning tool. These strategies were identified through surveys and discussions involving policy makers, researchers, administrators, and teachers, as those most useful in providing indicators of schools instructional philosophies and implementation of commonly used reform designs (Ross et al., 2004). Observation of Computer Use (OCU) (Appendix F) The OCU examines student access, to ability with, and use of computers rather than teacher use of technology (Lowther & Ross, 2001). The primary OCU data include student computer activities and overall meaningfulness of the activities. The computer activities are grouped by type of software tool: (1) production, (2) Internet/research, (3) educational software, and (4) testing software. Student use of these tools is recorded using the same five-point rubric as the SOM. An overall rubric is used to assess the level (low-level, somewhat meaningful, meaningful, and very meaningful) to which each observed activity reflects meaningful use of computers as a tool to enhance learning as described by the National Education Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) (ISTE, 2007). 18 P a g e

20 Validity The existing instruments, which include the TTQ, TSA, SOM, and OCU, are directly aligned to national technology and curriculum standards that were subjected to reliability and psychometric validation (Sterbinsky & Burke, 2003). They have also been used in peerreviewed, published studies (Smith et al., 1998; Lowther, Ross, & Morrison, 2003; Ross et al., 2004). Also in these instruments were used in over 2,000 schools across the nation (Lowther et al. 2008). To ensure validity of the interview protocol, the questions included will undergo a review by the technology committee on campus. Feedback from the committee may provide suggested additions and changes that can be made to the interview process. Revisions will be made based on this feedback and it will be offered for review for additional suggestions. This process will continue until the questions are agreed upon by the entire committee. External Validity With the research conducted being a case study and the relatively small number of teachers and classes being studied it will be difficult to generalize the findings. It can, however, be a basis for further investigation to similar single gender private schools in the area. The instrumentation tools can be used by other educational institutions but the results may not be valid for other schools because of the unique and specific population of High School M. Threats to Validity Subject Characteristics- As discussed in the Population and Sample section, the subjects vary in their age and years of service as a teacher at High School M. These differences may influence their experiences with using technology, creating lesson plans and activities, and their skills 19 P a g e

21 with using the technology in the classroom. By correlating the data from surveys with the interviews it may be possible to explain how these differences have affected the findings. Subject Attitude- During the interviews and classroom observations, subjects may attempt to be more enthusiastic about their use of technology because they are being observed. The individual survey results will be compared with the individual s interview responses to uncover any differences and follow up interviews will be scheduled to clear up any discrepancies. Class observations will occur at random times and on different occasions to witness authentic instruction. Instrumentation- It is possible there may be data collector bias if only one researcher is conducting interviews or making the classroom observations. Additional members of the technology committee and volunteers from the teaching faculty that are represented on the technology committee will be asked to take part in the research. Each member would be trained on how to conduct interviews and how to do the classroom observations. Projected Data Analysis Procedure For both the TTQ and TSA, there are overarching categories with individual statements that fall under the category topic. Results for each survey will be calculated to determine what percentage of teachers strongly agree or agree with each statement. A mean score will be determined for the overall category. Correlation of these results to the interview should support and relate to each other. For the SOM and OCU, a percentage will be determined for the times each classroom practice was observed. For each listed practice a mean score and standard deviation will be 20 P a g e

22 calculated. All of these results will be used to determine what types of professional development should be offered to the faculty. Part IV- Expected Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations When the study is performed the expected findings may show that use of technology is prevalent in the classroom at High School M but it most often used as a tool to word process, deliver information, and to assign work. There will be low occurrences of technology actually being integrated into instruction and class activities beyond major projects that students work on independently. Reasoning behind this could result from the level of confidence some individuals have with using technology, not experiencing successes with using technology, or a lack of professional development or time to incorporate it into established curricula. Professional development offerings will be important to improving the attitudes towards technology and its incorporation into curricula. By helping the faculty find success in using it and applying it, it will make them more comfortable with instructing with it. In the future, after professional development has been offered and teachers have been given ample time to connect it to their classroom instruction, the surveys, interviews, and observations could be performed again. Upon collecting and analyzing the data, a comparison can be made to determine the effectiveness of the professional development. 21 P a g e

23 References Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher Technology Change: How Knowledge, Confidence, Beliefs, and Culture Intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), Retrieved from ERIC database. Inan, F., & Lowther, D. (2010). Factors Affecting Technology Integration in K-12 Classrooms: A Path Model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), Retrieved from ERIC database. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2007). National Educational Technology Standards for Students: Technology Foundation Standards for all Students. Retrieved December 3, 2010 from Lowther, D., Inan, F., Strahl, J., & Ross, S. (2008). Does technology integration work when key barriers are removed?. Educational Media International 45(3), Retrieved from ERIC database. Lowther, D.L., & Ross, S.M. (2001). Observation of computer use (OCU) (formerly named Survey of computer use). Memphis, TN: the University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. Lowther, D.L., Ross, S.M., & Morrison, G.R. (2003). When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(03), Marvin, E.D., Lowther, D.L., & Ross, S.M. (2002). Technology Skills Assessment. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, the University of Memphis. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), Retrieved from ERIC database Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying Discriminating Variables between Teachers Who Fully Integrate Computers and Teachers with Limited Integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), Retrieved from ERIC database. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K., Newby, T., & Ertmer, P. (2010). Teacher Value Beliefs Associated with Using Technology: Addressing Professional and Student Needs. Computers & Education,55(3), Retrieved from ERIC database. 22 P a g e

24 Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., & Alberg, M. (1999). The School Observation Measure (SOM). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis. Ross, S. M., Smith, L., Alberg, M., & Lowther, D. (2004). Using classroom observations as a research and formative evaluation tool in educational reform: The school observation measure. In S. Hilberg & H. Waxman (Eds.), New directions for observational research in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms (pp ), Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Smith, L., Ross, S., McNelis, M., Squires, M., Wasson, R., Maxwell, S., Weddle, K., Nath, L., Grehan, A., & Buggey, T. (1998). The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), Sterbinsky, A., & Burke, D. (2003). Summary of CSRTQ reliability studies. Technical Report. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis. Sterbinsky, A., Ross, S., & Memphis Univ., T. (2003). School Observation Measure Reliability Study. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP), Retrieved from ERIC database. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for Classroom Technology Innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), Retrieved from ERIC database. 23 P a g e

25 APPENDIX A High School M TECHNOLOGY SURVEY The purpose of this survey is to: 1) Examine what technology is currently being integrated into classrooms and courses. 2) Allow us to see how other departments and teachers are using technology so that we may all learn from each other. Please consider your technology usage over the past year as you fill out the following form. Our goal is to get a better picture of how we are utilizing technology. The survey is divided into sections that include both in-class use of hardware and software, as well as what you ask students to use outside of class. This survey is designed to be completed online, please type in the area provided (it will expand as you type) and save a tree! Please this form in to by March 26th. Thank you, The Technology Committee 24 P a g e

26 TECHNOLOGY SURVEY: Department: Section 1 Technology used during class-time: For each technology that you use, please briefly explain how it is/was used. For example: Smart Board used to give, save and send lecture notes to students or Power Point used to show pictures. Please indicate if it is student-centered, teacher-centered, or both. Section 1 Hardware Smart Board: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Senteos: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Overhead Projector: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Document Camera: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable WebCam: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Airliner/Tablet/Slate: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable ipod: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Cell phone: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable 25 P a g e

27 DVD Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable VHS Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Section 1 Software Power Point Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Excel: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Microsoft Word: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Internet: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Podcasts Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Online Text book Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Social networking site Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Other Software: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable 26 P a g e

28 Section 2 Technology used for the course by students outside of class-time: Power Point: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Excel: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable MS Word: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Publisher: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Movie Editing Programs: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Photography software: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Audio recording software Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Internet Research: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Social Networking:(Blogs, Wikis, etc) Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Internet Based Homework Sites Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable 27 P a g e

29 Online Tutoring Sites: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Website Creation Programs: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Books on Tape: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable WYNN: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable Other Software: Daily Weekly Occasionally Never Not Applicable What type of hardware or software would you like access to in your classroom? What type of Professional Development instruction might assist you in becoming more comfortable integrating technology into your lessons (one on one, large group, online, handouts, etc)? Is there anything else you would like to share? 28 P a g e

30 APPENDIX B Teacher Technology Questionnaire Part 1: Impact on Classroom Instruction My teaching is more student-centered when technology is integrated into the lessons. I routinely integrate the use of technology into my instruction. Technology integration efforts have changed classroom learning activities in a very positive way. My teaching is more interactive when technology is integrated into the lessons. Impact on Students The use of computers has increased the level of student interaction and/or collaboration The integration of technology has positively impacted student learning and achievement. Most of my students can capably use computers at an age-appropriate level. 29 P a g e

31 The use of technology has improved the quality of student work. Teacher Readiness to Integrate Technology I know how to meaningfully integrate technology into lessons. I am able to align technology use with my district s standards-based curriculum. I have received adequate training to incorporate technology into my instruction. My computer skills are adequate to conduct classes that have students using technology. Support for Technology in the School Parents and community members support our school s emphasis on technology. Teachers receive adequate administrative support to integrate technology into classroom practices. Our school has a well-developed technology plan that guides all technology integration efforts. 30 P a g e

32 Teachers in this school are generally supportive of technology integration efforts. Technical Support Most of our school computers are kept in good working condition. I can readily obtain answers to technology-related questions. My students have adequate access to up-to-date technology resources. Materials (e.g., software, printer supplies) for classroom use of computers are readily available. Technology Coach Effectiveness I have frequently participated in professional development that was planned by or provided by my Technology Coach. I more frequently integrate technology into my instruction as a result of participating in professional development planned or provided by my Technology Coach. 31 P a g e

33 The quality of my technology integration lessons has improved as a result of participating in professional development planned or provided by my Technology Coach. Overall, my Technology Coach has been a valuable asset to our school s technology integration program. Section 2: How would you rate your level of computer ability? Very Good Good Moderate Poor No Ability Do you own a home computer? Yes No If yes, do you use your home computer to access instructional materials on the internet? Yes No If yes, do you use your home computer to prepare instructional materials? Yes No 32 P a g e

34 Appendix C Technology Skills Assessment Computer Basics- How easily can you Use a spell check tool. Create basic computer documents (word processed) in a timely manner. Use help menus for software programs. Use basic computer terms like mouse, keyboard, hard drive, CD- Program ROM, and monitor. Save documents so they can be opened on both a Macintosh and PC. Create folders on a hard drive or disk. Save files to specific folders. Locate and delete unwanted files. Use keyboard commands to cut, copy, or delete text. Proficiently use a mouse and keyboard. Print a document using "Print" from the File menu and/or the toolbar icon. 33 P a g e

35 Software Basics- How easily can you Use software preview features to check work. Open and use software programs that are installed on your computer. Work with and move between two open programs (e.g., Internet and database) to create a product. Describe the difference between downloading and installing software. Save documents so they can be opened in a different program (e.g., from Word to Word Perfect). Install software. Multimedia Basics- How easily can you Import digital video from a camera to a computer. Record and save your voice onto a computer. Use a scanner to import a photo or document into a computer. Play a music CD on the computer. Internet Basics- How easily can you Connect to the Internet with a modem (phone, cable). 34 P a g e

36 Use Boolean strategies for Internet searches. Use appropriate software and the Internet to find audio, video, and graphics for lesson plans. Use the Internet to find help when you have a computer problem. Determine if information you find on the Internet is accurate and valid. Evaluate Internet search strategies to determine those that are most efficient. Determine the usefulness and appropriateness of digital information Advanced Skills- How easily can you Use more advanced computer terms like megahertz, gigabytes, RAM. Access information on local area networks (LANs) and wide area networks (WANs). Use appropriate digital layout and design to meet the needs of defined audiences. Use appropriate digital layout and design for the selected media (e.g., multimedia, web, print). Publish information in a variety of media (e.g., printed, monitor display, web-based, video). Connect a computer to a local server to share files. Determine if a software program works with an operating system. Print to a specific printer when connected to a network that has more than one printer. 35 P a g e

37 Use presentation software to share information with specific audiences. Using Technology for Learning- How easily can you Use multimedia software to enhance learning experiences. Use appropriate software (e.g., word processing, graphics, databases, spreadsheets, simulations, and multimedia) to express ideas and solve problems. Use text and graphics to create and modify solutions to problems. Use digital audio and video to create and modify solutions to problems. Use communication tools to participate in group projects. Manipulate information in interactive digital environments (e.g., simulations, virtual labs, field trips). Participate in a listserv, chat, and bulletin board session. Create an electronic teaching portfolio to evaluate your work. Evaluate electronic portfolio products. Create technology tools to assess student work (e.g., checklists, timelines, rubrics). Policy and Ethics- I understand My school's acceptable use policy. 36 P a g e

38 The concept of a school site license for software. How to determine if it is legal to copy a software program or another individual's electronic work. 37 P a g e

39 Appendix D Interview Questions 1. How many years of teaching experience do you have? 2. How many years have you taught at High School M? 3. In the classroom(s) you teach in, what types of technology do you have readily available to you? 4. How often do you use each of these technologies in the classroom as part of instruction? 5. How do you use these technologies to support instruction (i.e. lesson plans, grading, communication, etc.)? 6. How would you describe your level of confidence in using these technologies? Please explain. 7. In what capacity do you require students to use these technologies for in class activities? 8. In what capacity do you require students to use these technologies for assignments outside of class? 9. Do you schedule your classes to use the Instructional Lab or Multimedia Lab on campus? If so, how many times in a semester are they scheduled in there? 10. What types of assignments are your students assigned in the Instructional Lab or Multimedia Lab? 11. How would you describe the usefulness of the technology committee with your technology needs (hardware, software, or support)? 12. What types of professional development would you be interested in experiencing in terms of technology? 38 P a g e

40 Appendix E School Observation Measure Indicate the extent to which each of the following was observed. Instructional Orientation Classroom Organization Instructional strategies Student activities Direct Instruction Team teaching Cooperative/collaborative learning Individual tutoring Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers Higher level instructional feedback (written or verbal) Integration of subject areas Project-based learning Use of higher-level questioning Teacher as a coach/facilitator Parent/community involvement in learning activities Independent seatwork (worksheets) Experiential, hands-on learning None 0 Rarely 1 Occasionally 2 Frequently 3 Extensively 4 Systematic individual instruction Sustained writing/composition Sustained reading 39 P a g e

41 None 0 Rarely 1 Occasionally 2 Frequently 3 Extensively 4 Student independent inquiry/research Technology Use Assessment Summary items Student discussion Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI) Technology as a learning tool Performance assessment Student self-assessment (portfolios) High academic focus High student attention/interest/engagement 40 P a g e