Methodology Teaching in a Digital Age Phase 1

Transcription

1 Methodology Teaching in a Digital Age Phase 1 Participants Forty-four educators from seven schools participated in the study, representing a diverse range of technology initiatives, years of implementation, regions of the country, and student populations served. The administrators and teachers in the study reported that they held either Bachelors degrees (32.5%) or Masters degrees (67.5%). Grade levels taught were mostly middle and high school but expertise ranged from grades 1 to 12. More than half of the teachers (55%) reported that they had been teaching for more than 10 years, whereas (30%) of the teachers reported that they had been teaching for six to 10 years, and (15%) reporting having had less than five years of the teaching. The focus group interviews were conducted to gather educator expertise which technology-enabled strategies the teachers used to improve student outcomes. Participation was voluntary and the teachers were offered an honorarium for their time. Design Using a qualitative research approach, the focus groups were conducted for the teaching and administrative staff at each of the seven locations. The participants completed a brief form to document information, such as which grade levels and content areas they taught; how many years they had been teaching; and what is the extent of their experience, familiarity, and perception of technology. The focus group questions were standardized across all seven schools. An independent group of researchers participated in the analysis of focus group transcripts and interview themes. The focus groups and interviews were digitally recorded and uploaded to a transcription service. The researchers reviewed the transcripts and audio files independently for recurring themes, using a previous publication s framework as a guide (see Shapley et al., 2010). The researchers convened twice as a group to discuss the study s findings, obtain consensus, and build a final document summarizing the themes and providing evidence for justification. In addition, the team reviewed information from the classroom observations and the teachers responses from the surveys for additional evidence and feedback. Procedure At the start of the focus group, the teachers completed a brief form to gather information such as: Which grade levels and content areas they taught? How many years they had been teaching, in general, their specific grade, and at their respective school and district? What is the extent of their experience, familiarity, perception of technology?

2 The focus group questions were standardized across all seven schools, and designed to address a range of domains relevant to integrating technology into instruction based on the framework from a previous publication (see Shapley et al., 2010). The domains include: School factors such as leadership support, tech support, and innovative culture Program/Initiative factors such as digital devices and technological and pedagogical support Student factors such as technology proficiency, technology use, and engagement Student learning tasks/activities such as self-directed learning and small group work Teacher instructional model/practices, intellectual challenge, and rigor Teacher factors such as technology proficiency and openness to use of tech A follow up to each focus group was conducted using an online survey via Survey Monkey. The purpose of this survey was for teachers to report their technology fluency and usage this portion is strictly for the reader to get a sense of how tech savvy the teachers were in the study. Additionally, the administrators were interviewed at each site; also, in two cases, we interviewed the administrators from the district offices, as well as the tech support staff. Similar to the interview questions for the focus groups, all questions were standardized and based on the framework from a previous publication (see Shapley et al., 2010). To observe and verify that the instructional strategies were properly addressed in the focus groups and during the interviews, we scheduled classroom visits with a few of the teachers who participated in the focus groups, as well as from the other teachers in the building. We used an informal classroom observation form to document observed practices in each of the following areas: Student and teacher collaboration Use of instructional time Assessment and feedback Classroom management Student grouping Student engagement Critical thinking Other Again, participation was strictly voluntary and the teachers could determine the length of the visits.

3 References Shapley, K.S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of Technology Immersion and its Relationship with Student Achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4). Insights for Innovations.

4 Methodology Teaching in a Digital Age Phase 2 Participants To accomplish the study goals, we recruited and followed 400 English language arts and mathematics teachers in grades 7 and 10. We selected teachers who have no, some, or lots of experience providing digital instructions in the classroom. We further collected data to evaluate the association between digital instructional practices and student outcomes. Study participation provided teachers with training about digital teaching strategies their colleagues are using across the nation. Additionally, we gave participating teachers $100 as a token of our appreciation (if permitted via district regulations). Also, all study publications acknowledged participating districts (if permitted) on national publications and media communications sharing findings from the study. Further, at the national level, this is the first study to share digital teaching strategies and its association with positive student outcomes. Design This study used a three-level linear model design, with student data as level 1, teacher data as level 2, and administrator data as level 3. Baseline scores and efficacy of intervention were taken using a pretest-posttest measure. Evaluation of the association between digital instructional practices (IV) and student outcomes (DV) were observed at across all three levels, while controlling for extraneous variables such as gender and socioeconomic status. Procedure Students completed three activities at the beginning of the school year and again at the end: 1) Completed an assessment of either English language arts or mathematics (approximately 45 minutes); 2) Completed an assessment of critical thinking (approximately 20 min); and 3) Completed a survey (approximately 20 minutes). Teachers participated in three training activities that can took place together or in three separate sessions (4.5 total hours): 1) Facilitated student completion of an assessment of either English language arts or mathematics, an assessment of critical thinking skills, and student surveys twice each year (three to four hours total per year); 2) Completed a checklist about how he or she used technology every week for approximately five minutes (fewer than two hours/year); and 3) Completed a survey beginning and end of year (approximately 40 minutes total per year).

5 Administrators: 1) Participated in one training activity and one study check in (two hours per year); 2) Facilitated state test data pull for study students; and 3) Completed survey at start and end of each year (approximately 30 minutes total each year). Researcher assistants participated in one training activity and one observation practice, which taught them how to conduct and analyze qualitative data (three hours per year). They also completed one 45-minute observation and documentation for each assigned teacher (one hour per observed teacher). Insights for Innovations.