ATTACKING THE TECHNOLOGY GAP: Encouraging Veteran Teachers to Incorporate Technology

Mollie Dwyermdwyer@aacps.org

ED 670Summer 2011

Campbell, M. ( June 20, 2000) Ariadne Cartoon. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue23/cartoon/Image1.jpg

Area of Focus Statement

Incorporating technology trend

Variation of technology skills between novice and veteran teachers

AACPS focused on “attacking the achievement gap” since 2006 (Maxwell, 2011, title)

Area of Focus (continued)

Attacking the technology gap will help attack the achievement gap

Focus: find ways to encourage veteran teachers to incorporate technology in their classrooms more regularly

Personal Lens

Technology has always been my strength

Few technology courses at Towson University; mostly self-taught

Worked in five AACPS as intern or special education assistant

Personal Lens (continued)

Co-workers have been amazed by my use of technology

Some ask me to show them how Others have little to no interest to learn

Mostly veteran teachers who have little to no interest to learn

Personal Lens (continued)

Most recent observation of technology use:

Multiple 5th grade classrooms Math, science, social studies with different

teachers Two veteran teachers: uncomfortable and

became frustrated easily Novice teacher: incorporated with ease

Setting

Public elementary school in Anne Arundel County

2010-2011 school year: 601 students 63% Caucasian 16% African-American 6% Hispanic 4% Asian <1% Native Hawaiian and Indian

Key Terms

Achievement Gap: difference between the performance of all

student groups and the Anne Arundel County Public School (AACPS)-identified standards (Maxwell, 2011)

Technology Gap: varying uses of technology in classrooms

taught by novice and veteran teachers

Key Terms (continued)

Veteran Teacher: taught more than 10 years

Novice Teacher: taught less than 10 years

Technology: computers, software, or interactive devices

that enhance lessons

Research Question

How can I encourage

veteran teachers to

incorporate technology in

the classroom?

Rationale

Contribute toward closing the technology gap, so teachers can focus more on the achievement gap

County-wide purpose to allow all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, or social status, make the most of their talents (Maxwell, 2011)

Literature Review

Positive Outcomes of Incorporating Technology:› “The power of new technology is that it

opens an incredible number of doors for teachers to help students learn in the most engaging way” (LaFee, 2010, p. 50).

› Anderson (2005) explains using technology for high-order thinking and problem solving can lead to increased success.

Literature Review (continued)

› Students’ learning can be enhanced and extended when technology is incorporated (Vasinda & McLeod, 2011).

› For example, students made podcasts to record their lines in Readers Theatre which extended their learning to include their families when they were able to listen to the podcast at home (Vasinda & McLeod, 2011).

Literature Review (continued)

Negative Outcomes of Incorporating Technology:› Anderson (2005) states, “technology use

widens the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ (p. 148).

› Poor and urban students are less likely to be exposed to high-order thinking with computers(Anderson, 2005).

Literature Review (continued)

› “The introduction of new technology alone does not guarantee improved learning experiences, or greater learning outcomes” (Prieto et. al, 2011).

› New technology has to be paired with pedagogy and content to be a success (Polly, 2011).

Literature Review (continued)

Veteran Teacher Views of Technology:› Snoeynik (2002) found inexperienced

teachers wanted to feel comfortable with the technology before attempting to teach with it.

› One veteran teacher said, “That was nice, but I could never do it” (Snoeynik, 2002, p. 103).

Literature Review (continued)

› Research has found teachers feel more comfortable learning technology when they are able to learn hands-on and have support from novice teachers (Plair, 2008; Becker, 1994; Polly, 2011).

› Veteran teachers will also be more effective incorporating technology when they are excited and eager to try it. Camhi (2010) quoted a teacher of 13 years

saying, “I feel like a kid in a candy shop” (p.15).

Literature Review (continued)

Summary:› The students we are teaching today, in the

21st century, come into school with a large amount of technology knowledge, so all teachers need to incorporate technology to ‘keep up’ with their students (Riel, 1994; Means, 2010; LaFee, 2010; Vasinda & McLeod, 2011; Prieto et al., 2011).

Methodology

Teacher/Action Research:› “systematic and intentional inquiry carried

out by teachers” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990, p.3)

› “research done by teachers for teachers” (Mills, 2000, p.12)

› problem solving process where the problem comes from a teacher noticing something could have been done better (Mertler, 2000)

Methodology (continued)

Qualitative Methods:› Johnson (2002) explains teacher research

is predominately qualitative because teachers study the world around them.

› data collection methods that may foster more personal responses than quantitative methods

Example: Student interview instead of test scores

Participants

Fifth grade and special education teachers› 10 teachers total

5 novice and 5 veteran

› Fifth grade students

Preliminary Data Collection

Observation

Teacher Surveys

Students Surveys

Teacher Interviews

Evaluation of Intervention

Observation

Teacher Interviews

Procedures of Verification

Guba’s (1981) Procedures:› Constant participant at the site

› Triangulated data: observation, surveys, interviews

› Exact quotes used as raw data

› Member checks to ensure correct interpretation

Procedures of Verification (continued)

Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen’s (1994) criteria:› Democratic Validity

Include multiple perspectives Novice teachers Veteran teachers Students

Ethical Considerations

Permission from administration

Project will be discussed in detail to allow teachers and students to decide if they want to participate

Participants may stop participating at any time, with no consequence

Ethical Considerations (continued)

Ensure Confidentiality› All participants will be given a number

› All data will be kept securely on my personal computer

› All data will be destroyed at the end of project

Proposed Interventions

Professional Development Workshop:› Held afterschool for one hour

› 5 novice teachers will showcase technology available at school

› 5 veteran teachers have opportunity to practice with technology and ask questions

Proposed Interventions (continued)

Mentor Program:› Veteran teacher paired with novice teacher

› Meet to collaborate 30 minutes, once a week for eight weeks

› Goal: veterans gain confidence and ease of incorporating technology

Members of Action Research Team

Mollie Dwyer- lead researcher

Veteran and Novice teachers

5th grade students

Negotiations

Permission from administration

Consent from teachers

Permission from parents

Assent from students

TimelinePhase and Time Action

Phase 1

1 week prior to workshop

Teacher and student surveys and interviews to determine need of intervention

Phase 2

Afterschool for one hour

Professional development workshop hosted by novice teachers

Phase 3

Begins 1 week after workshop, continues for 8 weeks

Novice and veteran teacher partnership intervention

(30 minutes afterschool, once a week)

Phase 4

1 week after mentor program ends

Post-intervention teacher and student surveys and interviews to evaluate interventions

Resources Needed

Computer lab for professional development workshop

Surveymonkey.com

Tape recorder

School’s technology including: SMART boards, document cameras, and various websites

Porter, B. http://www.issues.cc/complaints/technology/kids-and-pricy-technology-dont-mix

References

Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Anderson, N. (2005). ‘Mindstorms’ and ‘mindtools’ aren’t happening: Digital streaming of students via socio-economic disadvantage. E-Learning, 2(2), 144-152.

Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3).

Benedis-Grab, G. (2011). Sharing digital data: A plant growth experiment is strengthened when students collaborate digitally. Science and Children, 42-46.

Camhi, S. (2010). Extreme makeover: How the 2009 sylvia charp award winner used technology to transform a once struggling school district. Learning and Leading with Technology, 12-15.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational researcher, 19(2), 2-11.

References (continued)

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Frank, K. A., Zhoa, Y., Penuel, W. R., Ellefson, N., & Porter, S. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends: Experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education, 84(2), 137-156. doi: 10.1177/0038040711401812

Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.Educational communication and technology, 29(2), 75-91.

Hedburg, J. (2011). Towards a disruptive pedagogy: Changing classroom practice with technologies and digital content. Educational Media International, 48(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2011.549673

Johnson, A. (2002). A short guide to action research (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

LaFee, S. (2010). Taking the “i21” initiative. Education Digest: Essential Reading Condensed for Quick Review, 76(3), 47-51.

References (continued)

Maxwell, K. (2011, January 23). Attacking the achievement gap: A battle for our children’s future. Severna Park Patch. Retrieved from http://severnapark.patch.com/articles/attacking-the-achievement-gap-a-battle-for-our-childrens-future-4

Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285-307.

Mertler, C. (2006). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Mills, G. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Plair, S. K. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and fluency. The Clearing House, 82(2), 70-74.

Polly, D. (2011). Examining teachers’ enactment of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mathematics teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(1), 37-59.

References (continued)

Prieto, L. P., Villagra-Sobrino, S., Jorrin-Abellan, I. M., Martinez-Mones, A., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2011). Recurrent routines: Analyzing and supporting orchestration in technology-enhanced primary classrooms. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1214-1227. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.011

Riel, M. (1994). Educational change in a technology-rich environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4).

Schaffhauser, D. (2009). Which came first: The technology or the pedagogy? T. H. E. Journal, 36(8).

Snoeyink, R. (2002). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85-111.

Vasinda, S., & McLeod, J. (2011). Extending readers theatre: A powerful and purposeful match with podcasting. Reading Teacher, 64(7), 486-497. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.7.2

Appendices

Consent Forms› Appendix A: Teacher Consent Form› Appendix B: Parent Consent Form› Appendix C: Student Assent Form

Appendix D: Teacher Survey Appendix E: Student Survey