C1999
Skills Teachers' Need to Integrate Technology
Effectively Into Their Classroom
Dissertation
Jill Brown, Ph.D. May 1999
Chapter 1
Introduction
A New Culture
Technology is more than a tool, a set of skills to acquire or a new medium. Technology is in the process of transforming our culture. Margaret Mead (1978) describes our current society as a Prefigurative Culture, one in which the young cannot learn everything they need to know from their elders. The young members' ways-of-life will differ greatly from that of their parents. November and Thornburg (1993) question, Could it be that a majority of the jobs that today's kindergartners will hold do not exist today? This may be the first time in history that we do not know the types of jobs for which we need to prepare our children (Mead, 1978). In response to these changes in our culture, there has been a national focus to determine the needs of children, how schools can support these needs and what teachers must understand to participate in this effort.
In an attempt to understand the future needs of children, the U.S. Department of Labor, published the Skills and Tasks for Jobs: A SCANS Report for AMERICA 2000 (SCANS, 1994). This document reports that 8 of the 20 essential competencies, defined by the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) for our students to obtain employment in America 2000, pertain directly to an ability to use technology.
In response to these reported needs we see an increase in educational resources across the country dedicated to equipping schools with technology. According to a Quality of Education Data Report (QED), the average student-to-computer ratio has increased significantly in the last 5 years (QED, 1996). The QED reports that the ratio of students to computers has increased from 25:1 in 1988-89 to 10:1 in 1995-96. Concurrently, The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Task Force on Technology and Teacher Education reports an estimated 9:1 student to computer ratio for 1997 compared to a 50:1 student to computer ratio in 1985 (NCATE, 1997).
Although most teachers and students do not have adequate access to technology on a daily basis, it is evident that schools and districts are putting more and more resources towards the purchase of these technologies (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997; QED, 1996). We must look at how increasing technology availability affects the students and teachers within these schools. We must try to anticipate the cultural changes technology will bring as we prepare our children and our teachers to be learners in this dramatically changing culture (Pea & Sheingold, 1987).
Professional development for teachers and their use of technology in the classroom is a product of these cultural changes. Technology training for teachers is continuing to grow as a primary goal for a majority of school districts and is required by many state and national accreditation standards for preservice teachers (Glenn, 1993). Likewise, professional development in technology for teachers is highlighted by the Panel on Educational Technology to the President as a high-level strategic recommendation. The document states that substantial investments in hardware will be wasted if teachers are not properly prepared (Report to the President, 1997). There is concern, as these resources are placed in classrooms, that teachers may not be equipped to apply these new technologies into their students' education. There is concern that teachers are equipped to prepare students as technology resources are placed into their classrooms. Are teachers prepared and/or willing to use these technologies, as they become accessible? How are teachers designing lessons to integrate the use of these new technologies? What do teachers need to successfully integrate technology into the classroom? Some of these questions are addressed in the current literature and discussed in Chapter Two. On a large scale, there is little research on the specific abilities, technological and pedagogical, that practicing teachers must possess to integrate technology into their curricula.
As we question these competencies, a larger number of state departments of education are beginning to look at requiring technology competencies for practicing teachers. In a memorandum to State Technology Directors (Fulton, Fagnana, and Boysen, June 1997), the following appeared:
"A recent hearing of the Technology Subcommittee of the Science Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives posed the question; "Technology in the classroom: panacea or Pandora's box?" The juxtaposition is an intriguing one, but the question suggests that technology is, in and of itself, the answer to educators' prayers, or a dire threat whose ramifications have yet to be understood. Like many past inquiries into technology effectiveness, it places the focus on technology as an independent variable, a simplistic view that researchers have come to reject. Effective use of technology is the result of many factors, chief of which is the teacher, her competence and ability to shape technology-based learning activities to meet students' learning needs. Other factors--software, access, school support in allowing time and experimentation to try new things--all has been noted in many past analyses. But there is another key element, one that may seem obvious but which has, in fact been overlooked in many past studies of the effects of computer-based learning in the classroom. One recent study put it succinctly: "The effect of computer-based learning technologies in facilitating student learning and performance is seen only when participants have the knowledge and skill to use the technology." Acknowledging that this may seem self-evident, the authors report that it was perhaps because of the "assumed power of the technology" that past researchers have not evaluated the knowledge and skill base necessary for the effective use of technology. (pg. 2)"
Policy makers have begun to recognize the need for clearly defined technology teaching competencies. For example, the North Carolina State Board of Education adopted competencies for its educators in March of 1996 (Birmingham and Kemp, 1997). This indicates that teacher competencies are a current topic of discussion. It also raises the issue of who should define these competencies for teachers, essentially deciding how they will be prepared to integrate technology effectively into their classrooms. Effective technology integration is defined, for the purpose of this study, as curriculum, designed from a constructivist approach, that encourages students to participate in social activities where they develop an ability to readily acquire new knowledge, solve new problems, and employ creativity and critical thinking in the design of new approaches to existing problems (Report to the President, 1997; Willis, Stephens, and Matthew, 1996; Hall, 1996; Griest, 1993; Griest, 1996; Means, Olson and Singh, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997; Mergendoller, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; McKenzie, 1997).
In response to cultural changes, due to the introduction of technology, there has been a national focus on children’s needs, the roles of schools and the ability of teachers to integrate these technologies effectively into classrooms.
Purpose of this Study
Therefore, the first question I am going to address in my study is: What abilities, technological and pedagogical, do practicing teachers possess who effectively integrate technology into their curriculum? Insight into possible answers to this question may help answer the second question: What staff development should be provided for teachers to prepare teachers to integrate technology into their curricula?
Significance of the Study
As subsequently discussed in Chapter Two, Review of Related Literature, there is a great deal of published information concerning benefits and barriers teachers encounter in their endeavors to integrate technology. The participants in this study gave colorful descriptions mirroring these issues. However, the extensive body of research reviewed for this study did not explicitly devote research time to obtaining in-depth feedback from successful technology-integrating teachers on the competencies/skills that they possess and use every day. A paper-based original Technology Skills Model (original TSM) (Appendix A) and a web-based Final Technology Skills Model (Final TSM) tool (Appendix B) consisting of technological and pedagogical skills was developed in conjunction with this study. This study addresses how this tool should be utilized to evaluate teachers’ abilities to successfully integrate technology into the classroom according to twelve successful technology-integrating teachers. Furthermore, this study adds to the literature a discussion about what essential needs and supports were available to these twelve teachers that enabled them to successfully integrate technology into their classrooms.
Overview of Site and Participants
This study is based on information, gathered through variety of methods,
from twelve information-rich participants. All of the participants are teachers
employed in Lovato County, a diverse and fairly rural southwestern county with
a population of approximately 80,000. Lovato County has four public school
districts. Five participants in the study work for the largest district in Lovato
County, Orillo County Public Schools. The participants encompass the following
teaching positions (Table 1): a combination
fourth/fifth grade teacher, an elementary speech pathologist, a seventh grade math and social studies teacher, a middle school Tech 2000 Lab teacher, and finally an eighth grade algebra and pre-algebra teacher. Three participants are from Ortiz Public School District and hold the following positions: a seventh grade teacher, a middle school math teacher, and a gifted and regular education teacher at the secondary level. Two participants are from the Yucca School District and hold positions as an elementary teacher and a middle school technology facilitator. The final two participants teach in Apodoca Independent School and hold the positions of English proficiency teacher in a multi-age primary class and a middle school English and computers teacher.
All of the participants reported having convenient access to computers at school. The 12 participants represent a daunting 169 years of teaching experience. There were four male and eight female participants. My participants were selected as a purposeful sample of information-rich participants in order to capture the central themes that cut across many participant or program variations (Patton, 1990).
Overview of Research Methods and Data Analysis
This is a qualitative study which fits my aim to create meaning as a collaborative endeavor between researcher and participants (Lather, 1991). A qualitative approach, which constructs itself throughout the process, most closely matches my personal views of effective knowledge acquisition. Initial questions were derived via a qualitative pilot study (Appendix C) conducted prior to the beginning of this research process. Data for this study were collected, throughout an eight-month period, using a variety of methodologies including; transcribed interviews, observation notes, individual surveys, student artifacts, written and verbal feedback on a researcher-developed assessment tools, written and verbal feedback on a web-based researcher-developed assessment tool, field notes, researcher log entries and final member checking surveys. I also employed the use of a critical friend, a colleague support group, triangulation of data collection and member checking to add trustworthiness to this study. Data analysis was performed using Patton’s (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods as a guide. I coded emergent themes throughout the datum, which I examined numerous times. I also created a master TSM (described in detail in Chapter Three) to summarize and code the participants' comments regarding specific teacher competencies for data analysis. Finally, I reviewed and coded the collected member checking data as a final step in the data analysis for this study.
Limitations of Study
The site of my research was not representative of most counties and/or public school districts in many ways. Among these are the large rural population, the size of the districts included in the study and the short duration of the study. Furthermore, I cannot generalize my findings to a larger or different population with the small sample of twelve participants.
This chapter explored a brief description of a new culture that has formed in part to the appearance of technology. Students’ curriculum and teachers’ roles are changing as more and more technology is placed into K-12 classrooms. Finally, a brief overview of this study’s purpose, significance, and limitations was presented.
Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
This is a study of twelve successful technology-integrating teachers and their views on the essential skills teachers need for successful technology integration in the classroom. In this chapter, I explain why educating teachers to successfully integrate technology into the classroom is an important topic. Next, I will explore the literature around behaviorist and constructivist learning theories. I will then focus on how the current literature defines successful technology integration in the classroom and its connection to the above-mentioned learning theories. Finally, I synthesize several professional development pieces directly related to teachers learning to integrate technology into their classrooms and their application to this study.
Motivation for Successful Integration of Technology
As previously discussed in Chapter One, Margaret Mead (1978) describes our current society as a Prefigurative Culture. In a Prefigurative Culture children can not learn everything they need to know through family or traditional school experiences. The adults in a Prefigurative Culture cannot merely teach children what they, as children, were taught in order to succeed as adults in their new world economy. November and Thornburg (1993) ask, "Could it be that, due to technological advances, a majority of the jobs that today’s Kindergartners will apply for do not exist today?" (Pg. 16) This may be the first time in history that we, the adults, do not really know what types of jobs for which we are preparing our students (Mead, 1978). However, we are assured, according to the SCANS Report, that most of those jobs will include the need to be competent in the use of various technologies. Teachers and schools must be concerned about technology integration in their teaching if they want to educate students for economically productive lives in the 21st century (SCANS, 1994).
In support of this transition, our governing bodies are implementing standards for our students that they believe will facilitate this transition to an information and technology-based world economy (Report to the President, 1997). Due to an outgrowth of the Goals 2000 report and SCANS report, there is currently a national focus on student technology competencies (NETS, 1997, SCANS, 1994). The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has launched a project called National Educational Technology Standards (NETS). This project focuses on developing technology competency standards for K-12 students in America (NETS, 1997). Furthermore, the International Technology Education Association’s (ITEA) Technology for All Americans Project plans to develop extensive promotion and dissemination of activities on technology standards. The purpose of the ITEA project is to make technology education professionals, as well as educators in general, aware of the standards for technology education and how they can assist in improving technological literacy for all children (ITEA, 1998). In a simultaneous response to the implementation of technology standards for students, state departments of education are beginning to look at computer competencies for practicing teachers as well. Several states are currently, or are in the process of, requiring that all teachers acquiring a teaching credential show knowledge of computer foundations and, how to apply technology in their teaching areas (Pea and Sheingold, 1987; Wiebe and Taylor, 1997). For example, the North Carolina State Board of Education adopted competencies for its' educators in March of 1996 (Birmingham and Kemp, 1997).
Furthermore, colleges of education are already expected to cover the ISTE standards in their preservice teacher education programs (ISTE, 1998). ISTE is the professional education organization responsible for recommending technology guidelines for accreditation to NCATE. NCATE is the official body for accrediting teacher preparation programs. The ISTE Foundation Standards reflect professional studies in education that provide fundamental concepts and skills for applying information technology in educational settings.
Technology competencies for students and teachers are likewise included throughout New Mexico’s state standards and benchmarks for students, the state’s Road Map to School Improvement and professional development expectations for educators in the Strategic Plan for New Mexico Public Schools (New Mexico, 1998; NMCTE, 1995; Strategic Plan, 1997).
Due to my research topic, in July 1998, I was invited to attend a meeting of a state-appointed committee that was organized to recommend technology standards to the New Mexico State Department of Education. This committees recommendations were sent to the school board in the spring of 1999 and will eventually be utilized to offer a teacher licensure technology endorsement in the state of New Mexico. These experiences reinforce the current national, state and colleges of education concerns that teachers effectively integrate technology into their curriculum.
The fact that governing bodies are requiring teachers to integrate technology into the classroom is not the only reason to explore this topic. Our students need preparation for the 21st century that looks different from the education we, the adults, experienced in our schooling. A Report to the President (1997), from the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, best describe this new preparation when it says that our students, "in the next century will require not just a large set of facts or a larger repertoire of specific skills, but the capacity to readily acquire new knowledge, to solve new problems, and to employ creativity and critical thinking in the design of new approaches to existing problems" (pg. 26). Next, in an effort to provide a better understanding of how teachers can best prepare students for this vision of the 21st century, I have included a discussion of behaviorist and constructivist learning theories and their relation to technology integration in classrooms.
Behaviorism
The development of curriculum incorporating the use of technology in classrooms can be addressed through examining both behaviorist and constructivist theories of learning (Tuckman, 1994, Cooper, 1993). Many early and current technology integration approaches have taken a behaviorist route (Norton and Wiburg, 1998, Hall 1996, Laoms 1984). In a behaviorist approach, the teacher transmits knowledge to students. It is assumed that a developmentally appropriate curriculum will result in a desired learning outcome for students. Students learn as a result of teacher planned and supervised behavior modification (Richardson, 1996).
Analysis of the behaviorist applications of Bloom, Thorndike, Skinner, and Tyler provides some coverage of the wide spectrum of behaviorist theories. Bloom (1981) for example, advocated the learning for mastery model. In this model, the student engages in the iterative process of test, teach, re-test, and re-teach. This carefully controlled curriculum guides the student step-by-step through the teacher’s pre-prescribed curriculum (Norton and Wiburg, 1998). Consistent with this approach, and yet providing a more disciplined slant, psychologist Edward Thorndike influenced education through his industrialized account of education as a science through which intense practice of carefully refined and sequenced subject matter coupled by appropriate reinforcement results in student learning (Levin, 1991). Thorndike’s writings have suggested that a curriculum should be designed in a predetermined sequence of behavioral objectives. Thorndike introduced the theory of stimulus and response into educational discourse, explaining that students will learn in response to a prescribed stimulus. This theory contributed to the current educational practice of evaluating students and developing curriculum with the assistance of standardized tests (Theobald, 1995; Norton and Wiburg, 1998; Bracy, 1998; Gardner, 1991).
Also taking the education-as-science approach, B. F. Skinner described a need to provide adequate and immediate reinforcement to individual students as an essential component of learning (Norton and Wiburg, 1998). Skinner is often credited with the development of Programmed Instruction, a method of setting forth predetermined learning outcomes and the separate steps which guide a learner to acquiring those intended outcomes (Kemner-Richardson, Lamos & West, 1985).
Lastly, Ralph Tyler's (1975) widely-cited eight-year study states that problems with classroom instruction are due to teachers not specifying objectives before instruction begins. He states that teachers need to be clear about what they are going to teach and that students need to be told what they are going to learn before the lesson begins. In this atmosphere, students will understand what they are expected to learn.
Currently there is growing concern regarding the exclusive use of these traditional, behaviorist theories of learning (Norton and Wiburg, 1998).
Constructivism
The constructivist approach, unlike the behaviorist approach, finds the teacher in the role of a facilitator. In a constructivist classroom, students construct their own meaning by social participation in a variety of experiences designed to enhance, inform and increase their current understandings. A teacher utilizing this learning theories does not believe that she gives students knowledge, students are expected build knowledge for themselves through experiences designed by the teacher (Richardson, 1996, Beeth, 1996). The teacher builds into her curriculum an assumption that the students bring a unique biography and history to every learning experience (Steribel, 1989).
Educational philosopher John Dewey (1916) describes learning as occurring through doing and through constructing one's own knowledge. Students are encouraged to learn concepts that they can use in a variety of problem-solving situations. Whitehead (1929) furthers this with his statement; "Education is the acquisition of the art of the utilization of knowledge." (Pg. 4.) Brown, Collins and Deguid (1989) explain that situated cognition suggests activity and perception are enacted upon by the learner prior to conceptualization and this is what needs to be considered when developing curriculum.
Students must be actively involved to learn. Dewey further described effective instruction as instruction that provides genuine [real life] situational experiences in which one solves problems, creates one's own meaning, and develops problem solving strategies (Dewey, 1916). When curriculum focuses on learners acquiring a specific skill out of context, the learner is less likely to have the ability to use these skills in different situations. Therefore, skills must be attained in context to allow the learner to create their own meaning around the use of the skill or ability. Gardner (1991) describes an educational setting in which genuine meanings become a reality. Students are able to act on and use their understandings as part of the process of accomplishing a task. In this setting, students engage in "…rich projects through which children could come to know their works, achieve a fuller understanding of themselves and begin to secure a feeling for the skills and concepts that lay at the heart of formal disciplines (pg. 193)." Norton (1985) explains that knowledge is not merely a collection of facts; attention should be placed on the processes involved in learning and not just on the products produced. Evaluation of student learning focuses on the process in which the students participate in and not strictly on the products they produce (Doll, 1993). Theoretical ideas are the important content in designing a constructivist curriculum.
Social constructivism adheres to the same basic principals of constructivist thought, adding an essential social aspect to learning. Howard Gardner (1991) supports social constructivist learning theory and collaboration in his description of internalization of knowing. Students must work with other students in collaborative situations to facilitate the creation of new knowledge. He states that higher functioning, or internalization of knowing, is evident when a person has the opportunity to externalize their experiences (Gardner, 1991). This offers new tools for thinking about additional mental structures to both listener and sharer. Vygotsky's theory of learning affirms that social interaction is an essential component of learning (Doll, 1993). John-Steiner and Souberman (1978) explain Vygotsky stating that, "in the internalization of the process of knowing …an individual has the capacity to externalize and share with other members of her social group her understanding of their shared experience." (Pg. 132) Vygotsky (1978) coined the term zone of proximal development which he defined as, "the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (pg.86)." Dewey (1916) echoes the importance of collaboration and communication to enhance experiential meanings, which is how knowledge is acquired.
In A Post-Modern Perspective on Curriculum, William E. Doll (1993) describes a difference in values between Ralph Tyler and John Dewey. He writes that Tyler views educational objectives as an intended, directed, and controlled outcome that can be measured. Dewey views these objectives as arising from the process of experimental activity where learning is a by-product of that process. (Doll, 1993).
Combining Theories
Doll (1993) strongly supports a constructivist approach as well as the need to include some behaviorist methodologies in curriculum development. He states that there are many different ways of knowing that students must acquire. Based on the expected learning outcome, different methodologies need to be utilized (Doll, 1993). Gardner (1991) highlights the importance of employing the use of a combination of the two learning theories in curriculum development as well. He states that educators should not be entirely convinced that students can fully educate themselves. There needs to be ongoing assessment and maintenance of high standards in creation of this alluring constructivist educational vision. Furthermore, that teachers facilitate opportunities for students with an end goal in mind and not just allow students to aimlessly wander in search of knowledge (Gardner, 1991). Norton and Wiburg (1998) identify a need to teach skills [behaviorist] within a curriculum that focuses on process [constructivist]. Finally, Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) explain that
"…knowledge instruction [behaviorist] and knowledge construction [constructivist] are not, as often argued, incompatible. They can be viewed as different complimentary positions on a continuum of possible learning strategies. Instruction – lecture, drill and practice – is an appropriate way to introduce skills or concepts, build awareness, or reinforce some set of actions. …When depth of understanding are the most desirable outcomes, however, knowledge construction is a better strategy to help learners. …The best prepared teachers are ones who can put a wide range of strategies to work for the benefit of their students (pg. 14)."
Technology in Schools
Teachers designing classroom technology-integrating curriculums must be aware of which learning theories they utilize as they plan activities for children. Teachers have computers placed into their classrooms and are expected to use them with little or no background in how to do this effectively for children. They need to be aware of how their curriculum affects what students learn from their experiences with computers. Hall, (1996) states, "I find the introduction of computer-based technologies into elementary schools problematic if there is not growing local awareness and discussion of the effects these computer-based technologies can have on the learning and teaching environment (Pg. 64)." These machines, tools, tangible objects carry with them a form of thinking that generates a particular lens through which actions are played out (Apple, 1992; Norman, 1993). One of the earliest forms of technology integration into the classroom is computer-assisted instruction (CAI). CAI software programs of a behaviorist nature are designed around a series of identified skills (Norton and Wiburg, 1998). Majorities of CAI programs are built utilizing a behaviorist lens, not to imply that all CAI programs are behaviorist in nature. However, the programs that are behaviorist in nature present individual students with short blocks of instructional material interspersed with questions designed to test comprehension of the material. CAI programs have historically been implemented for individual instruction in isolated basic skills within a single content area. They have not proven to be highly useful in a constructivist curriculum.
Many CAI software programs have been organized in network-based systems known as Integrated Learning Systems (ILS). The introduction of ILS's has been an attempt to use computers and their enormous capabilities to fix the educational system (Hall, 1996). These systems usually incorporate network hardware, software, tutorial content, and student record management programs, all purchased through one vendor. As many as 10,000 such systems have been installed in United States' schools (Report to the President, 1997). ILS's are electronic versions of Programmed Instruction encouraged by behaviorist B. F. Skinner (Kemner-Richardson, Lamos, & West, 1985). ILS's are outstanding environments for skill based learning and have slight benefits. Students may raise their test scores minimally, but not to the degree that the vendors claim (Hall, 1996). Furthermore, experience shows that students tire of these electronic drills of isolated skills and there's little evidence to show they can utilize skills 'mastered' in this context in a real-world application (Norton and Wiburg, 1998). Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) report that most teachers in classrooms today were educated through predominately behaviorist methodologies and tend to teach the way they were taught. When technology is introduced into classrooms, many teachers naturally employ the same behaviorist methodologies, including lecture, recitation and seatwork, that they experienced as students. However, these activities are now completed on word processors, databases, and spreadsheets as well as through CAI or ILS programs. For example, spelling may continue to be taught out of context where students type up spelling words for a test instead of writing them on a piece of paper. The methodology did not changed as the computer was introduced into the classroom.
Effective Integration
The literature surrounding effective technology integration in the classroom overwhelmingly supports the use of a predominately constructivist theory in curriculum development (Willis, Stephens, and Matthew, 1996; Hall, 1996; Griest, 1993; Griest, 1996; Means, Olson and Singh, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997; Mergendoller, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; McKenzie, 1997). Effective technology integration is defined, for the purpose of this study, as a curriculum that encourages students to participate in social activities where they develop an ability to:
Teachers, who have had the opportunity and have chosen to immerse themselves and their students in successfully utilizing technology-rich environments plan curriculum where students' knowledge are more often constructed rather than presented by their teachers (Norton and Wiburg, 1998). This is not to imply that many teachers, who do not use technology regularly with their students, do not plan curriculum this way. However, it is evident in effective technology-rich environments that a constructivist approach is most often used (McDonald and Ingvarson, 1995; Report to the President, 1997). Often times, technology demands that teachers change their pedagogy to a different delivery system which challenges students to use higher cognitive strategies (Knupfer, 1993). Learning to teach using a constructivist approach often requires a paradigm shift for many teachers (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997). A paradigm shift is a fundamental change in the foundation of a belief system. Some educators have made a paradigm shift based on their beliefs about learning theory. A new [i.e. constructivist] paradigm does not replace the old one. It transforms into a more precise paradigm with which to develop curriculum (Kuhn, 1962). Pea and Sheingold (1987) say that due to significantly increased access to vast amounts of information in the computer age, teachers’ roles may shift to that of a facilitator. A facilitator aids students in their own development of information-organization skills, as opposed to the role of providers of content-specific information. As students gain access to vast amounts of information, it becomes important that they learn how to search, query, make sense of, and evaluate information as opposed to learning or memorizing facts (Pea and Sheingold, 1987). Moursund (1998) describes the change in culture, for a teacher effectively using technology in the classroom, as a move from the ‘sage on the stage’ to a ‘guide on the side’. In conclusion, effective technology use in education has seen a shift in the design of learning environments to those that reflect predominately constructivist models of learning (Norton and Wiburg, 1998).
Professional Development
Theories concerning the professional development stages teachers' experience while learning to integrate technology into their classrooms are just beginning to surface in the literature. Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) identify and describe five stages of teacher evolution in learning to integrate technology into the classroom as a result of their ten-year study. Knupfer (1993) describes four levels of computer assimilation. Pallas (1996) identifies and describes three stages of teaching and how technology plays into these stages. Finally, Evans-Andris (1996) describes three general orientations that teachers employ in their use of technology with students. In this study, I used Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's (1997) descriptions of teacher development stages throughout technology integration as a dominant tool for analysis. This next section will describe Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's (1997) five stages: entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and invention, while blending in the theories of Knupfer (1993), Pallas (1996) and Evans-Andris (1996).
First, Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's (1997) entry stage is most readily identified by concerns about new classroom management issues. Students have a new set of misbehavior opportunities, teachers have to deal with technical difficulties during lessons and the teacher has to contend with new physical classroom structures. A new and, most likely, noisier classroom environment emerges. Teachers in this early stage of development feel unprepared to deal with the new management issues that naturally arise when technology is placed in the classroom. Evans-Andris (1996) includes a description of a teacher in this stage and coins it distancing. The term distancing describes a teacher who limits his/her interactions personally and professionally with the computer. For example, she grades papers while students are working on skill-and-drill software that may not relate to the classroom curriculum. This teacher incorporates technology into the classroom only in ways that will not challenge her existing classroom management. This teacher does not always participate in his/her scheduled lab time and cuts short what time is spent in the lab with students. This teacher does provide opportunities for students to work on computers, but avoids any meaningful contact with the technology. Knupfer (1993) describes teachers in this early stage as needing to recognize that computers in the classroom bring with them a process of change. This process may change the role of the teacher and the students; the amount and quality of student, teacher, administrator and parent interactions; as well as pedagogy utilized in lesson plan development. Knupfer (1993) reports that a teacher's attitude, openness to change and increase of personal technical and pedagogical skills, has incredible impact on her ability to implement effective technology use in her classroom.
Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) call their second stage of professional development, adoption. Teachers in this stage become more competent and proud of their troubleshooting techniques with the technology. They use new classroom management strategies and become comfortable in this new atmosphere. Teachers most commonly use traditional methodologies as they incorporate the use of technology. A computing style coined technical specialization is described by Evans-Andris (1996). This teacher is described as being well versed in technology, but does not appear to truly integrate technology into the curriculum. This teacher teaches about technology by placing technology in the curriculum as a subject, rather than teaching with it, placing it in the curriculum as a tool. Students are not engaged in meaningful use of the computers and do not like the 'subject' computers. Pallas (1996) describes a teacher in this stage as an overwhelmed individual who uses hand-me-down curricula incorporating the same methodologies used when she was a student. The instructor may use technology in a small way, but does not usually challenge students beyond traditional methodologies. Teachers at this stage begin to see a positive outgrowth of using these technologies with their students as they [the students] become more productive in meeting curriculum expectations (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997).
Pallas' (1996) second stage of teacher development is described as improving upon methodologies. The teacher may add and change lessons to enable students to collaborate and/or engage in more problem-solving experiences. The instruction improves, but does not completely meet the needs of the students. Evans-Andris' (1996) second orientation, Embracing, is described as occurring when a teacher increases her opportunity to use computers whenever possible. She describes a teacher who increases her time in the lab whenever possible, has the students engage in activities that are integral to their larger classroom curriculum, uses computers for personal/professional work often and models the use of computers for her students. This teacher provides meaningful experiences on computers for her students and they [the students] are very motivated by the curriculum. In Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's (1997) third stage of development, adaptation, a teacher finally begins to develop instructional strategies that increase the amount of material they can cover in a day. Teachers move from concerns about teaching in a computerized classroom to a fear of having to teach in a classroom without technology. In this stage, the use of technology truly begins to change the nature of instruction in the classroom. According to Knupfer (1993) teachers experience a stage called planned implementation where they begin to develop a curriculum to effectively educate students and determine how technology can support this plan, as opposed to allowing the computers to determine the curriculum. Teachers become aware of the learning theories they apply as they plan activities for students. Knupfer (1993) states that teachers must do this if they want to effectively integrate technology into their curriculum and prepare their students for the 21st century.
Hall (1996) reports that, "Experienced, middle-aged, women elementary teachers can become very adept at integrating computers into the curriculum (pg. 177)." Additionally, the experienced teachers in Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's (1997) study were able to anticipate and develop strategies for changes in classroom management more quickly than less experienced teachers. This helps explain why the literature reports that teachers need three to six years of staff development to fully implement technology-enhanced teaching and learning into their curriculum (Meltzer and Sherman, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; Hall, 1996). Teachers with more experience may advance through these beginning stages of development more rapidly than novice teachers.
A fourth stage of development, dubbed appropriation by Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997), is a stage highlighted by a teachers change in her personal attitude toward technology as she begins to use technology as an effortless tool to complete real work. Teachers begin to replace old habits with new ones. They cannot imagine completing personal and professional tasks without a computer. In relation, Knupfer's (1993) understanding of the broad possible applications stage of computer assimilation is best described as providing a curriculum where teachers are facilitators and students are involved in planning the curriculum. Here the concepts real work and involved students illustrate the use of a constructivist approach.
In Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's (1997) final stage, invention, the teacher experiments with new instructional patterns and ways of reaching students and colleagues. A constructivist, interdisciplinary, collaborative, project-based, and individually-paced instructional atmosphere emerges. Teachers move away from competitive activities to collaborative ones. Students begin to help other students and teachers. The teacher is a facilitator in the classroom who increasingly reflects on her teaching and how it effects her students (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997). Pallas (1996) describes the third stage of development as the period where technology integration becomes the most effective. At this stage of development, the teacher no longer asks: "How can I survive?" as in the first level; or "How can I improve what I am doing?" as in the second level, but, finally asks, "What am I trying to accomplish?" In this level, a teacher develops curriculum that challenges students to analyze and manipulate information as opposed to remembering individual facts. Evans-Andris (1996) describes two types of final stage teachers; integration/embracing teacher and the technical specialization teacher. The technical specialization teacher was described above as proficient in using technology, but not providing meaningful activities for students. The integration/embracing teacher teaches with technology, placing it in the curriculum as a tool. This teacher integrates the use of technology within the curriculum and does not simply add it to the curriculum. Students engage in long, collaborative, problem-solving, project-based activities (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997). Technology is used as a tool and not taught as if it were a separate subject or content area in effective implementation. Teachers teach with technology and not about technology (Report to the President, 1997). The methodologies employed by these, final stage, successful technology integrators, most closely align themselves within the constructivist theory or learning.
Knupfer's (1993) final stage, acceptance, is essential to teacher success. In this stage, the entire structure of the educational institution shares a vision of the changes that technologies in the classroom embody and how it improves education for all students. This must include administrators, parents, students and colleagues.
The stages, orientations and styles described above all have common characteristics. The research reviewed indicates that teachers at the beginning and ending stages of technology integration have common characteristics. For example, upon introduction, teachers fit technology into their existing classroom methodologies. These initial stages are defined as:
Likewise, these authors describe a teacher's final, successful stage of development in integrating technology identically. Every account describes teachers using the technology as a tool within a curriculum applying constructivist methodologies. These final stages are identified as:
Professional Concerns
A majority of the literature surrounding the topic of teachers learning to integrate technology into their classrooms does not form a conversation around teachers' stages of development. A majority of articles and books focus on the needs and barriers that teachers encounter as these machines are placed into their classrooms. Administrators and parents are frequently asking why the technology is sitting there, not being used. In response to these concerns, authors and researchers investigate the barriers teachers face in utilizing this new tool. The literature most commonly and repeatedly considers professional concerns surrounding the issues of adequate access, time, collaboration, administrative support, and a collective vision.
One of the most predominant concerns identified in the literature was teachers’ access to technology. Teachers find they need adequate access to hardware and software. The machines must be easily accessible and in good working condition. Adequate access is essential if teachers are expected to individually learn to use the technology and to have the opportunity to examine its uses with students (Hoffman, 1997; Hope, 1996, Kwajeswki, 1997; Murphy and Thuente, 1995; Means, 1995; Meltzer and Sherman, 1997). Additionally, the teachers need technical support to keep machines running and to answer technical questions as they arise. As reported in Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer’s (1997) study, teachers that do not have adequate access to technology have a very difficult time progressing through the final two levels of their five identified stages of professional development (described above).
Another identified need is time. Teachers report that they need personal time to learn how to use technologies (Adelman, Walking Eagle, & Hargraves, 1997; Meltzer and Sherman, 1997). Research indicates repeatedly that five to six years of staff development is required for teachers to learn to effectively integrate technology into their classrooms (Meltzer and Sherman, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; Hall, 1996). Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) report that during the first few years that teachers are in technology-rich classrooms, they do not revolutionize their classroom instruction. In conjunction with a need for time to develop professionally, there was a reported need for process time between professional development experiences. Teachers need time to discuss, collaborate with their colleagues and try different technology integration techniques. They also need the opportunity to review their effectiveness in the classroom. This essential component takes time (Meltzer & Sherman, 1997).
Another need, identified several times in the literature, is a supportive environment: one which incorporated the time to collaborate with other teachers to build a community of learners within the context of their work (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer, 1997; Meltzer and Sherman, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; Hope, 1996;). Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's (1997) final stages of successful technology integration clearly show how essential this support is for teachers to progress professionally.
Administrative support has been reported as essential to provide teachers with a feeling of freedom to take risks. Administrative support is equally essential to ensure teachers are provided with adequate resources (Meltzer and Sherman, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer, 1997). Administrative support, such as giving teachers a voice in the decision making process to ensure adequate training opportunities, fosters a sense of empowerment, and development of a shared vision (Hoffman, 1997; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer, 1997; Griest, 1996; Kwajeswki, 1997; Holzberg, 1997).
The need for a common vision, which surfaces numerous times in the literature, almost always relates to the need for an understanding of how to teach with technology. As stated above, the literature overwhelmingly defines effective implementation of technology as using a constructivist approach. Many members of the educational community share this vision, which encourages meaningful progress on the road to effective technology integration (Willis, Stephens, and Matthew, 1996; Hall, 1996; Griest, 1993; Griest, 1996; Means, Olson & Singh, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997; Mergendoller, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; McKenzie, 1997; Meltzer and Sherman, 1997).
Most of the literature does not break down specific abilities/skills that teachers need. If abilities are mentioned, readers are cautioned that skills alone will not enable a teacher to integrate technology into the curriculum (Mergendoller, 1997; Hope, 1996; Hoffman, 1997). On the other hand, the literature does identify that teachers need to possess certain skills to ensure a necessary comfort level with the technology itself. If teachers do not have this level of comfort with technology, they will not progress in their ability to effectively integrate it into the curriculum (Meltzer and Sherman, 1997; Kwajeswki, 1997; McKenzie, 1991; McKenzie, 1997; Hope, 1996; Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997). This study of 12 successful technology-integrating teachers helped me to identify the specific needs and technological and pedagogical skills essential for a classroom teacher to become a successful technology-integrating teacher.
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
A Qualitative Approach
I have chosen a qualitative approach for this research because the methodology fits my purpose to derive meaning as a collaborative endeavor between researcher and participants (Lather, 1991). The nature of qualitative research design has allowed me, through a small sample of 12 teachers, to gain a greater wealth of detailed information about my topic. My purpose in this applied research study was to gain specific insight into the skills teachers need to integrate technology into their classrooms to improve my effectiveness as an educator of teachers (Patton, 1990). A qualitative approach, which constructs itself throughout the process, most closely matches my personal views of constructive, effective knowledge acquisition as described in chapter two. Through a qualitative design, I ask the questions:
Some insight into possible answers to this question will help answer the second question:
Sampling
The methodology I used to select my participants was purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990). I endeavored to find a small, purposeful sample of information-rich cases. Patton (1990) states that, "Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research." Paraphrasing Patton's (1990) words:
If the purpose of this evaluation was to find out [what skills teachers need to be successful technology integrators in their classrooms], I may learn a great deal more by focusing in depth on understanding of [the skills possessed by] a small number of carefully selected [successful integrators] than by gathering standardized information form a large, statistically representative sample [of all teachers in the district or state] (pg. 169).
My goal as a researcher was to find teachers who were successful technology integrators. The term successful technology integrators, for the purposes of this study, is defined as a teacher who has progressed into the final phase of instructional evolution as described by Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997). The final stage, invention, finds a teacher experimenting with new instructional patterns and ways of reaching students and colleagues. A constructivist, interdisciplinary, collaborative, project-based, and individually paced instructional atmosphere emerges. Teachers move away from competitive activities to collaborative ones. Students begin to help other students and teachers. Teachers move into the role of facilitator in the classroom and increasingly reflect on their teaching and how it effects their students. Students engage in long collaborative problem-solving, project-based activities. Technology is used as a tool and not taught as if it were a separate subject or content area. The methodologies employed by these, final stage successful technology integrators most closely align themselves within the constructivist learning theory described in greater detail in Chapter Two.
My goal was to find a few information-rich participants in a variety of teaching positions utilizing Patton’s (1990) methodology of maximum variation sampling. Patton (1980) states that maximum variation sampling is a "... strategy for purposeful sampling that aims at capturing and describing the central themes or principal outcomes that cut across a great deal of participant or program variation (Pg. 172)." It is beyond the scope of this research to select participants and/or project sites to allow for generalization across the state. However, the sites included in this research are similar to many of the geographical variations found within the state (Patton, 1990). It is never the goal of qualitative research to generalize. Instead, it is my goal to find common patterns from a variety of participants, representative of the state. I want to capture their core experiences and shared feelings of the necessary skills needed for technology integration to best inform the variety of students I encounter when teaching within the state (Patton, 1990).
In order to select my participants, I asked district technology coordinators, other teachers, and superintendents to recommend teachers that they defined as successful technology integrators. I then confirmed this with the criteria from Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) as I spoke with them on the telephone, observed them in their classrooms and examined student artifacts. Specific examples pertaining to each participant's fulfillment of the criteria of successful technology integrator are given in the participant descriptions in Chapter Four.
Data Collection
Triangulation was a key methodology employed in this study to add trustworthiness. Data was gathered through transcribed interviews, written feedback on a researcher developed tool, original TSM comments (Appendix A), transcribed observation tapes, pilot study results (Appendix C), an initial survey (Appendix D), member checking surveys (Appendix E), written feedback on researcher developed Deleted TSM list (Appendix F), written feedback on researcher developed TSM Modified (Appendix G), letters written by participants, a researcher log, student and teacher artifacts and written feedback on a researcher developed web-based tool and a Final TSM (Appendix B).
I conducted an interview with each participant at his or her own school. I observed each participant with their students engaged in lessons that integrated technology into their curriculum. All participants completed a small survey (Appendix D) giving me basic demographic information and answering some questions that emerged during the pilot study. See Appendix H for data collection time line.
My initial contact was by telephone to set up a time for an interview and observation. All of my participants wished to combine the interview and observation into the same meeting. All interviews were conducted at the participants' schools. Each interview lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. The participants were able to talk during a break or while the students were working. This initial interview was very open ended and unstructured (Lincoln & Guba, 1989). Kvale (1996) writes that the very nature of qualitative interviews is their openness and, further, states that interviewing is closer to an art than a craft as it relates to scientific standardized methods. Most of the interviews centered around how the teachers integrate technology into their classrooms and how they feel about technology integration in general. I taped the interviews, with their knowledge and consent and transcribed them for analysis.
I observed all of the participants, except one, with their students for 30-80 minutes. I was unable to observe Frank Ingram with his students. He is a speech teacher and was unable to meet with me during a time that he had students. He did show me the types of activities he utilizes with his students in order to integrate technology. All of the other observations, except one, demonstrated the teacher using technology with his or her students. Olivia Nance was unable to show me her students working with technology because their lab time was canceled on the day of my visit. Although they were not taking part in an activity that integrated technology at that time, she provided numerous examples of activities that had been undertaken with the students that did integrate technology. I wrote observation notes following all of the observations and used them during data analysis.
On our first meeting, each participant signed the University Consent Form (Appendix I) and completed a small survey (Appendix D) which was developed in consultation with my advisor and incorporated the results of my pilot study (Appendix C). The survey collected information on: basic demographics; participant access to technology; opinions concerning teacher attitude, pedagogy and skills in relationship to a teacher’s ability to integrate technology; ways in which they have learned their technology integration skills; and personal information to allow me to contact them in the future. I took copies of the signed consent form and completed survey with me as I left the first interview.
At the initial interview/observation, I left each of the participants with a paper copy of the original TSM (Appendix A), described below, which is a researcher-developed tool. The original eleven-page TSM had eight separate technical threads for the teacher with pedagogical skills incorporated throughout and eight separate technical threads for the student. Additionally, I left them with an instruction sheet and a self-addressed stamped envelope for the return of the TSM with comments. The sheet stated:
I truly appreciate your time in helping me with this. Your knowledge of what basic skills teachers need to be able to integrate technology, is very valuable to me. To help you in looking through these skills – if you were going to teach a course to teachers (something you could easily do), what skills would you make sure to cover so the teachers would have the tools they needed after your class to integrate technology into their classrooms? Any additional comments would be greatly appreciated.
This paragraph was followed by my telephone numbers and email address for contact if questions arose. There was also a paragraph describing the references used in the development of the TSM. I verbally explained that they could make marks however they wished to indicate the importance of the skills, and that comments were appreciated. Some of the participants I contacted a second time via email or by telephone to remind them to return the TSM. I received copies of the TSM with written comments via the self-addressed stamped envelope that I provided from every participant, except for one.
Additional data collection methods included audio field notes of my interactions and thoughts as I proceeded through the study. I verbalized comments on tape, before and after interviews, throughout data collection. I transcribed these thoughts to use during data analysis. Additionally, I kept a researcher log of thoughts and ideas that arose during data analysis. I referred to the log often, generally, when I was not sure where to go next in the data analysis. I used these notes to remind me of ideas and themes I wanted to consider in future analyses of my data. It was also helpful to write thoughts as I was analyzing the data to avoid getting side tracked from what I was currently examining.
Finally, I conducted a second member checking data collection from the participants via the U.S. Postal System. I asked them to respond to a second survey (Appendix E) related to what was being discovered in the data analysis, review the web-based TSM that was now on-line, and send me student artifacts. I sent them the section of my data analysis that described how I made modifications to the TSM based on their initial feedback (Appendix J). I then asked them for feedback on the modified TSM (Appendix G) as well as the items that had been deleted from the original TSM (Appendix F). I received nine of the twelve member checking requests back.
Development of a Researcher Tool - The Technology Skills Model
I developed the original TSM, in the summer of 1997, as faculty hire for Intel® Corporation (Appendix A). Intel’s local K-12 Education Department was concerned that many computers, which they had donated to schools, were not being used in classrooms. One theory, that teachers did not have the skills necessary to use these computers in the classroom, was the impetus for this dissertation project. My project manager for Intelâ asked me to develop a model which incorporated the skills teachers need to be prepared to effectively integrate technology into their classrooms.
I began to investigate and collect publications regarding teacher competencies in the area of technology integration in the classroom from national and state organizations. The first reference I sought was ISTE’s Standards for Basic Endorsement in Educational Computing and Technology Literacy Sections 1.0 - 3.1 (ISTE, 1997). Next, I obtained a copy of North Carolina's technology competencies for educators at the 1997 National Education Computing Conference. These standards had been recommended by the North Carolina School Technology Users Task Force in 1995 and were approved by the North Carolina State Board of Education in March of 1996 (Birmingham and Kemp, 1997). The TSM’s format followed the same structure provided in the ISTE standards, furnishing seven categories. The categories are 1.0 Computer Operation Skills; 2.0 Instructional Strategies/ Professional Knowledge and Practice; 3.0 Word Processing/Introductory Desktop Publishing; 4.0 Spreadsheets/Graphing; 5.0 Multimedia Integration; 6.0 Telecommunications; 7.0 Networking; Media Communications (Including Image and Audio Processing).
I proceeded to merge North Carolina's State Adopted Competencies (Birmingham and Kemp, 1997) into the ISTE Standards for Basic Endorsement in Educational Computing and Technology Literacy Sections 1.0 - 3.1 (ISTE, 1997), making sure that all skills from both documents were included in the TSM. I then made sure that local published standards from the New Mexico Standards and Benchmarks for Technology (New Mexico, 1998) and the New MexicoStrategic Goals; Section 4 - Professional Development (Strategic Plan, 1997) skills were identified and listed in the TSM. I further incorporated the U.S. Department of Labor’s SCANS (1994) report competencies, C4-C8, C10 and C 15, which relate to the use of technology. Finally, I added the Essential Competencies for Technology developed by the New Mexico Council on Technology in Education which were published in the Road Map to School Improvement: Part 2 into each section of the TSM. These competencies were adopted by the New Mexico State Board of Education June 16, 1995. (NMCTE, 1995). While many of the standards within these documents overlapped, there were no two documents that were identical. This indicates that, throughout these documents, there was no agreed upon set of standards.
Throughout the development of the TSM, I elicited feedback from numerous local teachers and administrators on their perceptions of the skills and organization of the TSM. Throughout the development of the project, I kept trying to determine what would be the most effective method of making this information useful, concluding that an interactive database on the Internet might be the best method to use. A database that could summarize the information for a trainer or administrator about his/her teachers could be very useful in knowing where needs were on a large scale and help them to provide necessary staff development. Additionally, I thought that this information could be helpful to a teacher for self-assessment. I created some basic HTML pages that imitated the interaction I wanted this web page to facilitate (Appendix K). Intel then hired a programmer to create, following my model, this web site for my project using the database management program Cold Fusion® (Allaire, 1994). Intel provided the project with a server and the software to house the web site as well. The web site did not go online with the original server due to technical and district personnel difficulties. The TSM was ultimately posted on the Internet in June 1998 (Appendix B) on a different server. I had originally intended to have my participants review the TSM on the Internet. Due to the difficulties I encountered and time constraints I was working under, I reorganized my research to collect comments about the TSM on paper.
Data Analysis Methods and Data Analysis
Patton (1990) suggests making sure that all of your data is in place before you begin the bulk of your data analysis. It is understood, of course, that data analysis has already begun during interviews, in field notes, and in the researcher's log. I made sure that my transcriptions, observation notes, surveys, TSM notes from participants, field notes and research log were as complete as possible. I created a data code sheet to help in describing where information was found in the data (Appendix K).
Using Patton (1990) as a guide, I created a master original TSM to record the comments from all of the participants on one list in order to facilitate a cross-case analysis. This method gave me an overview of the responses from the group as a whole and allowed numerous questions to surface. These themes were recorded in the researcher's log.
Following the cross-case analysis, I made several copies of the transcribed interviews and labeled them to form a data index which aided me in the process of content analysis (Patton, 1990). I then began to read through all of the transcribed interviews. I looked for one theme or thread at a time. I used one color of marker at a time to color code where the participants addressed a topic. I wrote comments in the margins as well to help me organize and easily identify all of the information. As I did this, I thought of many other themes that I wanted to check for in the data. These were recorded in the researcher log and subsequently used as a focus for reading through transcriptions and color coding occurrences. Those themes that were pervasive in the interviews were then color coded and marked in the remainder of the data, the master TSM, observation notes, and field notes.
The member checking data were collected after the original set of data was used to modify the TSM and describe participants’ views regarding teacher skills. In order to obtain member checking data, I sent each of the participants a second survey (Appendix E), a list of the deleted skills from the TSM (Appendix F), a copy of the modified TSM (Appendix G) and an explanation of why and how changes were made to the TSM (Appendix J). All of the comments written on the second survey, TSM modified, TSM deleted skills, and description of TSM modification were recorded on a master document in order to facilitate a cross-case analysis (Patton, 1990).
A large majority of the data analysis was synthesized as a result of conversations with my co-advisors. These discoveries were not always clear as I analyzed the data in isolation using the above methodologies. They became clear in concept through conversation and were verified when I returned to the written data.
The Role of the Researcher
I align myself as a naturalistic, interpretive, constructivist, and/or qualitative researcher (Lincoln & Guba, 1989). Reality is constructed by personal interpretations and meaning and is determined by personal understanding of the world. This study was conducted to define the essential skills teachers' need to successfully integrate technology into the classroom to be utilized in planning curriculum for pre-service and practicing teachers. Current publications, related to teachers' essential technology competencies/skills, are incredibly long and cumbersome. These documents were developed using a large sample of participants using a quantitative approach. The question remained, would the results be the same if these skills were defined using a qualitative methodology and information rich participants?
This research will help me attain my goal to ensure that pre-service and practicing teachers are engaged in a purposeful curriculum. Furthermore, I strive to ensure that teachers know how to effectively integrate technology so their students are receiving the education they need to prepare them to lead productive adult lives. Employability is not the only measure of success. However, achieving a confidence level that presents opportunities to do whatever one wishes in life is a measure of success. An inability to problem-solve, collaborate and use technology could inhibit students from attaining desired goals. The research discussed in Chapter One and Chapter Two corroborate this assumption. Therefore, my research attempts to strengthen my practice in what exactly teachers need to know to prepare their students for productive lives.
Supplementary to the belief that knowledge is constructed through personal interaction, there were several added qualitative methodologies I endeavored to utilize while conducting my research. Erikson (1984) writes that a researcher should remain cognizant of the importance of a significant dynamic, the acknowledgment of power relationships. There is a power play present in every scenario. I attempted to be conscious of the dynamics of the power play throughout my project in order to reflect on how it might influence my data. During interviews, I continually tried to relate to my participants as a teacher and colleague as opposed to an instructor, student, or researcher from the university. Because I was working with the district's Director of Technology, I endeavored not be placed in the category of administrator by my participants. This notion of power is furthered, in detail, by Villenas (1996) in her explanation of "othering". I not only focused on the power within the study and its particular relationships, but the power relations outside of the study. Haig-Brown and Archibald (1996) point out that as long as there are inequities within society, an analysis of power is necessary because of the injustice inherent in these inequities.
Additionally, the funding my study received from Intel needed to be considered. There was no pressure, in any way, to proceed with the study in a manner different from that which my committee and I had chosen. The support provided by Intel was strictly due to interest in the study and an optimism that it would further the effective use of computers in K-12 classrooms.
I made sure that the participants knew this study was being investigated to help me and others find out what teachers need to know to be able to integrate technology into their curriculum. Furthermore, that it was not an evaluation of their own learning or skill level. I received their permission to use the pseudonym that I choose for them during my member checking data collection. They were informed that their identity would remain anonymous. I informed the participants that they had already met my definition of successful technology integrators and that they were a valuable resource in answering the question of what skills teachers need to successfully integrate technology.
I not only collected meanings from various sources; I attempted to authenticate those meanings. I employed member checking in my study (Lincoln and Guba, 1989). Anderson and Barrera (1995) further explain member checking as asking the concerned to verify my constructed meanings of what was observed. I checked with participants to verify my meaning making of their data, by clarification, throughout and at the conclusion of each interview. I also sent the participants written portions of my documents to offer responses and review.
Dialogic validity was incorporated, in part, due to interactions with my Dissertation Collaboration Group (Anderson, Herr and Nihlen, 1994). My Dissertation Collaboration Group met from May 1997 through July 1998. We shared ideas and read each others' dissertations-in-progress and offered feedback. These two other members are past teachers and currently hold the role of administrator and teacher trainer. They dealt directly with the issues of integrating technology into the classroom in their particular professional positions. One member at the elementary school level; the other as a state administrator.
I employed the use of a critical friend during the data collection and analysis of my pilot study and early data collection for this study. I used this critical friend as another procedure to aid in auditing my data collection and analysis. She played the role of a meaning making guide showing different directions than I could have gone in collecting and interpreting data and adds trustworthiness to the integrity of this study.
This chapter described my study’s design and implementation. We will now discuss the data collected and attempt to hear the voices of 12 technology integrating teachers.
Chapter 4
Results
The Setting and Participants
This study is based on information gathered through a variety of methods from twelve information-rich, purposefully selected (Patton, 1990) participants who teach in Lovato County.
The Lovato County Community
The 1990 census (U.S. Census, 1998) describes Lovato County as a diverse and somewhat rural southwestern county with a population of 79,781. Lovato is a county where only 58 percent of the population live in an urban area. Of the remaining population, 14 percent live outside an urban area, 25 percent live in a non-farm area and the remaining 3 percent live on a farm. Lovato closely borders Ovid County. Ovid County has a population 522,328; houses the largest city in the state, and is the most populous county in the state.
The 1990 census further indicates that Lovato County’s population is approximately 40 percent White; 30 percent Hispanic; 20 percent American Indian, Eskimo and Aleut; and 10 percent Asians and Blacks (U.S. Census, 1998). Accordingly, the report indicates that only 58 percent of the population speaks English-only in the home. A majority of the remaining 42 percent, that do not speak English-only in the home, speak Native North American languages or Spanish/Spanish Creole.
The census reports that the median household income in 1989 for Lovato County was $28,950. The 1990 census (U.S. Census, 1998) also shows that over 40 percent of the county's employed residents work in manufacturing. A large percentage of those work in semiconductor and electronic-related devices manufacturing. The second largest, over 20 percent, of Lovato's employed residents worked in the retail trade industry (U.S. Census, 1998). The remaining economic employment profile for Lovato County is listed here from the highest to the lowest percentage of employees: services, construction, finance, insurance, real estate, transportation, public utilities, agricultural services, forestry, fishing, and mining. Lovato County has four public school districts.
The Four School Districts of Lovato County
Orillo Public School District is the largest district in the county. This district recently separated from Ovid County to form a new school district. Orillo's total student population is currently 6,521 (The School Report, 1998). Orillo is a residential community known as America's fastest growing small city and is the largest urban school district in this study. The second largest district, Ortiz Public School District, reports a student population of 3,709 students. Ortiz Public School District draws most of its students from the quiet town of Ortiz, population 6,000. The third largest school district participating in this study is the Apodoca Independent School District with a student population of 732. Apodoca serves as a commercial center for the eastern Navajo Nation. It is nestled in the mountains and is near popular fishing spots. Finally, Yucca Public School District, the smallest school district in the county, reports a student population of 508. Yucca is also nestled in the mountains and is a popular area for enjoying the outdoors.
THE PARTICIPANTS
Below, I describe the participants based on information they provided at our initial interview. I obtained this information from verbal responses and a small survey they completed (Appendix D). Some of the descriptions do not include ethnicity as some participants declined to disclose this information. All of the information is presented below as they reported it. Table 1 in Chapter 1 shows a brief overview of all of the participants' basic demographic information. I will also describe how each of the participants in this study exhibit characteristics of successful technology integrators as defined in chapter two and reported in the larger body of literature on teacher development.
Orillo District Participants
Five participants in the study work for the largest district in this study, Orillo County Public Schools. I contacted them after their names were recommended to me via the district's technology coordinator.
Felicia Ortega teaches a combination fourth/fifth grade class and has taught for 18 years. She identifies herself as Hispanic. She has a computer at home and convenient access to a computer at school. She has a master's degree in technology education. She earned her master's degree through the curriculum and instruction department in the College of Education at a local university. Although, she was not part of a specific technology master's program, she took classes in how to integrate technology into the classroom whenever she had the opportunity. She reported that 80 percent of her computer skills were learned in classes; the remaining 20 percent were self-taught. She feels the attitude of the teacher is the most important aspect of learning to integrate technology into the classroom.
When I observed her teaching, Felicia began the lesson by sharing articles about web sites that might interest to her students. She told the students,
"Here are some Internet sites that I want to give you. I have highlighted them, if you want to go to them…at home…There is one that is called the cool factory…they post the cool facts of the day…like: Did you know that the biggest coin in the world weights four tons? {students making comments, talking about the coin}. Those of you who are our interested and maybe like cartoons…[there is a web site where] you can draw cartoons and play games and they even throw in a few art tricks...from New York, a Long Island kid. Anything you ever want to know about Long Island is now on a Web site. It is LongIslandkid.Web. {students talking excitedly about web site}…Here is another one, if you like playing chess,…a site…created by four students… (FO-I1 pg. 4)."
Felicia views technology as an invaluable tool for accessing information and a way of life, in and outside of school. She sees the personal implications for herself and her students. She shares the computer as a tool to find information. She does not focus on technology as a subject that students must learn about to search the Internet. Instead she demonstrates the need to know how to use the Internet as a tool to find information. This shows that Felicia is a final level teacher who embraces technology and teaches with it as a tool and not about it as a subject, as Evans-Andris (1996) describes.
Frank Ingram is a speech pathologist who has taught for 15 years. Frank reports that he is self-taught in most of his technology skills, followed by learning about some aspects in classes and from colleagues. He indicates that a teachers' skills and abilities are the most important aspects of integrating technology. He has had very few (three) computer courses and/or workshops. Frank identifies himself as Anglo. He does have convenient access to a computer at school as well as at home.
Frank explained, in his interview, that he uses technology to motivate his students. He recognizes that his speech students respond to graphics on a computer, in conjunction with working on the pronunciation of words, more than they respond to words and/or pictures printed on cards or sheets of paper. He uses multi-media CD-ROMs that allow the students to choose their own pictures and/or words. (FI-ON) Some of these graphics are animated or have sounds the students can manipulate. He allows his students to be in control of their own learning in a way that is motivating for them. Frank provides opportunities for his students to develop their own individually-paced curriculum, within a school-imposed regimented schedule, that separates his curriculum from his students’ classroom curriculum. He uses technology to develop an individualized curriculum as described by Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1997) as an invention or final stage technology-integrating teacher.
Emmie Ishimoto teaches seventh grade math and social studies and has taught for 21 years. Emmie emphatically stated that having access is the most important item that a teacher needs in learning to integrate technology in the classroom. She earned an Education Specialist degree in technology integration. Emmie is also working on earning her National Teacher Board Certification. She identifies herself as Oriental. She has access to a computer at school and home. However, she does not feel that her school offers enough access for her students.
During my observation, Emmie Ishimoto's students were busily creating a newsletter for their parents about a variety of classroom activities. The class decided on the content of the newsletter as a large group and then divided into small groups of two or three to work on different articles (EI-ON). Emmie's students were engaged in a collaborative, project-based lesson as she facilitated their progress. This illustrates Emmie's characteristics of a final stage, invention, teacher (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997).
Ernie Long teaches in a Tech 2000 Lab in a middle school and has five years of teaching experience. He reports that attitude is the most important attribute a teacher needs in learning to integrate technology. He reports that his computer skills are self-taught. He has taken around 25 classes and/or workshops relating to technology. He was asked in the member checking data collection to clarify why he identified himself as self-taught when he has attended so many classes and workshops. Unfortunately, he did not respond to the member checking data request. He does have access to a computer at school and at home. He returned to his previous profession, outside of education, following our interview during the 1997-1998 school year.
At the time of my interview, Ernie had completed the curriculum that accompanied his Tech 2000 lab. Ernie shared his frustration with the materials. He states,
"I don't think these [curriculum materials] are written well, especially for sixth, seventh and eighth graders. Eighth graders can handle some of these. Sixth graders have no focus or attention span. They can't sit down, read a book, and follow instructions that well. They need someone sitting down with them. And the other problem is that some of the modules in these classrooms are totally irrelevant to what kids are about right now. And I don't think that they should be studying things that will lead them to a career at the ages of 11,12, 13 and 14. So… [the curriculum developers are] saying, things that are industrial in nature [are what the students need to be learning and these industrial items]… may not even exist when they get out of high school (EL-I1)."
Ernie, having finished this pre-determined curriculum, had some time in the classroom to design and implement a curriculum that he felt would best benefit his students. Ernie had his students exploring the tools and software that were available to them. They were working in small groups to develop a project of choice to show to their classmates (EL-ON). Ernie exhibits characteristics of a final-stage, technology-integrating teacher by continually reflecting on his practice and asking, "What am I trying to accomplish?" (Pallas, 1996). Ernie shares in his interview that, if he had the choice, he would use his Tech 2000 lab as a multimedia lab where students had opportunities to study Media Literacy. He states that media is something that the students… "are totally hooked into and … [I would]… refocus this [lab] to get them into doing video, video editing, audio, audio editing, music, and photography." He feels that many educational areas could be pulled into a classroom curriculum with this design.
Tammy W. Earlson teaches eighth grade algebra and pre-algebra and has 20 years of teaching experience. Tammy states that pedagogical knowledge is the most important skill teachers need in learning to integrate technology. She reports that half of her computer skills were learned in programs and the second half learned by practice and self-teaching. She estimates that she has taken around 10 computer classes and/or workshops. She also has convenient access to a computer at home and school. Tammy was in the process of working towards her National Teacher Board Certification at the time of my interview.
Tammy is a great example of Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer's (1997) final invention stage teacher. During my observation, her students were involved in a constructivist, collaborative, project-based lesson where Tammy's role was that of a facilitator. The students were in small groups of four to five. These groups were given a project where they were placed in the role of knights charged with refurbishing their castle. I recognized this as a Regional Educational Technology Assistance (RETA) program project. In this lesson the students were trying to figure out, based on a picture of the castle, how much paint they would need to paint the outside of the castle and how many new air conditioners the castle would need to keep it cool. Each group had part of the information they needed, like measurements and information about the air conditioners, but no single group had all of the information to answer the question. Each of the questions had to be answered using algebraic math formulas that the students had been studying in class as part of their larger curriculum.
The groups were emailing each other the information they had, in a systematic manner, facilitated by Tammy. They were rotating one group at a time to a single laptop computer on the Internet. This laptop was awarded to Tammy as part of a US West/ NEA grant exploring the facilitation of telecommunication collaborations of teachers throughout the state of New Mexico. The students had to work together as a group to solve the math problems. This was their final exam in Tammy's eighth-grade Algebra class (TWE-ON).
Ortiz District Participants
The participants from Ortiz Public School District were recommended to me by the district's technology coordinator. Olivia Nance teaches seventh grade humanities and has taught for five years. She has a Ph.D. and is a licensed lawyer. Olivia reports having convenient access to a computer at school and a computer, of a different platform, at home. She indicates that she has taken many workshops and classes as well as having taught computer classes. She feels that pedagogy is the most important item teachers need to learn to integrate technology. She reports that half of her computer skills are self-taught; the other half acquired in classes.
Olivia shared many examples of her students' assignments that integrate technology. One example was a lesson she adapted from her experience at a Regional Educational Technology Assistance (RETA) workshop. The project consists of students developing a xeriscape landscaping business. They must provide a prospectus of their company's partners, a company logo, a survey, survey results and landscape plans. They complete these activities using a word processing program, a draw or paint program, a spreadsheet program and a database to search for needed information on plants. Olivia showed me examples of her students' company logos and landscape plans. She also shared a CD that she uses with her class which holds more information than the database used in the initial RETA workshop. The students had produced some of their projects in Paint Brushâ, which she referred to as a difficult program. As we were viewing the students' work, she showed appreciation for their abilities as she commented, "look at these guys…, working in Paint Brushâ !"(ON-I1)(IBM, 1994) Olivia exhibits characteristics of an integration /embracing teacher as described by Evans-Andris (1996) as she teaches with technology as a tool and not teaching about technology as a subject. She further demonstrates this when she states, "[technology is] another tool for our students to use. Instead of the students being a tool, they have to make the machine the tool. It's like spending six months learning the encyclopedia, and it's just this one tool. It's not the end goal. I think there is too much focus on technology. If students are using technology, it is good. Many good lessons happen without the technology. We shouldn't just be using technology for technology's sake."(ON-I1)
Tim W. Otero teaches middle school math and science and has twenty-two years of teaching experience. Tim feels adamantly that teachers’ computer skills and abilities are the most important items needed in order to integrate technology. He has a background as a systems programmer as well as access to computers at home and school. He has learned his computer skills through state funded training and self-teaching.
Most of the students, in Tim W. Otero's classroom, were working on a science report during my observation. Tim gave his students a format to follow to complete their lab report. The students were expected to find information for their report on their own through observation, books, the Internet, each other, and the teacher. He did not give them the information at the beginning of the project but provided the needed resources and/or direction on where to find the information, as they needed it to complete the project (TWO-ON). Mr. Otero's lesson illustrates the use of an interdisciplinary curriculum as his students worked on scientific writing skills, science content, and mathematical spreadsheets to explain their findings within a single lesson. Tim's classroom works like a well oiled machine as he implements these techniques. Small groups of students finish their lab reports while others work individually on assignments. Others, in small groups, work on a different project together. Every student is obviously clear on the expectations set forth by their teacher and they are diligently working to meet those expectations. Tim shows a balance between meeting the needs of each individual student as well as meeting their needs to work within groups on projects (TWO-ON). Tim's classroom is an outstanding example of an invention teacher's curriculum in action (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997).
Teri Hubert teaches gifted and regular education at the secondary level and has taught for seven years. Teri identifies herself as white. She has taken very few (two) classes and/or workshops. She feels that pedagogy is the most important skill teachers need to possess to integrate technology. She does have access to a computer at home and school. Half of her computer skills are self-taught; 25 percent colleagues and 25 percent from her spouse.
Another example of a collaborative, project-based curriculum was evident in Teri Hubert's classroom. Teri's students were showing PowerPoint® presentations to their classmates (Microsoft, 1994). They created these presentations in small, collaborative groups. Their projects illustrated what they thought fashion, based on their group's research, would look like in the year 2050. Teri evaluated her students using a rubric and had the students evaluating each other using the rubric as well. (TH-ON) Teri provides opportunities for her students to construct their own knowledge. She also feels, based on life experiences, that it is extremely important for students to collaborate, "it is like we are teaching a cooperation class…My husband is an architect and …they are extremely collaborative. …One person can't do the whole design of a building. …[It] is interesting to see, [with] the technology, [the students become] more cooperative…I see them doubling up, even if they are researching totally separate topics." (TWO-I1) Teri's vision of the changes that technology embody and how it improves education for all students is a remarkable example of what a final stage, acceptance, teacher facilitates in the classroom (Knupfer, 1993).
Yucca District Participants
Two participants in this study teach in the Yucca Public School District. A colleague who has taught statewide professional development in technology integration with me for the last two years and works in the district, recommended them to me. First, Ned Ingaglio is an elementary teacher who has taught for 16 years. He shares his teaching position with his wife, teaching the same class on alternate days. He identifies himself as Anglo. He does not have access to a computer at home, but has convenient access at school. He reports that he has learned his computer skills through self-teaching and colleagues. He indicated that he has had 0-1 computer classes and/or workshops. He feels that teacher attitude is the most important item a teacher needs to be able to learn to integrate technology.
Ned is another great example of an Integration/Embracing, final-stage teacher as described by Evans-Andris (1993). He truly sees technology as a tool to teach with and not about. He states, "…there is our little computer lab …ideally the computers should be in the classroom and integrated more…I would like to challenge the teachers to integrate it into what they are doing in the classroom. I don't care how. Turn it into an art lesson, you could do social studies. I don’t care what you do, but just do it. Make it part of your world." (NI-I1)
Tina Ebber identified herself as a technology facilitator who has taught for 11 years. Tina does have computer access at home and school. She feels that skills and abilities are the most important item teachers need to be able to integrate technology. She reports that all of her computer skills are self-taught. She remembers having taken 10 or more computer classes and/or workshops. She was asked, in the member checking data collection, to clarify her attendance at workshops and her report that her skills are self-taught. She stated that, "Some workshops were required by my job, but I could have taught these courses I was attending (TE-S2)." She did not find value or a furthering of her technological abilities in the courses she attended.
In Tina's classroom, I observed a prime example of an interdisciplinary approach to curriculum development. Although the subject of this course was mathematics, the students were creating visual stories in the program Director® to illustrate math problems. The students were working on storytelling and visual media, as well as mathematics (TE-ON). Although Tina is a technology facilitator, she does not teach about technology. She teaches with it as a final-stage, integration/embracing teacher (Evans-Andris, 1996). She shared other examples of teaching with technology such as working on family histories in a Language Arts class, complimenting Haiku's with art work in another, and researching and doing experiments for science fair projects in a Science class. One student videotaped his experiment in the wind tunnel and ran it through Adobe Premier® (Adobe, 1999). He made such a fabulous movie that the science fair judges marked him low because they assumed it was professionally produced.
Apodoca District Participants
Two participants in this study teach in the Apodoca Independent School District and were recommended by the district superintendent. Sue Estevez teaches English proficiency in a multi-age primary class and has taught for 23 years. She feels that pedagogy, skills and abilities, and the attitude of the teacher are equally important in learning to integrate technology. Sue reports that 50 percent of her technology skills are self-taught, 40 percent learned from friends and colleagues, and the remaining 10 percent learned through inservices and/or workshops. She estimates that she has had approximately 10 computer classes and/or workshops. She does have access to a computer at home and school.
Sue Estevez describes how her students work together in project-based lessons integrating technology into their science curriculum. They construct class books on PowerPoint® within content areas of study (Microsoft, 1994). She showed me a recently created book about the study of bubbles. The book included pictures of bubbles the students made themselves or found on the Internet, and information they found on bubbles from books, the Internet, and experiments. Furthermore, Sue Estevez perceives that individualized instruction on the computer is beneficial for her English as a second language (ESL) students. She indicates that her students spend some time on the computers, engaged in a self-paced software package, every day. These experiences are then reinforced in the classroom curriculum. I observed Sue using a variety of methodologies to meet the needs of her students (SE-I1). She provides interdisciplinary, project-based and individually paced instructional opportunities for her students as an invention stage teacher (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997).
Sara Ivenski, the final participant described in this chapter, teaches English and computers at the secondary level and has taught for six years. She identifies herself as white. She feels that the attitude of the teacher is the most important part of integrating technology. She furthers this by stating that she feels many of her colleagues think she entered the teaching profession already possessing technology skills, not realizing she has worked hard to teach herself. She states that she has learned her computer skills through self-teaching, colleagues, classes, and inservices -- in that order. She estimates having had more than 10 computer courses and/or workshops. She does have computer access at school and home.
Sara's students were involved in a problem-centered lesson during my visit. The students had taken the role of individuals seeking employment. They were searching on the Internet to find the employment criteria for current local job listings. These students were evaluating their work experience relative to the job opportunities. They were also evaluating what type of experiences they would need to gain in order to apply for jobs they found appealing. Each individual then constructed a personal résumé based on the terminology and criteria they found on the Internet (SI-ON). This project-centered, constructivist curriculum Tina developed is that of a final-stage, invention teacher (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997).
The Participants as a Group
The following section will further describe the 12 participants in this study as a group (Table 1). The participants shared many similarities in thoughts and experiences. I found it interesting that all of the participants report having convenient access to computers at school. This indicates that, as is reported in the literature, schools are becoming technology-rich environments. Additionally, eleven of the twelve participants reported having access to technology at home. Access to a computer at home and at school, mirror the literature, which states that teachers must have access to computers in order to learn to effectively integrate them in the classroom (Hoffman, 1997; Hope, 1996, Kwajeswki, 1997; Murphy and Thuente, 1995; Means, 1995; Meltzer and Sherman, 1997). The participants in this study were identified as successful technology integrators and shared that they have convenient access to computers.
The participants of the study represent a daunting 169 years of teaching experience, ranging from 5 to 23 years of teaching experience. My sample of successful technology integrators has no beginning teachers. This is consistent with the literature which reports that most teachers who are successful technology integrators, or are in successful stages of professional development, have had several years of teaching experience (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997; Knupfer, 1993; Pallas, 1996; Evans-Andris, 1996).
Eight of the twelve participants indicated that 50 percent or more of their technology skills were self-taught. Two of the participants who did not indicate their skill acquisition as percentages listed self-teaching first in their reporting of how they acquired their technology skills. This clearly indicates that these teachers, who are identified as successful technology integrators, have predominantly taught themselves their technology skill base. Programs were the second most common method of skill acquisition reported. However, it was overwhelmingly obvious that the participants in this study learned a majority of their technology skills on their own.
In every observation conducted for this research, the students were working collaboratively. Frank Ingram is an exception to this statement, because as a speech pathologist, he sees his students on a one-on-one basis.
The discussion in Chapter Two revolved around behaviorist and constructivist methodologies. Every observation completed for this research found constructivist methodologies employed in the development and implementation of curriculum. There were usually several things going on at one time, including much discussion between students and teachers as facilitators. These classrooms were very student-centered. The teachers in this study set up lessons where the students needed to gather information to finish their projects. The teachers then helped them find the information and did not simply give them information for which they had no immediate purpose. Many times, this type of classroom atmosphere appears chaotic to those more familiar with a traditional classroom, but is often seen in a classroom that successfully integrates technology. In the following sections we will explore how these successful technology-integrating teachers offer thoughtful insights into the skills that teachers need to succeed in this arena.
ESSENTIAL SKILLS IDENTIFIED BY 12 TEACHERS
This section of Chapter Four will explore this study’s data in relation to the first question proposed in the purpose of this study in Chapter One: "What abilities, technological and pedagogical, do practicing teachers possess who effectively integrate technology into their curriculum?" First, the comments and feedback on the original TSM following my initial interviews was analyzed and utilized to create a modified TSM. Below is a brief explanation of this modification process and the frequent themes that emerged. Next, a modified TSM, a list of deleted skills and a written explanation of the changes were sent to participants for additional member checking data. Finally, an analysis of the member checking data tells a fascinating story that helps answer the first question in this study. The individual feedback from the participants was just that, individual, but the story they supplied as a group was indeed a single story.
At our initial interview, I left the participants with a paper copy of the original TSM (Appendix A), an explanation of how it was developed and a self-addressed stamped envelope in which to return the TSM. I asked them to give me feedback on what skills they used in their classrooms and what skills were important for teachers to know. The TSM was developed beginning with ISTE’s Standards for Basic Endorsement in Educational Computing and Technology Literacy Sections 1.0 - 3.1 (ISTE, 1997), included North Carolina's technology competencies for educators (Bingham and Kemp, 1997), New Mexico’s Standards and Benchmarks for Technology (New Mexico, 1997), New Mexico’s Strategic Goals; Section 4 - Professional Development (Strategic Plan, 1997), U.S. Department of Labor's SCANS (1994) report competencies; C4-C8, C10 and C 15, and the Essential Competencies for Technology developed by the New Mexico Council on Technology in Education (NMCTE, 1995). The development of the TSM is described in further detail in the data analysis section of chapter three. My intent was to take the enormous list of skills encompassing the TSM and develop a smaller set of truly essential skills based on feedback from 12 successful technology-integrating teachers.
Technology Skills Model Modification
Initial feedback from my participants was analyzed and used to modify the original TSM. I diligently went through the TSM’s list, skill by skill. If any participant crossed off a skill or made a comment that a particular skill was not necessary, it was noted on the master list. For the purposes of this initial data analysis, I concluded that each of the information-rich participants in this study served as crucial advisors in the area of skills needed to be successful technology integrators within their particular situations. I removed any skill from the original TSM that received one or more negative comments, keeping in mind, that I would verify these changes with all of the participants in the member checking portion of my data collection. Following the initial participant feedback the New Mexico Essential Competencies, all student sections on the original TSM and 30 separate skills throughout the teacher sections in the original TSM were removed. See Appendix L for a detailed analysis of the teacher skills data used in the modification of the TSM. There was a new section added, 2.0 Instructional Strategies / Professional Knowledge and Practice, which consolidated skills repeated within other sections in the original TSM, dealing with methodology and classroom practice. The skills and changes that remained now formed the Modified Technology Skills Model (Appendix G). The participants all had different rationale for indicating that certain skills should not remain on the TSM. A brief discussion of the data, in relation to some of the original TSM's changes, and a discussion of themes found in the initial data collection follows.
New Mexico Essential Competencies
An overall modification of the original TSM included the removal of the New Mexico Essential Competencies following several negative comments from participants. The New Mexico Essential Competencies (NMCTE, 1995) were placed into sections 2-8 of the original TSM (Table 2).
Sue Estevez deleted the competencies from the list with no particular explanation. Teri Hubert, however, offered the comment, "This seems so general. It is important to incorporate higher order thinking, but being so vague makes it hard to demonstrate whether it is being done at all" (TH-TSM1). These competencies were not starred or commented on as being extremely important by any participant and received two negative comments. Therefore, the New Mexico Essential Competencies were removed from the TSM and there were no comments, positive or negative, in the member checking data collection regarding the removal of these competencies. I assume this is an indication that the change was acceptable. Along with the deletion of the New Mexico Essential Competencies, the separate sections relating to student skills within each content area were removed from the original TSM.
New Mexico Essential Competencies
Facilitate opportunities for students to be higher order thinkers - Higher-order thinking requires students to use technology to manipulate information and ideas in new ways that develop meaning and implications. Students, for example, can combine facts and ideas in order to synthesize, generalize, explain, hypothesize, interpret, or arrive at conclusions.
Facilitate opportunities for students to be producers of new knowledge - Knowledge is thin or superficial when it does not deal with significant concepts of a topic or discipline, Knowledge is deep when students make clear distinctions, develop arguments, solve problems, construct explanations, and otherwise work with complex understanding. Technology tools can greatly enhance resources available to students for creating and publishing new knowledge.
Facilitate opportunities for students to be information navigators and media literate learners - The student as information navigator and media literate learner recognized and values the breadth of information sources, searches those sources, differentiates and selectively chooses sources, and retrieves appropriate information and data using all forms of media, technology and telecommunications.
Facilitate opportunities for students to be effective communicators - Through a variety of appropriate media, the student can create, produce and present ideas, stories and unique representations of thoughts. By analyzing the audience, students can select the most appropriate communications tool.
Facilitate opportunities for students to be responsible citizens, workers, learners, community members and family members in an information age - The student understands the ethical, cultural, environmental and societal implications of technology and telecommunications, and develops an understanding of stewardship and individual responsibility regarding use of technology.
Table 2
Student Skills
After removing each of the individual student skills from the original TSM that had one or more negative comments or marks from participants in the initial data analysis, there were twelve remaining. In section 1-Computer Operation Skills, there were four; in section 2-Word Processing/ Introductory Desktop Publishing, there was one; in section 3-Spreadsheet/Graphing, there were two; in section 4 Databases, there were none; in section 5-Multimedia Integration, there were none; in section 6-Telecommunications, there were three; in section 7 Networking, there were none; and finally, in section 8-Media Communications, there was one skill remaining. There were so few skills left in the student skill sections, they were removed from the TSM altogether. The original objective for including a student section within each content section was to insure that there was a focus on students. The primary reason for participant deletion of these student skills was lack of access to the software and hardware needed to teach these skills. Other reasons, not as frequently noted, were the inappropriateness of the skills for particular groups of children and the need for adult assistance to incorporate some of these skills into curriculum (SE-TSM1, EI-TSM1, TH-TSM1, SI-TSM). The participants indicated that they did not have adequate support or access to technology for their students to be able to demonstrate a majority of the skills listed. I informed the participants of this change during member checking data collection and received no comments. I assume that no comments indicate that the decision was acceptable to the participants.
Consolidation
In late April, it occurred to me, while explaining to the participants that
certain areas of the model repeated themselves in every section (NI-TSM1,
TE-TSM1, EL-heart TSM1, TWE-TSM1), that those skills should be put into a
section by themselves. I proceeded to take all of the identical skills from
each section and create a new section titled Instructional
Strategies/Professional Knowledge and Practice. The skills that encompassed
the Instructional Strategies/Professional Knowledge and Practice section
were identified as essential by the participants and amassed into a single
category to shorten the TSM. There were some positive comments on the first few
sections regarding these skills, but there were no comments in the remainder of
the document, possibly indicating that as they were repeated, they were
ignored. The second section of the TSM modified was now:
2.0 INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES / PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE
Essential Knowledge and Skills - I can demonstrate these skills with all of the technological resources I have access to:
2.1 Physical settings that support active student involvement, inquiry, and collaboration
2.2 Organizational and management strategies that support active student involvement, inquiry, and collaboration
2.3 Select and create learning experiences that are appropriate for curriculum goals, relevant to
learners, based upon principals of effective teaching and learning, incorporate the use of media and technology for teaching where appropriate, and support learner expression in a variety of media communication tools.
2.4 Use computers and other technologies effectively and appropriately to collect information on
student learning using a variety of method
2.5 Use media and technology to address differences in children’s learning and performance
2.6 Use media and technology to support learning for children with special needs or know where
to find the information
2.7 Use media and technology to support learning for children whose primary language is not
English
2.8 Ensure equal access to media and technology resources for all students
2.9 Ensure exposure to all types of software (skill and drill as well as tool software) for all
students regardless of race, class, or gender
2.10 Social, legal, and ethical issues related to technology use
Table 3
There were no comments in the member checking data collection about the consolidation of these skills. The initial data collection analysis resulted in the removal of the New Mexico Essential Competencies, the student sections, and 30 separate skills (Appendix F), and the consolidation of instructional strategies /professional knowledge and practice. Next, the analysis of this study’s data produced some revealing themes which help answer the first question posed in this study. First, how particular teaching environments influenced the skills needed differing interpretations of skills; and, finally a disconnect between the skills a teacher possesses and their ability to effectively integrate technology.
Different Environments
Skills were called into question or indicated as not essential by teachers due to their particular teaching situation and/or the students they supported. For example, Sue Estevez commented that the skill 3.19 I use a spreadsheet to record grades was not a necessary skill for her in her particular teaching situation. She further indicated that she does not use letter grades in her position, but that this is a very necessary skill for teachers who do give letter grades (SE-MC). Teaching situations are context specific based on student populations as well as access to technology. Teri Hubert commented "need the software" in relation to using spreadsheets indicating that she does not have the access she needs to learn and/or utilize this skill (TH-TSM1). Many comments were made indicating that particular skills were not known, used or expected of students due to a lack of access. Teri Hubert commented that skill 1.28 ability to exchange disks and files among different types of computers "can be very tricky-not always possible" because she does not have access to different types of computers in her particular teaching situation (TH-TSM1). Olivia Nance and Frank Ingram rated the skill 6.5 use of an Acceptable Use Policy in regards to students using the World Wide Web very highly (ON-TSM1, FI-TSM1). On the other hand, Emmie Ishimoto crossed off this skill. Emmie offered the comment; "school does not have set up," indicating that neither she nor her students need this in their current situation because they do not have Internet access (EI-TSM1). Emmie further commented, in the member checking data collection, that it is very important to have policies, though her situation doesn’t require them yet (EI-MC). Thus, some skills that are crucial for one teacher are not crucial for another.
Different Interpretations
Individual interpretation of skills and whose responsibility they are, within the school setting, emerged as a theme within the data. Several comments indicated that many skills, essential for a technology coordinator and/or network administrator, are not necessary for classroom teachers. Who is responsible for computer maintenance was also an issue for the participants. One example, from Tina Ebber's comments, stated that protecting the computer against viruses should be, "Handled by the systems administrator"(TE-TSM1). Frank Ingram indicated that several skills, such as making more memory available and installing software should be the responsibility of the systems administrator.
Olivia Nance and Teri Hubert both made comments about teachers 2.20ensuring equal access to media technology resources for all students. They were stating that these were, in some cases, an issue of district politics and lack of teacher control and not an issue of skills. Olivia Nance and Teri Hubert, in this study, indicated that the ability to provide equal access for students, in their opinion, is rarely in the hands of the teachers. Therefore, expecting teachers to be responsible for the equality of student access is misplaced because administrators normally control resource availability. The number of computers students have access to was their interpretation of students' equity of access to technology. There can be a second interpretation of this skill that focuses on the teacher's ability and awareness of the needs of students within the classroom for equal access to technology. Students must have access to technology that is not contingent on how quickly they complete their work, their gender, or their ability level. There are two different ways students are afforded opportunities to interact with the computer that must be addressed by teachers in the classroom. These types of interactions were discussed in further detail in Chapter 2, but are described briefly below. First, student-computer interaction that is one-way, where the computer tells the student what to do, as in the use of CAI software. Second, student-computer interaction where the student is in control and tells the computer what to do as in the use of tool software. Teachers must be aware of the different types of interactions students experience and how they provide for equity of this access. One example, the skill 2.20 ensuring equal access to media technology resources for all students was interpreted differently by the participants in this study. Therefore, it is important to realize that a skills list may be interpreted differently by any number of people.
Different Skills
The final theme that emerged was that, although these participants have acquired a large number of technical skills, there is not a strong connection between the specific technical skills a teacher possesses and his/her ability to integrate technology into the classroom. Ned Ingaglio felt so strongly about this issue that, unlike the other participants, he did not offer any comments on the TSM. He offered comments in the form of a letter attached to a blank TSM. This is a portion of what Ned wrote:
"to comment on each item, or even each page, in this list just rubs me the wrong way. It represents an attempt to get at something from the wrong starting point…Good teaching, however, is as much an art as it is a science and, as such, does not lend itself to an itemized checklist of ingredients. Mastery of this list does not make one a good teacher just as failure to master these items does not make one a bad teacher…. Yes, challenge teachers to integrate technology into their curriculum. Yes, support teachers to do so by providing access, time, and specific training. Yes, give them some background on which to build but get rid of lists and don't think for a moment that computer info, even the basics, will stay current long enough for a person to graduate from a teacher training program."(NI-TSM1L)
Ned's concerns were echoed in a letter from Olivia Nance sent with her first TSM feedback as well. Olivia writes, "All of this is premised on the notion that computer skills are necessary to performing an effective job teaching students. I'm not sure I believe that. … I do believe that students need to learn computer skills. At the same time not all teachers need to have that same level of computer skills. These two statements are not mutually exclusive." (ON-TSM1L) An analysis of the data in this study echoes these concerns. Each of the participants indicated that they all utilize a different set of skills in their work as successful technology integrators. There were some very strong differences. For example, Sara Ivenski, Emmie Ishimoto and Sue Estevez indicated that they did not use or need many of the skills listed in the Networking section (SI-TSM1, EI-TSM1, SE-TSM1). On the other hand, Tina Ebber stated that, "Everything about my job has to do with networks. It is the most important body of knowledge I possess." (TE-TSM1) Figure 1 shows that, out of a list of about 100 separate skills, each of the successful technology integrating teachers in this study possess and use a different number of those skills. They have determined which skills they must possess to effectively integrate technology within their particular teaching situations. Not only do they utilize a different number of skills from the TSM, they do not utilize the same combination of skills. The data does, however, show that they do utilize and possess a large number of the skills listed.
Looking at the modified TSM, which lists the skills that all of the participants as a group indicated they utilize and/or feel are important for teachers to possess, it might possibly appear to be an essential list of skills. However, the data from this study indicates that the modified TSM is not a list of essential skills either. This was revealed in the member checking data analysis. First, there were no negative comments on any skills on the modified TSM (Appendix G). For example, Sara wrote "all yes" on her TSM Modified (SI-TSM2). No negative comments on the modified TSM indicated that those skills should remain. There were, however, several comments on the Deleted Skills
Skills of Participants
Center circle: The number of separate skills on the TSM.
In each participant’s half-oval: The number of skills they utilize in successful technology integration.
Figure 1
list included in the member checking data collection (Appendix F). I conducted another cross-case analysis from a master copy of participant comments on the Deleted Skills from the TSM (Appendix F)(Patton, 1990). There were about 34 positive written comments explaining why most of these skills that had been deleted need to remain on the TSM. The words frequently seen in these passionate comments were: essential, required, necessary, need, valuable, expect, very important, useful, and integral (ON-TSM-DEL, SE-TSM-DEL, EI-TSM-DEL, TE-TSM-DEL, SI-TSM-DEL). Consequently, a Final TSM was created leaving out the New Mexico Essential Competencies, and the student sections, but including a new Instructional Strategies section and all of the individual skills from the original TSM. The participants in this study indicated that the road to successful technology integration did not depend on teachers possessing a pre-determined set of discrete skills, but rather, the methodology of the use of these skills in the classroom was important. Discussed in Chapter 5, the data from this study gives clear suggestions as to how this Final TSM should be utilized in relation to professional development.
In conclusion, the participants in this study have been identified as successful technology-integrating teachers and have indicated that they do not all possess and/or utilize the same set of skills; therefore, the data in this research does not support a particular list of skills to indicate a successful technology-integrating teacher. The different environments, students, interpretations, and skills utilized by these successful technology-integrating teachers show that there is no one list of skills that could identify or meet the needs of teachers in general.
STAFF DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF
SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATING TEACHERS
The topic of this study, abilities, is only one of the crucial factors affecting teachers in their struggle to effectively integrate technology. The participants in this study faced the same issues that are reported in the larger body of research (discussed in Chapter Two) regarding collaboration, shared visions, abilities, time, access, administrative support, and attitude. My goal in this section is to share some extraordinary experiences that beautifully illustrate these issues and how these participants compare to the literature-reported teacher needs. This chapter ends with a discussion of the second question asked in the purpose of this study, "What staff development should be provided for teachers to prepare teachers to integrate technology into their curricula?"
Collaboration
The literature reports that teachers are concerned about a lack of time and support during the work day to collaborate with other teachers. The literature reports that this time and support is essential to teachers’ professional growth and reaching the later stages of technology integration (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997; Meltzer and Sherman, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; Hope, 1996). The participants in this study discussed some of these same concerns. First, Felicia Ortega, who reported few concerns regarding access, was afforded the opportunity several years ago to develop a long-term technology plan with a group of teachers. When we were discussing the incredible amount of software available in the lab, she informed me that her principal had supported some collaborative time several years ago. She said, "It was me and four other teachers. Several years ago we developed a long-term plan … We worked on grants and got them. We got wiring for the building, instead of waiting for the district, … We kept buying and we made sure that we were getting bundles of software with them [the computers] (FO-I1)". Due to this collaborative time, supported by an administrator, the teachers at this school had abundant access to software and a school-wide network. This is an example of how support aided in the professional growth of this teacher.
All of the participants in this study did not indicate that they had this support. There were many comments using the word we in regard to doing lessons with other teachers. For example, Olivia Nance reported that one of their instructors went to a workshop and brought back information that, "… we all used (ON-I1)." Teachers collaborating on lessons that integrated technology were mentioned a few times, but were not pervasive in this study's data. During my observations the participants were very isolated from colleagues. If there were discussions between the participants and a colleague, it was very brief. The data in this study does not indicate that frequent collaboration with colleagues was essential to success.
Access
Next, the literature reports that a major factor aiding in successful technology integration relates to access to functioning hardware and software, technical support, and training (Hoffman, 1997; Hope, 1996, Kwajeswki, 1997; Murphy and Thuente, 1995; Means, 1995, Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer, 1997). In every piece of data, with the exception of student artifacts, gathered for analysis in this study, the issue of access emerged as a powerful theme. Emmie Ishimoto felt so strongly about a need for adequate access, that she added this as a new option on the survey (EI-S1). Every teacher expressed concern regarding the additional hardware, software, technical support, and training required to enable him or her to perform their job in a manner that they envision.
First, focusing on hardware access issues, there were two teachers in the study who did not report any need for additional hardware (TH-I1, TWE-I1). These teachers' concerns of access focused on a need for additional software and adequate technical support for existing hardware. Most of the participants, however, did indicate that there was a strong need for more access to hardware.
One of the strongest visions began to emerge in a discussion with Emmie Ishimoto. Emmie had just put together a computer lab in a small room. This room had been previously used as an office by a grade-level team of teachers. This lab was assembled with old PCs, rescued from being discarded in a storage room after the district had changed their platform to Macintosh computers. This teacher reported that her students had absolutely no access to technology other than one computer in her classroom. She further indicated, in the member checking data collection, that the lab she had pulled together was shutdown by the administration because of, "...a dispute between a couple of teachers about who would run the lab, etc. (EI-S2)". She stated that, "I was extremely discouraged at that time because we were back to square one as far as having technology available for our students (EI-S2)." Emmie showed a strong commitment to her students by trying to provide them with access to technology any way she could, with or without administrative support.
What illustrates Emmie Ishimoto’s struggle even further was a related interview with Ernie Long. Ernie and Emmie work at the same middle school. Ernie Long's greatest concern, in relation to, access was drastically different. Ernie taught in a Tech2000 lab with a prescribed curriculum described earlier in this chapter. This lab compiled large amount of technology access for students. Ernie expressed concern about the incredible amount of money the district had invested into his lab. He did not think, in terms of educational value to students, that it was providing much return on the investment. The reasoning behind this statement related to a concern that there was no funding to replace broken and/or stolen parts, the curriculum developed for the students did not meet their needs, and, finally, the structure of the school setting in determining his class size was very unfortunate. Ernie stated, "... it would be very different if this class had the number of students that the equipment was purchased for. It was purchased for a maximum of thirteen kids per class, but they don’t [schedule it that way], they schedule it as if it were any other elective. …they keep the numbers even, …if there are a hundred kids and four electives, you are going to get 25 kids, regardless... Last semester I had a class that was 32 and this room doesn't [have the capacity], it cannot handle that many people with one instructor." (EL-I1)
Ernie Long indicated that this lack of adequate access and support is, in part, what is compelling him to leave the profession. It is very interesting that the administration of the technology in this school did not provide technology access for students in either Emmie Ishimoto’s or Ernie Long’s teaching situations. Emmie struggled to provide access for her students so she could implement the technology-using curriculum she envisioned. On the other hand, Ernie quit teaching partly because of an inability to provide curriculum in the manner he thought best, due to inadequate student access to technology. The participants in this study did not all have adequate access to technology for their students. This indicates that, for this group of successful technology integrating teachers, adequate technology access for students was not crucial for success.
The issue of adequate access to technology for the individual participants tells a different story. All of the participants in this study indicated that they had adequate personal access to computers at school. Only one of the participants did not have access to a computer at home, indicating that a majority had adequate access to computers at home (TE-I1). Therefore, the participant data in this study supports the literature in reporting that teachers must have adequate personal access to computers.
Administrative Support
The literature reports that administrative support is equally as essential as ensuring that teachers are provided with adequate resources (Meltzer and Sherman, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer, 1997). Both participants from the Yucca Valley school district described a lack of administrative support (NI-I1, TE-I1). They reported that Yucca's current technology support person was allocated one-hour a day for the entire district. Additionally, he teaches math and is the district's counselor. Ned Ingaglio was distressed about the lack of access for students and describes this duty as a, "real responsibility to [students], responsibility as a district because many of the students do not have them [computers] in their homes. … it is a very, very frustrating situation" (NI-I1). By default, the teachers generally handle the technical support in this district. Ned stated that he was often asked to help teachers with technical problems, interrupting his classroom teaching time and planning time (NI-I1). Tina Ebber who teaches in the Tech 2000 lab for the same district, stated that she handled most of the technical problems herself and spent many hours past her contract day, including weekends, keeping everything up and running for her students and community members who regularly use the facilities (TE-I1). These teachers overcame their lack of administrative support, extending their professional responsibilities to provide access for their students, so that they and other teachers in their schools could implement a technology-using curriculum.
Teri Hubert, Ortiz school district, describes a supplementary example of lack of administrative support. She relates, "There are 24 computers in one [lab] and 14 in the other. Right now this one [with 24 computers] is being used ... she [another teacher] was using this very, very nice research lab with very, very fast computers for keyboarding… So we won't get in there to do research. I think that reflects a real misunderstanding on the part of the teacher and perhaps the district (TH-I1)". In order to overcome this lack of vision, Teri has actually purchased a laptop to use in her classroom so her students can do research on a computer. There were some reports of administrative support from the participants in this study, but there was not a case where a participant indicated that they were successful technology integrators as a direct result of administrative support. This is even more apparent when you consider that the participants overwhelmingly reported they were self-taught in a majority of their technology skills. The participants in this study succeeded in becoming successful technology integrators in spite of the fact that they did not have, in many cases, strong administrative support.
Shared Vision
The literature reports that a common vision of effective technology integration, utilizing a constructivist approach to teaching, must be understood by all members of the school community to ensure teacher success (Willis, Stephens, and Matthew, 1996; Hall, 1996; Griest, 1993; Griest, 1996; Means 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997; Mergendoller, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; McKenzie, 1997). Every one of the participants employed the use of a constructivist curriculum, incorporating student collaboration. There was not one instance of students working in isolation during my observations. Although Frank Ingram’s speech students were not collaborating with other students, they were collaborating with Frank during lessons as well as helping develop their own curriculum. Students were creating knowledge as opposed to having information given to them. Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer’s (1997) stages of professional development describe teachers experimenting with student groupings and establishing higher learning standards in their development of curriculum as an indication of the invention stage. All of the participants in this study exhibited these two characteristics. Every observation exhibited examples of this shared vision. Furthermore, all of the participants in this study demonstrated the following skills listed from the 2.0 Instructional Strategies / Professional Knowledge and Practice section of the Final TSM:
Partial Section: Instructional Strategies / Professional Knowledge and Practice
2.1 Physical settings that support active student involvement, inquiry, and collaboration
2.2 Organizational and management strategies that support active student involvement, inquiry, and collaboration
2.3 Select and create learning experiences that are appropriate for curriculum goals, relevant to learners, based upon principals of effective teaching and learning, incorporate the use of media and technology for teaching where appropriate, and support learner expression in a variety of media communication tools.
Table 4
The remaining skills in section 2.0 may have been exhibited through long-term observations. The data in this study does support the literature regarding the need for a common vision of how successful technology integration in the classroom is best facilitated.
Abilities
The conclusion earlier in this chapter, regarding the skills on the TSM, showed that the participants in this study all possess, use, and/or believe that the 100+ skill on the Final TSM are important for successful technology-integrating teachers. The participants in this study possess and use a large number of these skills in their work. However, they do not all use an identical set of skills. The data in this study do support that these successful technology-integrating teachers possess a large number of technical and pedagogical skills, but that they each have an individual set of essential skills.
Time
The issue of time, mentioned frequently in the literature review, illustrates that teachers learning to integrate technology into the classroom usually need a minimum of three to six years to show competence (Adelman, Walking Eagle, & Hargraves, 1997; Meltzer and Sherman, 1997). The participants in this study were selected based on recommendations from colleagues and administrators, and teaching experience was not a criteria in any way during the participant selection process. However, none of the purposefully selected, successful technology integrators in my study had taught for less than five years. Looking at the identifying stages of professional development described in Chapter Two, the participants in this study were identified as final-stage, technology integrating teachers. In one of the final stages identified by Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer (1996), the invention stage, teachers experiment with the instructional patterns and ways of relating to students and other teachers. Interdisciplinary, project-based, team teaching, and individually paced instruction become common. Two examples, which illustrate this final stage, invention, follow.
In Tim W. Otero's classroom, all students were independently engaged in activities. Many students were completing lab assignments on plants and incorporating spreadsheet data into a written report. They were following guidelines from the teacher and working collaboratively with partners. Some students were finished and working on other projects. Furthermore, other students working on reports on computers in a separate room remained on task. There was a lot of technology for the students to be working on; they were all doing different things; and they all appeared to know what they were supposed to be doing and remained very productive. Tim was floating around answering questions as they were asked. He guided the students to resources to find their own answers, he did not just give the students the answers to the questions they were asking (TWO-ON). These classroom atmospheres developed over time and through many years of teaching experience.
Concerning his classroom, Ned Ingaglio states, "... you do not see the technology. It is just there. It is part of your world. ... I think the computer in the classroom should be seamless, too. In fact, it is when kids just automatically go to it, depending on what they are doing… If they need pen and paper they go get it" (NI-I1). He no longer sees a separation between teaching ‘computers’ and their use as a tool for completion of work. He uses technology as a professional tool and expects his students to use it in the same manner. Ned has 11 years of teaching experience and was comfortable with technology as a tool before he began his teaching career. Over time and with experience he has created an outstanding learning atmosphere for his students. The data in this study does support the literature in reporting that teachers need time to become successful technology integrators.
In summary, the participants in this study indicate that time for professional growth, personal access to computers, numerous skills and a shared vision were key factors for these teachers to become successful technology integrators. What other factors should be considered when providing professional development for teachers to move them towards the success these participants have experienced?
Teacher Attitude
Due to questions which emerged in the pilot study for this research
(Appendix C), I asked the participants in the initial interview to rate, by the
following three items: pedagogy, skills-abilities, or the attitude of teacher,
to determine which are most important, in relation to integrating technology.
The attitude of the teacher was rated highest by a majority of the participants
in this study (Table 5). Skills and abilities was rated the next most
important, followed closely by pedagogy. One participant added access
and rated it as the most important item needed. This may explain how these
successful technology integrating teachers overcame the lack of time to
collaborate, lack of access to technology for their students, and a lack of
administrative support. Their attitudes enabled them to overcome obstacles and
succeed.
Participant Demographics and Skills
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years |
What is important to enable |
|
||
|
|
|
Teaching |
teachers to integrate technology: |
|
||
|
Participant |
Gender |
Experience |
Pedagogy |
Skills |
Attitude |
Access |
|
Felicia Ortega |
F |
18 |
3rd |
2nd |
1st |
|
|
Frank Ingram |
M |
5 |
2nd |
1st |
3rd |
|
|
Emmie Ishimoto |
F |
21 |
|
3rd |
2nd |
1st(added) |
|
Ernie Long |
M |
5 |
3rd |
2nd |
1st |
|
|
Tammy W. Earlson |
F |
20 |
1st |
3rd |
2nd |
|
|
Olivia Nance |
F |
5 |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
|
|
Tim W. Otero |
M |
22 |
1st |
3rd |
2nd |
|
|
Teri Hubert |
F |
7 |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
|
|
Ned Ingaglio |
F |
11 |
3rd |
1st |
2nd |
|
|
Tina Ebber |
M |
16 |
3rd |
2nd |
1st |
|
|
Sue Estevez |
F |
6 |
3rd |
2nd |
1st |
|
|
Sara Ivenski |
F |
23 |
1st |
1st |
1st |
|
|
Totals: |
F=8 |
159 years |
5/1st |
3/1st |
5/1st |
1/1st |
|
|
M=4 |
Average |
2.0 |
2.0 |
1.83 |
.08 |
Table 5
There was an emergent theme, running through the data, indicating that these participants had incredibly positive attitudes towards technology and the wonderful opportunities it can provide students. They mentioned throughout the data, numerous benefits to students when they utilize technology in their curriculum. There were also examples of specific behaviors that exhibited these attitudes. For instance, Emmie Ishimoto's personally assembled computer lab, personal purchases of hardware for classrooms (TH-I1), and hundreds of work hours beyond the contract time to ensure access to technology for students (NI-I1, TE-I1, NI-I1). The positive attitudes these participants exhibited and shared helps answer the question: "How did these teachers become so successful even without all of the literature-reported essentials?" Due to their overwhelmingly positive attitudes and energies, they overcame a lack of formal support to collaborate with colleagues, a lack of administrative support, and a lack of adequate access to technology with their classes. While not all of the participants had to overcome all of the obstacles above, collaboration, access, administrative support, and identical abilities, were not essential for this group. This group persevered even though they did not have all of these essentials. On the other hand, they all did possess the following items; personal access to computers, adequate time to become successful, a large number of pedagogical and technical abilities, and a shared vision. Therefore, what we can learn from these participants is that they needed, at a minimum, individual professional development which;
Chapter 5
Discussion
The twelve information-rich participants in this study have helped me discover that teachers need to possess a large number of pedagogical and technical abilities, related to technology use, in order to integrate these technologies into their classrooms. These participants deal with the same concerns, successes, and obstacles that are reported in the larger body of literature surrounding technology integration in classrooms, yet they managed to effectively integrate technology. The participants helped answer the first question posed in this study: "What abilities, technological and pedagogical, do practicing teachers possess who effectively integrate technology into their curriculum?"
The road to successful technology integration
includes teachers learning a large number of technology skills in conjunction
with pedagogical techniques that support the use of these technologies. There
is, however, no skills list that represents what all teachers who successfully
integrate technology into their classrooms must possess. However, the
participants in this study did indicate that the Final TSM contains important
skills that should be considered by all teachers in their professional growth
towards technology integration in the classroom. An individual teacher’s
essential skill set must be self-identified.
FINAL
Technology Skills Model
Compiled by Jill Brown
1.0 Computer Operation Skills
Essential Knowledge and Skills - I can demonstrate these skills:
· Start up and shut down computers and peripherals
· Identify and use icons, windows, menus
· Start an application and create a document
· Name, save, retrieve, revise a document
· Use printing devices
· Insert and eject a floppy disk and CD-ROM
· Copy document from hard disk and floppy disk and vice versa
· Create and name/rename subdirectories/folders
· Save, open, place documents inside subdirectories/folders
· Open and work with more that one application at a time
· Setup computer system and connect peripheral devices
· Protect and care for floppy disks
· Clean computer components and printer
· Make backup copies of key application and documents
· Installation
and use of a variety of software packages
I can demonstrate knowledge through practical application:
· Terms such as graphical user interface, document, application, K(kilobyte), hierarchical file system, directory, operating system, system software, RAM
· Storage capacity of floppy/hard disks, CD-ROM’s
· Proper operating environment for computers and peripherals
· Protection
against computer viruses
2.0 INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES / PROFESSIONAL
KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE
Essential Knowledge and Skills - I can demonstrate these skills with all of the technological resources I have access to:
2.1 Physical settings that support active
student involvement, inquiry, and collaboration
2.2 Organizational and management strategies
that support active student involvement, inquiry, and collaboration
2.3 Select and create learning experiences that
are appropriate for curriculum goals, relevant to
learners, based upon principals of effective
teaching and learning, incorporate the use of media and technology for teaching
where appropriate, and support learner expression in a variety of media
communication tools.
2.4 Use computers and other technologies
effectively and appropriately to collect information on
student learning using a variety of method
2.5 Use media and technology to address
differences in children’s learning and performance
2.6 Use media and technology to support learning
for children with special needs or know where
to find the information
2.7 Use media and technology to support learning for children whose primary language is not
English
2.8 Ensure equal access to media and technology
resources for all students
2.9 Ensure exposure to all types of software
(skill and drill as well as tool software) for all
students regardless of race, class, or gender
2.10 Social, legal, and ethical issues
related to technology use
3.0 Word Processing/Introductory Desktop Publishing
Essential Knowledge and Skills - I can
demonstrate these skills:
3.1 Enter and edit text
3.2 Use correct keyboarding techniques
3.2 Copy and move blocks of text
3.3 Change text format and style, set margin, line spacing, tabs
3.4 Check spelling, grammar, and word usage
3.5 Create a header or footer
3.6 Insert date, time, and page numbers
3.7 Add columns to document
3.8 Insert clip art into document
I can demonstrate knowledge through practical
application:
3.9 Terms such as cursor, format, font, style, header, footer, spelling checker
3.10 Acceptance and encouragement of word-processed documents being submitted by students where appropriate
3.11 Facilitate the use of word processing for creation of documents - not just for publication of final drafts
Give an example of how you have used these skills to help you in your personal/professional work in a few sentences:
Give an example of how you have facilitated classroom activities to engage students in the above use of skills in a few sentences:
4.0 Spreadsheet/Graphing
Essential knowledge and skills - I can
demonstrate these skills:
4.1 Interpret and communicate information in an
existing spreadsheet
4.2 Enter data in an existing spreadsheet
4.3 Create a spreadsheet with rows, columns, and headings
4.4 Create a graph from spreadsheet data
4.5 Insert a spreadsheet into a word
processing document
I can demonstrate knowledge through practical
application:
4.6 Terms such as spreadsheet, cell, data entry bar, formula, function
Give an example of how you have used these skills to help you in your personal/professional work in a few sentences:
Give an example of how you have facilitated classroom activities to engage students in the above use of skills in a few sentences:
5.0 Database
Essential Knowledge and Skills - I can demonstrate these skills:
5.1 Use information from an existing database
5.2 Sort a database by specific fields, add and delete record
I can demonstrate knowledge through practical application:
5.3 Terms such as database, field, record, layout, sort/arrange, search/select/filter, mail merge
Give an example of how you have used these skills to help you in your personal/professional work in a few sentences:
Give an example of how you have facilitated classroom activities to engage students in the above use of skills in a few sentences:
6.0 Multimedia Integration
Essential Knowledge and Skills - I can demonstrate these skills:
6.1 Use a linear multimedia presentation
6.2 Use a non-linear, hypermedia presentation
6.3 Plan/produce a linear multimedia presentation
6.4 Plan/produce a non-linear, hypermedia presentation
I can demonstrate knowledge through practical application:
6.5 Terms such as media, multimedia, hypermedia, clip media
Give an example of how you have used these skills to help you in your personal/professional work in a few sentences:
Give an example of how you have facilitated classroom activities to engage students in the above use of skills in a few sentences:
7.0 Telecommunications
Essential Knowledge and Skills - I can demonstrate these skills:
7.1 Connect to the Internet on an on-line service
7.2 Use Electronic Mail (compose, send, retrieve, read, respond, forward)
7.3 Access and use resources on Internet and World Wide Web
7.4 Use of automated on-line search tools
I can demonstrate knowledge through practical application:
7.5 Use of an Acceptable Use policy in regards to students using the World Wide Web
7.6 Evaluation of web sites for validity of information
7.7 Terms such a telecommunications, direct access, dial-in access, modem, baud rate, Internet, World Wide Web
7.8 Obtain/maintain an account on the Internet or an on-line service that provides Internet access
7.9 Facilitation of classroom activities where students use telecommunications to effectively appropriately collect and use information
7.10 Conduct research and evaluate on-line sources of information that support and enhance the curriculum
7.11 Upload a text file and send as electronic mail
7.12 Use specialized e-mail lists relevant to
professional information needs
7.13 Create and use group addresses for
electronic mail
7.14 Read, save, print, reply to, and forward
electronic mail
Give an example of how you have used these skills to help you in your personal/professional work in a few sentences:
Give an example of how you have facilitated classroom activities to engage students in the above use of skills in a few sentences:
8.0 Networking (If applicable at your school site.)
Essential Knowledge and Skills - I can demonstrate these skills:
8.1 Use a file server (connect/log on, retrieve a program or document save a document, save a document to a specified location)
8.2 Share files with others on a network
I can demonstrate knowledge through practical application:
8.3 Terms such as local area network, wide area network, access rights, security passwords, file server, zone
Give an example of how you have used these skills to help you in your personal/professional work in a few sentences:
Give an example of how you have facilitated classroom activities to engage students in the above use of skills in a few sentences:
9.0 Media Communications (Including Image and Audio Processing)
Essential Knowledge and Skills - I can demonstrate these skills:
· Produce print-based products (i.e. Newsletters, brochures, posters, books)
· Produce electronic slides/overheads
· Setup and operate a videocassette recorder/player and monitor/TV
· Connect
a video output device (e.g. LCD panel) to computer for large screen display
I can demonstrate knowledge through practical application:
· Terms such a painting tool, drawing tool, compression
· Role of media in effective communication
· Characteristics,
strengths, weaknesses of different media
Expanded knowledge and skills: I can demonstrate the following skills
· Use digital camera and scanner
· Produce a video
· Set up and operate a videodisk player and TV receiver or monitor
· Locate,
evaluate and select appropriate teaching/learning resources and curriculum
materials for the content area and target audience, including computer-based
products, videotapes and discs, local experts, primary documents and artifacts,
texts, reference books, literature, and other print sources
Give an example of how you have used these
skills to help you in your personal/professional work in a few sentences:
Give an example of how you have facilitated classroom activities to engage students in the above use of skills in a few sentences:
Table 6
Once again, the participants in this study were identified as successful technology-integrating teachers and indicated that they do not all possess and/or utilize the same set of skills. Therefore, the data in this research does not support a particular list of skills to indicate a successful technology-integrating teacher. Different environments, students, interpretations, and skills utilized by successful technology-integrating teachers shows that there is no one list of skills that could identify or meet the needs of teachers in general. The skills which teachers need to be successful technology integrators in their classrooms are context specific.
Furthermore, the participants in this study helped answer the second question posed in this research, "What professional development should be provided for teachers to enable teachers to integrate technology into their curricula?" The literature describes that teachers need the following supports: time to develop as professionals, skills, a shared vision, a good attitude about technology, adequate access to technology, time to collaborate and administrative support. The participants in this study all indicated that they had the necessary time to develop as professionals due to their teaching experience
Essential Building Blocks
for Successful Technology Integration
Identified by 12 Successful Technology Integrating Teachers
(Figure 2)
of five or more years. They all indicated they possessed a large number of technological skills, although they all did not possess the same set of skills. They indicated that they possess and use from 78 to 96 separate skills. All of the participants in this study implement a constructivist, student-centered vision of effective technology use in the classroom. Additionally, the participants in this study all indicated that they personally had adequate access to technology. Finally, the participants in this study exhibited a positive attitude toward technology and its benefits to students as they use higher level thinking skills in effectively planned lessons. Therefore, the participants in this study indicated that, at a minimum, they needed professional development that:
The participants in this study succeeded, through many obstacles, to become successful technology integrators. They proactively sought adequate technology resources, by purchasing home computers and finding adequate access to technology for themselves at school. They taught themselves numerous technical skills. They provided evidence that a positive attitude toward effective technology integration benefits their students. They indicated that their students used higher level thinking skills when technology was incorporated effectively into their lessons. Finally, they used effective instructional strategies with technology in the development and implementation of curriculum. The participants in this study indicated that they did not have adequate access to technology for their students, identical sets of technical skills, the time to collaborate, and/or administrative support, yet they persevered. These teachers may have progressed through their stages of professional development towards successful technology integration faster than the 5+ years indicated in this study, had they not experienced these obstacles. Schools must work at removing these obstacles so that a larger number of teachers will succeed, possibly more rapidly, in becoming successful technology integrating teachers.
Technology Skills Model Recommendations
Having identified myself as a naturalistic, interpretive, constructivist, and/or qualitative researcher (Lincoln & Guba, 1989), I must admit that I have serious concerns about the possible uses of this research. This research was conducted to improve professional development I provide to prepare teachers to integrate technology into their classrooms. The results of this research do not support using this list of skills in isolation for assessment or training of teacher competencies. Technical and/or pedagogical skills should not be taught in isolation in any manner. Pre-service and practicing teachers should be instructed about technology integration in the classroom through modeling; where constructivist curriculum integration is stressed over technological mechanics and/or mastery of software.
The web-based final TSM (Appendix B) could be studied as a self-assessment tool for teachers seeking to become successful technology integrators. Its effect on their progress may also be of interest. This study indicates that the skills they use and develop are, at least in part, those relevant to their teaching context. Additionally, the TSM could be used to evaluate a large group of teachers’ training needs in planning professional development opportunities. However, the results of this study would not advocate the use of the Final TSM as an evaluation tool to determine an individual teacher’s ability to integrate technology into the classroom. Effective technology integration is more dependent on what a teacher does in the classroom (pedagogical techniques) than on the skills a teacher possesses (skill acquisition). A skills list cannot, therefore, evaluate a teachers' effectiveness with technology in the classroom. The TSM incorporates open-ended questions for use in assessment of abilities. This study would recommend physical classroom observation of a teacher's technology integration techniques as an effective evaluation tool to assess his/her success. The individual skills a teacher possesses does not indicate their level of successful technology integration in the classroom in any manner. This has implications for administrators and their evaluations of faculty. This study suggests that administrators must understand a shared vision of what a classroom that effectively integrates technology is comprised of to effectively evaluate their faculty’s abilities.
IMPLICATIONS
Implications for Staff Development
The data in this study support that teachers, in order to become successful technology integrators, must have access to a computer for themselves to learn a large number of self-identified technical skills. The literature reports that there are more and more computers in classrooms (QED, 1996, NCATE, 1997). The participants in this study indicated that most of their technological skills were self-taught. This is not possible without adequate personal access. Professional development literature indicates that teachers must become users of technology for real work. Being unable to imagine completing personal and professional tasks without a computer, is an identifiable stage in the progression toward successful technology integration in their classrooms (Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1996). Therefore, teachers must have access to a computer in their classroom and at home if they are to learn the large number of skills needed to become successful. This would indicate that laptops, or the flexibility to take computers home, would be beneficial for professional growth toward successful integration in the classroom.
The data in this study also support that teachers need time to progress through the several stages of professional development on the road to successful technology integration. Administration should not expect that a single course or workshop will prepare teachers to successfully integrate technology into their classrooms. The data in this study clearly indicate that teachers need time to practice, learn and experience successful techniques within the context of classrooms. The participants in this study needed years to begin to see the possibilities and benefits of technology integration for their students.
The data in this study showed that for the successful technology-integrating teachers in this study, and concurrent with the literature, the implementation of a constructivist curriculum enabled these teachers to effectively integrate technology into their classrooms. Effective technology integration was defined, for this study, as a curriculum designed from a constructivist approach that encourages students to participate in social activities where they develop an ability to readily acquire new knowledge, solve new problems and employ creativity and critical thinking in the design of new approaches to existing problems (Report to the President, 1997; Willis, Stephens and Mathew, 1996; Hall, 1996; Griest, 1993; Griest, 1996; Means, Olson and Singh, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff and Dwyer, 1997; Mergendoller, 1997; Hoffman, 1997; McKenzie, 1997). Furthermore, the skill set the teachers in this study possessed was individual and context specific. Therefore, the data in this study indicate that it might be beneficial for teachers to develop and learn self-identified set of skills within the context of effective classroom practices.
In conclusion, staff development must provide teachers with, at a minimum, adequate access to technology, time to progress through professional development stages, and opportunities to learn a large number of self-identified skills in the context of effective technology-integration, best practice, models.
Implications for Pre-service Teacher Education
The data in this study indicate that pre-service teachers must experience effective constructivist, student-centered technology integration methodologies throughout their courses of study. Technology integration is not a separate subject or course that is experienced in isolation, but one which should be included in all content areas. The road to learning how to be an effective technology integrator is a long-term process and one course, while a beginning, is not sufficient. Additionally, the data in this study indicate that pre-service teachers must repeatedly practice and observe the development of constructivist lessons that integrate technology successfully into the classroom.
Pre-service teachers, due to the context in which they are educated, are not in the position to learn how to integrate technology within the context they will be teaching. University classrooms are their most common learning environments; not grade school classrooms. A large number of the self-identified skills the teachers in this study found were essential to their success were context specific. Therefore, in order to prepare pre-service teachers to teach in a variety of contexts, they must acquire and retain a large number of technological skills. The larger the number of skills pre-service teachers possess, the better prepared s/he will be to determine which skills are essential in his/her particular teaching context upon employment. The skill building for these pre-service teachers must begin early and continue throughout their pre-service education.
In conclusion, pre-service teachers must encounter high expectations of technology use throughout their pre-service education programs. It should be utilized as a personal tool for completion of assignments and as a key component of curriculum development. Finally, technology should be experienced through modeled instruction throughout their preservice teacher education curriculum.
Implications for Policy
The data in this study indicate there is no identifiable list of acquired technological skills that a teacher could possess that would identify them as a successful technology integrator. Therefore, departments of education should not grant technology endorsements to teachers based solely on a list of acquired skills; there is no identifiable set. The results of this study would recommend the evaluation of teachers for granting a technology endorsement via observation and/or a comprehensive portfolio process that exhibits evidence of successful technology integration techniques implemented into classroom practice.
A second implication for policy from this study is that beginning teachers should not be granted a technology endorsement. The data in this study, along with the larger body of literature, supports the notion that teachers must be given adequate time to progress through the essential stages of professional development on their road to successful technology integration. Teachers must possess a large number of skills, truly understand the benefits of effective technology integration for their students and understand the negative impacts of ineffective uses of technology in the classroom.
Finally, the data in this study indicate that state agencies must assure that a teacher employs effective technology integration methodologies, such as the constructivist methodology defined in this study, via thorough examination of classroom practices. Observation is the recommended methodology for effective examination of effective integration. If there is an attempt to grant endorsements through a portfolio assessment, it is suggested that the process be diligently tested for accuracy.
Technology has the opportunity to aid in educational reform. Technology itself will not demand educational reform, but teachers who implement the use of technology into their classrooms, utilizing effective constructivist student-centered methodologies, will help ensure that technology integration is not doomed to be another discarded educational reform movement due to ineffective implementation. In preparing students for our new culture, we must ensure that their teachers effectively integrate the use of technology into their classrooms.
Further Research
I suggest that further research include a focus on teacher attitude. The participants in this study indicate that teacher attitude may be a predictor of whether or not teachers will become successful technology integrators in the classroom. This study suggests that there would be benefits from further exploration on how attitude fosters successful teachers and how one might cultivate this attitude.
A second topic for further research would be the study of the impact of a web-based Technology Skills Model as a self-assessment tool for professional development in technology integration. Would the use of this model move teachers towards effective technology integration in the classroom? Using the TSM to identify teachers who possess a large number of technical skills; yet upon observation do not use constructivist, student-centered pedagogy in their classrooms; would create interesting data for discussion. Finally, this web-based model could be studied for its effectiveness as an administrative tool in planning staff development.
Finally, the participants in this study became successful technology integrators despite various obstacles. They may not be representative of the majority of teachers in the profession. Studying teachers that do not fit into this group, successful-despite-obstacles, would shed light into what might be essential supports and/or what essential skill sets would include for a larger body of educators.
References
Adelman, N., Walking Eagle, K. and Hargreaves, A. (1997). Racing with the Clock: Making Time for Teaching and Learning in School Reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Adobe Systems Incorporated. (1999). Adobe Premiereâ [digital video editing software program]
Adobe Systems Incorporated. [online]
http://www.adobe.com.
Allaire, Corporation. (1994). Cold Fusionâ [web application sever software program] Allaire, Corporation. [online] http://www.allaire.com.
Anderson, G., Herr, K., and Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying Your Own School: An Educator’s Guide to Qualitative Practitioner Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Apple, M. (February 1992). "Computers in Schools: Salvation or Social Disaster?", Education Digest, Vol. 57, # 6, pages 47 - 52.
Beeth, M. and Others (April 1996). Teaching
From a Constructivist Paradigm: A Way of Knowing and Learning or a Case of
"Pedagogical Tricks". Paper Presented at an Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research. St.
Louis, MO. 32 pages.
Benjamin, H.R.W. (1939). Saber-Toothed Curriculum. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Bingham, M., and Kemp, I. (1997). Presenters of Springboard to Change: A Business Approach to Technology Integration Planning presented at the National Educational Computing Conference in Seattle, WA June 30 - July 2, 1997.
Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. (1981). Evaluation to improve learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bracy, B. (1998). "Rocks, Books, and Technology- Doing It Right", Learning and Leading with Technology, Vol. 23, # 9, pages 23-25.
Brown J., Collins A., and Duguid, P. (1989). "Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning", Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Cooper, P. A. (May 1993). "Paradigm Shifts in Designed Instruction: From Behaviorism to Cognitivism to Constructivism", Educational Technology, Vol. 33 #5, pages 12-19.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Doll, W. (1993). A Post-Modern Perspective on Curriculum. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Erikson, F. (1984). "What Makes School Ethnography ‘Ethnographic’?", Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 15, pages 51 - 66.
Evans-Andris, M. (1996). An Apple for the Teacher: Computers and Work in Elementary Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Fulton, K., Fagnana, C. and Boysen, T. (June 1997). Memorandum to State Technology Directors.
Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind. New York, NY: Basic Books
Glenn, A. (1993). "Teacher Education", Electronic Learning, Vol. 12, pages 18-19.
Griest, G. (April 1993). "You Say You Want a Revolution: Constructivism, Technology, and Language Arts", The Computing Teacher, Vol. 20, # 7, pages 8 - 10.
Griest, G. (1996). "Computer Education as an Obstacle to Integration and Internetworking", Learning and Leading with Technology, Vol. 24, # 8, pages 59-63.
Haig-Brown, C. and Archibald, J. (1996). "Transforming First Nations Research with Respect and Power", Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 9, # 3, pages 245-267.
Hall, L. (1996). Experienced Teachers and Computers: Creating a Community of Practice. Dissertation: The Ohio State University
Hoffman, B. (1997). "Integrating Technology into Schools", Education Digest, Vol. 62, # 5, pages 51 - 55.
Holzberg, C. (March 1997). "Hands-On Training Pays Off", Technology and Learning, Vol. 17, # 6, pages 38-40.
Hope, W. (1996). "Factors Facilitating Teachers’ Use of Computer Technology", Clearing House, Vol. 70, # 2, pages 106-107.
IBM, Corporation. (1994). Paint Brushâ [software program] IBM, Corporation. . [online] http://www.ibm.com.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (1998). [on-line] http://www.iste.org/specproj/standards/
International Technology Educational Association. (ITEA) (1998). [on-line] http://www.iteawww.org/A.html
John-Steiner, V. and Souberran, E. (1978). Afterword in L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kemner-Richardson, S., Lamos, J. P., and West, A. S. (1985). Computer-Assisted Instruction: Decision Handbook. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command.
Knupfer, N. (1993). Teachers and Educational Computing: Changing Roles and Changing Pedagogy. In Robert Muffoletto & Nancy Nelson Knupfer (eds.), Computers in Education: Social, Political & Historical Perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
Kuhn,
T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research
Interviewing. CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Kwajewski, K. (February 1997). "Technology as a Core Value", Learning and Leading with Technology, Vol. 24, # 5, pages 54 - 56.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy With in the Postmodern. NY: Routledge.
Levin, A. (Winter 1991). "The Debate Over Schooling: Influences of Dewey and Thorndike", Childhood Education, Vol. 68, #6, pg. 71-85.
Lincoln, Y. and Guba, G. (1989). Fourth
Generation Evaluation. CA: SAGE Publications,
Inc.
McKenzie, J. (1991). Adult Education and Worldview Construction. Malabar, FL: Drieger Publishing Company.
McKenzie, J. (1997). "Designing Staff Development for the Information Age", The Educational Technology Journal, Vol. 1, # 4, found [on-line] http://fromnowon.org
Mead, M. (1978). Culture and Commitment.
New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Means, B, Olson, D. and Singh, R. (1995). "Beyond the Classroom:
Restructuring Schools with Technology", Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 77,
# 2, pages 69 - 72.
Meltzer, J. and Sherman, T. (1997). "Ten Commandments to Implement Technology", Education Digest, Vol. 62, # 8, pages 56 - 61.
Mergendoler, J. (1997). "Technology and Learning: The Research", Education Digest, Vol. 62, # 8, pages 12 - 15.
McDonald, H. and Ingvarson, L. (April, 1995) "Free at Last? Teachers, Computers and Independent Learning", Research/Technical report; speech/conference paper. ED389278
Microsoft, Corporation. (1994). PowerPointâ [software program] Microsoft, Corporation. .
[online] http://www.micorsoft.com.
Moursund, D. (1998). "Effective Practices (Part 3): Technology-Enhanced Learning", Learning and Leading with Technology, Vol. 23, # 5, pages 5-6.
Murphy, V. and Thuente, K. (May 1985). "Using Technology in Early Learning Classrooms", Learning and Leading with Technology, Vol. 22, # 8, pages 8-9.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (1997). Technology and the New Professional Teacher. Preparing for the 21st Century Classroom: Position paper; Research/Technical support. ED 412201
National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) (1997). [on-line] http://www.iste.org
New Mexico Council on Technology in Education (NMCTE) (1995). Road Map to Student Success. State Department of Education: New Mexico.
New Mexico Standards and Benchmarks (1998). [on-line] http://www.cesdp.nmhu.edu/standards/index.htm
Norman, D. (1993). Things That Make us Smart. NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Norton, P. and Wiburg, K. M. (1998). Teaching with Technology. NY: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
November, A. & Thornburg, D. (1993). "What do we do with colleges of education?", Electronic Learning, Vol. 13, pages 16-17.
Pallas, A. (1996). Technology and the Three Stages of Teaching, Mid South Instructional Technology Conference Proceedings. ED400790
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pea, R. and Sheingold, K. (1987). Mirrors of Minds: Patterns of Experience in Educational Computing. Norwood: NJ, Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Quality Education Data (QED) Report. (1996). Technology in Public Schools, 15th Edition.
Report to the President on the use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States. (1997). Evaluative/Feasibility Report. ED410950
Richardson, V. (Summer 1996). "From Behaviorism to Constructivism in Teacher Education", Teacher Education and Special Education, Vol. 19, pages 263-271.
Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C. & Dwyer, D.C. (1997) Teaching with Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms. New York, NY: Teacher College, Columbia University.
The School Report. (1999). [on-line] http://www.bluerealty.com/schoolreport.htm
Steribel, M.J. (Winter 1989). "Information Technology and Physicality in Community, Place, and Presence", Theory Into Practice, Vol. 37, # 1, pages 31-38.
Stretegic Plan for New Mexico Public Schools (1997). Santa Fe, NM: State Board of Education.
Theobald (1995). "Accountability and the Struggle Over What Counts", Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 76, #6, pages 462-466.
Tuckman, B. W. (May-June 1994). "Thinking Out Loud: Do We Dare Not Be Politically Correct?", Educational Technology, Vol. 34, pages 33-34.
Tyler, R. W. (Aug-Sep 1975). "Tomorrow's Education", American Technology, Vol. 11 #7, pages 16-9, 22-3.
U.S. Census (1998). [on-line] http://www.census.gov
U.S. Department of Labor; The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, (1994). Skills and Tasks for Jobs: A SCANS Report for AMERICA 2000.
Villenas, S. (1996). "The Colonizer/Colonized Chicana Ethnographer: Identity, Marginalization, and Co-optation in the Field", Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 66, # 4, pages 711 -731.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whitehead, A.N. (1929). The Aims of Education. New York, NY: The Macmillian Company.
Wiebe, J. and Taylor, G. (June 1997). "What Should Teachers Know about Technology? A Revised Look at the ISTE Foundation", Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, Vol. 13, #4, pages 5-9.
Willis, J., Stephens, E., and Matthew, K. (1996). Technology, Reading & Language Arts. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.