Tag: classroom practices (page 3 of 4)

Abstract

This paper discusses the importance of teacher training in technology.  One important question is looked at, specifically; does training in technology lead to increased student achievement?  Following a review of current literature in this area, we look at possible answers to this question and reasons why teachers often receive less technology training than they require.

Introduction

One thing my colleagues are always complaining about when it comes to technology is a lack of adequate training in how to use technology.  A common complaint at every school I have worked at has been about how teachers are given technology to use, some of it very expensive, and not given enough training to use the technology effectively.  This is a complaint that many people in our class discussions have brought up.  A useful question to ask then is, how much of a difference does training teachers to use technology make on the performance of their students?  Assuming that student performance, however it is measured, is linked to teacher preparation, we can hypothesize that there is a relationship between training teachers how to use technology effectively, and student achievement.

Review of Current Literature

An important part of answering this question is addressing the issue of how well educational research is done in the area of technology since we need to know how good the tools are that will be used to answer this question.  Kozma (2000) discusses this issue and decides that much work needs to be done improving our current educational research practices.  He emphasizes that "Perhaps it is the paradigm rather than the researchers or the user community that needs to change."   This suggests that we need to look at how we do educational research differently but the existing ways in which we collaborate are functional.

According to Cradler, J., Freeman, M., Cradler, R., McNabb, M. (2002),"A careful review of studies shows that more than the specific technology or software used, the context in which technology is applied is critical to the educator."  The authors suggest that when training teachers to use technology in the classroom, one should focus on how the technology is useful, rather than which technology is most useful.  This seems to me to be true, except that the typical level of comfort with technology that teachers have is low enough that theory will be of no use to teachers without specific examples to draw upon and learn about.  Therefore, training sessions should be used for a balance between practical hands-on examples and the theory behind the use of technology.

To paraphrase Brand, G. A. (1997) teacher training, in the area of technology especially, should:

"be flexible, take into account various needs, [provide] provisional support, be developed collaboratively,  include remuneration and teacher recognition, be sustained, be linked to educational objectives, provide intellectual and professional stimulation with a clear administrative message."

These traits seem to be true of any professional development but especially so for technology training given that only "20% of teachers feel comfortable using technology" (Cradler et al. 2002).

One way to help ensure the successful implementation of a technology training plan, as suggested by Williams, L. A.; Atkinson, L. C.; Cate, J. M. & OHair, M. J. (2008), is to operate within a learning community environment.  Rather than operate with "top-down leadership that hinders collaboration and professional learning" schools should "creat[e] technology enriched learning communities, where technology was used as an effective tool that is tightly linked to content standards and seamlessly integrated into ongoing classroom instruction." (Williams et al 2008).  In such a learning community members work collaboratively to decide on technology policy and learn how to implement it.

Another important thread that came up in our discussions was the amount of time devoted to technology training for teachers.  According to a study by Swan, B., & Dixon, J. (2006) "mathematics teachers need continuous and relevant training and support, especially when teachers are teaching out-of-field or are new to the profession."   This is true of any teacher, especially new teachers.

Now that we have established what is necessary in order to make the necessary teacher training work, we need to look at how this training affects student learning.  A high school principal mentions in Williams et al. (2008) that with "her low socioeconomic status students … She observed increases in attendance and decreases in discipline problems in classrooms in which teachers were integrating technology with authentic teaching and learning."  Such anecdotal evidence, while heart warming, should be examined next to an analysis of data. 

In a contextually limited study, Brush, T.A. (1997) discovered that when cooperative learning is used with integrated learning systems modest gains are made in student comprehension.  He also noticed that "[i]n the cooperative group, 85% responded that they believed the computer math lessons helped them with their math classwork" suggesting a link between the social use of technology and higher self-evaluation of one’s work.

When examining the factors influencing the use and implementation of technology related to student success, Baylor, A. L. & Ritchie, D. (2002) discovered "…a strong positive relationship between teachers who had a higher degree of openness to change and the impact of technology on students’ higher-order thinking skills."  In other words, having a teacher who was willing to experiment with technology was a strong indicator of positive student learning.  This is interesting because it is unclear whether technology training would either reduce or increase experimentation.

Experimentation with technology might be increased because of improved self-confidence of the teachers related to training (Cradler et al. 2002).  It could also be decreased because technology training is almost always done by presenting different tools to the user and the teacher may end up limiting their choices to the options presented.  In this case technology training might actually be a hindrance to student success.

After discussing this issue of technology use in the classroom with my classmates in ETEC 533, a common thread has emerged.  Technology use in the classroom should be supported by sound pedagogical techniques and planning.  This view is supported by Schacter, J., and Fagnano, C. (1999) who make the same assertion.  They add "…that teachers, administrators, policymakers, and parents need to understand the learning theories and principles around which the technology is designed in order to select and implement appropriate technologies that will have a significant impact on student achievement."  So in order to make sound decisions about how and why one should use technology in the classroom, one must be trained. 

Schacter, J., and Fagnano, C. (1999) analyzed meta studies of different ways technology could be incorporated into student learning and discovered that computer based instruction has been shown to "moderately improve student learning."  Using computer support collaborative learning, Schacter, J., and Fagnano, C. (1999) discovered through their meta-analysis shows "…significant improvement in the inquiry cycle…" of student learning.  Since this is a higher order skill, one would expect this is a result of increased comprehension.

However Lesgold (2000) notes that "[technology use] may fail either because the new possibility afforded by technology is not realized in classroom practice or because the infrastructure of the school does not allow the technology to facilitate improvements."  So just because a school attempts to use technology does not guarantee that they will see improvement in student learning.  Lesgold (2000) recognizes that places which already have strong technology support are often where studies showing improved student scores are done, and may not be indicative of the typical school environment.

Lesgold (2000) makes another important observation which is relevant to our discussion.  He points out that standardized tests are often used to measure student learning, and that valuable technology experiences may not be represented by this form of assessment.  He uses the ability to "write a really good report, which may take several days" as an example of a skill not easily captured by a standardized test.  In order to therefore justify our assertion that student understanding has been improved, we need to look at a variety of assessments.  Lesgold (2000) also suggests using expert analysis of school performance factors as an alternative to standardized testing.

We would also like to show that the use of technology has a positive effect on students’ ability to think critically.  Newman,D.R., Johnson,C., Webb,B. Cochrane, C. (1995) measured levels of critical thinking demonstrated by students using educational technology by using student questionnaires and a sophisticated content-analysis technique. 

The questionnaires were useful as a self-evaluation of the students’ critical thinking skills.  The content-analysis method seemed a bit subjective in the sense that the researchers interpreted statements made by the students as either exhibiting evidence of critical thinking or not.  However it seems like one of the only ways to measure this difficult to capture skill. 

Both of these techniques, according to Newman,D.R et al. (1995) "showed evidence of similar amounts of critical thinking in both face-to-face seminars and computer conference discussions" and the content analysis showed that "…overall learn depth of critical thinking was higher when learning took place [using technology]."

Conclusion

So to summarize, we can see that in order for technology training to be successful, we have to provide ample time for sustainment of the training, and plan our training to meet the needs of the diverse group of educators present in schools.  We also need to be considering the environment in which the technology is to used and tailor the approach depending on a variety of factors, including previous levels of adoption of technology and the likelihood of continued support for the new technology.

However if this falls into place, and technology is used in a sensible, pedagogically sound way, numerous studies suggest that it can help with improving student retention and understanding of material.  A variety of reasons exist why this happens, with some studies reviewed pointing to increased student engagement, improved collaboration between students, and more effective tools for demonstrating information.

References

Antonijevic, R. (2007), Usage of Computers and Calculators and Students Achievement: Results from TIMSS 2003, Online Submission.

Baylor, A. L. & Ritchie, D. (2002), What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms?, Computers & Education 39(4), 395–414.

Brand, G. A. (1997), What Research Says: Training Teachers for Using Technology, Journal of Staff Development 19(1).

Brush, T.A. (1997), The Effects on Student Achievement and Attitudes When Using Integrated Learning Systems with Cooperative Pairs, Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1)

Cradler, J. & Bridgeforth, E. (2005), Recent Research on the Effects of Technology on Teaching and Learning, http://www.wested.org/techpolicy/research.html.

Cradler, J., Freeman, M., Cradler, R., McNabb, M. (2002), Research Implications for Preparing Teachers to Use Technology, Learning & Leading with Technology 30(1)

Cradler, J.; Mcnabb, M.; Freeman, M. & Burchett, R. (2002), How does technology influence student learning?, Learning and Leading 29(8), 46–49.

Daugherty, M. K. (1993), Mathematics, Science, and Technology Teachers Perceptions of Technology Education, Journal of Technology Education 4(2).

Erminia Pedretti, J. M. (1998). Technology, text, and talk: Students’ perspectives on teaching and learning in a technology-enhanced secondary science classroom. Science Education, 82(5), 569-589.

Glenn, A. D. (1997), ‘Technology and the Continuing Education of Classroom Teachers’, Peabody Journal of Education 72(1), 122–128.

Gonen, S.; Kocakaya, S. & Inan, C. (2006), The Effects of the Computer Assisted Teaching and 7E Model of the Constructivist Learning Methods on the Achievements and Attitudes     of High School Students, Online Submission.

Kozma, R. (2000), Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development, Educational Technology Research and Development 48(1), 5–15.

Lesgold, A. (2000), Determining the effects of technology in complex school environments, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 34–39.

Li, Q. (2005), Infusing technology into a mathematics methods course: any impact?, Educational Research Vol. 47(Issue 2), p217–p233.

Li, Q. E. (2005), Mathematics and At-Risk Adult Learners: Would Technology Help?, Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38(2), 143–166.

Maninger, R. M. (20061001), Successful Technology Integration: Student Test Scores Improved in an English Literature Course through the Use of Supportive Devices, TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning 50(5), p37 – 45.

Mitchell, B.; Bailey, J. L. & Monroe, E. (2007), Integrating Technology and a Standards-Based Pedagogy in a Geometry Classroom: A Mature Teacher Deals with the Reality of Multiple Demands and Paradigm Shifts, Computers in the Schools 24, p75 – 91.

Newman,D.R., Johnson,C., Webb,B. Cochrane, C. (1995), Evaluating the Quality of Learning in Computer Supported Co-Operative Learning, Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(6):484–495

Quellmalz, E. S. & Kozma, R. (2003), Designing assessments of learning with technology., Assessment in Education 10(3), 389–405.

Reznichenko, N. (2007), Learning with Graphing Calculator (GC): GC as a Cognitive Tool, Online Submission.

Schacter, J., & Fagnano, C. (1999). Does Computer Technology Improve Student Learning and Achievement? How, When, and under What Conditions?. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(4), 329-43. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ603784) Retrieved February 13, 2009, from ERIC database.

Shacter, J. & Fagnano, C. (1999), EBSCOhost: Does Computer Technology Improve Student Learning and Achievement? How, When and under What Conditions?, Journal of Educational Computing Research 20(4), 329–343.

Swan, B., & Dixon, J. (2006). The effects of mentor-supported technology professional development on middle school mathematics teachers’ attitudes and practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 6(1).

Williams, L. A.; Atkinson, L. C.; Cate, J. M. & OHair, M. J. (2008), Mutual Support Between Learning Community Development and Technology Integration: Impact on School     Practices and Student Achievement, Theory Into Practice 47(4), 294–302.

Zhiting, Z. (2003), Teachers Professional Development in Technology-Pedagogy Integration: Experiences and Suggestions from China.

Assignment as follows:

In response to Kozma (example article) and the above questions, create your own personal, short statement on an ideal pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced learning experience for math and/or science.

As I think about this problem, I am considering the following variables which influence my ideal design.

• Students are social creatures.  Learning that happens within a social context is much more likely to be lasting and valuable. Students should therefore be working together.
• Technology is a valuable tool we can use to help us with our lessons.  It is not a replacement for well designed lessons.  Therefore our lesson must have a back-up plan in case the technology fails, and the technology should not be the exclusive focus of the lesson.
• Knowledge is generally constructed within a context.  In other words, students add new things they learn within the context of what they know.   We can use technology to help with this process, for example students could include what they work on as part of an e-portfolio, which would help them keep track of what they have learned.  If they also tag each item they add to their electronic portfolio, then they can be simultaneous categorizing their discoveries as well as cementing the connections each topic has with what they already know.
• At the end of the day, we want the students to have learned something about mathematics or science, and what they learn about technology should not be the focus of the lesson.  The mathematical or scientific concept to be learned should be one that is condusive to learning through technology.
• Like most good lessons, the focus of the lesson should be on what the students can do, and not what the teacher can say.  So an ideal lesson would involve the teacher avoiding the ‘sage on the stage’ role and become more of a resource manager.

An example of an technology-enhanced lesson would be the following:

1. Before the students enter the room, the teacher has used some simple network tools (like Remote Desktop for example) to set up all of the computers in the room so they are ready to go.
2. Student enter the room and sit in their assigned seats, and are quickly briefed, either in electronic form or by the teacher, on what the objectives are for the day.  During the lesson, students keep track of bookmarks to things they discovered and/or created during the lesson.
3. Students self gather into small groups and begin to digest the information given to them.  Basically they read and reread the problem they are presented so that they understand it.
4. Using tools they have learned in previous classes and any other suggested tools presented by the teacher, students begin to plan an investigation into a mathematical or scientific phenomena.  While this is going on, both students record notes while chatting with other about what their plan of action will be.  The teacher circulates around the room at this stage and gives advice on what might work, and what might not.
5. Students try out their chosen plan of action, and the teacher supports each plan and provides assistance where necessary.  Students make sure to electronically record their observations.
6. Students discuss with each other using an online public forum what they discovered.  Teacher joins and guides the discussion.  Each student logs their participation in the discussion.
7. Students write a quick summary of what they have learned, and use the bookmarks to their various resources they have gathered to create a mash-up of what they learned in class that day.
8. Once the students leave, the teacher examines what each student has produced (using an RSS feed or similar technology) and writes down his/her own observations on the class, and decides how he/she will either refocus the next lesson, or move onto new material.
9. At the end of the semester, each student’s e-Portfolio is used as a primary assessment of what the student has learned.

For my ETEC 533 class, I am planning on writing a short essay analyzing some current research on the effect of technology training for teachers on student achievement.  I’m interested in this because it combines two things I’m currently working on improving in my own professional practice, effective use of technology and leading professional development.

Here are some research links I’m planning on looking into in more detail:

• http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm
• http://www.wested.org/techpolicy/research.html
• Recent Research on the Effects of Technology on Teaching and Learning
• What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms?
• http://fnopress.com/howlearn.html
• New directions in the evaluation of the effectiveness of Educational Technology
• http://www.springerlink.com/content/p320t7r40n21qn71/
• Does computer learning improve student achievement?

Most of these links approach the idea from the perspective that if using technology shows no improvement on student scores, then teaching teachers how to use it will not have an effect either.  Assuming we can clarify that hurdle the next step is to show if there is a relationship between the amount of teacher training in a technology and its effectiveness in increasing student achievement.

Part of any useful activity is to make sure you reflect upon the outcome of that activity afterward.  This reflection helps you improve your practice and retain the connections you have developed through the course of the activity for a longer period of time.  Sustainable practice is only possible through careful reflection.

We just finished a week long exercise where we were to interview a person in our school or workplace and find out what their use of technology is, and what they think about the use of technology in a classroom.  After transcribing and analyzing the interview, we were supposed to post our observations to our class forum.  Once we finish our discussion, the last step is to write down what we got out of doing the activity.  My answers to the guiding questions are below.

How is your understanding of this issue changing? 

Well first I realized that there were some common threads between all of the interviews.  I had not thought that everyone had the same considerations about how to use technology, so it was encouraging to see some agreement between some very different people.  Pretty much everyone agreed that technology was most useful (or would lack use if this isn’t present) when it is carefully included as part of a repetoire of tools.  Technology should not be used for technology’s sake alone.

I was also surprised by how many people indicated an almost complete lack of support for training in their workplace for the use of technology.  In fact, I sent off a suggestion to my Alma Mater for a technology training course at my university and received a well reasoned out negative response.  It seems that even some teacher training programs are reluctant to take on the role of helping teachers come to grips with their technology woes.

What more would you like to learn or know?

I’d like to have more data.  Our anecdotal evidence was pretty convincing but there are definitely some sampling errors introduced by our biases when selecting interviewees.  It is unlikely that any Luddites would have consented to being interviewed for example, so most of us probably selected people who had some opinion about technology, one way or another.  A nationwide survey of teachers, where we find out what technology they use, where they want additional support, and what technology would they like to be able to use, would be a really useful tool. 

In what ways was your interview unique or similar to others?

Well my interview felt unique in the sense that the person being interviewed didn’t complain about the cost of the technology.  This is probably because we both currently work in a private school where the per student expenditures are higher than in a typical public school.  As well, our labour costs are incredibly cheap because of our location (Thailand) so the school has a much stronger budget for technology.

I’ve already mentioned a major similarity between my interview and other interviews, which was that technology as a tool  needs to be implemented carefully and not haphazardly.  Without this, it lacks purpose and can end up getting in the way of student understanding.

What does this say about the context/place or the issue?

It seems to me that, in terms of context, the use of technology is very similar in a wide variety of situations, but specific issues that arise can be quite location dependent.  In my school we have excellent physical resources, but lack strong internet connectivity.  Many of the videos and simulations we’d like to be able to use, for example, are much too bandwidth intensive to be useful in our part of the world.  However, unlike other schools we have all of the hardware that we need.  Instead of debating the cost of LCD projectors in classrooms, we have LCD projectors in every classroom in my school.  The context of the discussion that occurs is therefore very important as different observations can be made in different schools.  What seemed to be contextless however was the realization of all the participants in our discussion that technology, when used wisely, is a powerful educational tool.

Which issue do you want to explore further and why?

I’d like to have more of a  discussion about different types of technology.  I’d also like to be able to contact some of the people who were interviewed (which of course we cannot do because of privacy concerns) and get some more ideas from them.  Many of the teachers were mathematics teachers who had some very interesting ideas on how to use technology.

Here is a quote from my class.  This guy has it right on.

• all students would have laptops with integrated cameras, microphones, speakers
  
• all students would work through configurable simulations of key concepts
  
• all students would have full-time access to all the knowledge (and cruft) on the internet
  
• students would track their own learning in a public learning log, possibly using blog or wiki software
  
• anything that students say is within their core competency, they can be tested on
  
• tests are given one person at a time, whenever the students are ready
  
• teachers are there to teach concepts, lead labs, and ensure students are roughly on track with a learning schedule that will ensure they learn all needed concepts for state/provincial standards
  
• frequently, students who have learned a concept would take a turn explaining it to the class. Who could do this and how often would be loosely coordinated schoolwide, so that as much as possible all students get opportunities to present in areas of their strengths
  
• students would interact with others in learning communities all over the world via Skype. Sometimes a distance or foreign student might lead a discussion on a certain concept. (Note: I’m in conversation almost daily with members of my team in Italy, Norway, Ukraine, China, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates.) The school would seek out 5-6 learning institutions at similar levels and timetables so there’s a baseline of collaborators to start with, but students could talk to anyone if they’re on-topic.
  
• teachers would frequently bring in social media output of practicing scientists/mathemeticians who are web2.0 producers when appropriate, helping to show relevance

– John Koetsier in ETEC 533.

This kind of classroom sounds fantastic to be in.  Instead of having to spoon feed a bunch of students who don’t really want to know what you are offering anyway, you as a teacher get to become a mentor and guide.  Students would be actively engaged and definitely interested in what they are doing.  Given that in our current system many students learn material which they never use again, and fail to learn even the most rudimentary of research skills, this kind of school would empower students to set their own goals and seek their own understandings of how things work.  The existance kind of school would be a sign that standardized testing would soon be getting a run for its money.

Obviously there are logistical things to work out.  How do we fund such a program, and how to we set graduation requirements so that a time-line for completing of high school still happens?

Questions like, "How do we make sure the students are being productive and not messing around all day?", "Can we make sure that some sort of basic curriculum gets covered in this scenario?", and "Will any students choose hard enough things to study that we will have people entering mathematics, physics and engineering at the university level?" are also a concern.

I think that the first two questions are legitimate, at least in our current paradigm.  I suspect that an open learning style like this would help save money that is spent on various classroom management initiatives (think study hall, detentions, jails…) and save society enough money to pay for these types of schools itself.  The second question is one where we can only answer it by realizing that suddenly, there is no need for a time-line to complete high school.  Students who are able to demonstrate competency in enough areas to attract interest in a university are free to go there.  Otherwise students will be trying to demonstrate their competencies to potential employers instead, and when they are ready, they can leave high school too.

Anyway, if anyone knows a place where education like this occurs at the high school level, or anything like it, let me know I’d love to visit.