1 OF A SITE BASED, TECHNOLOGY RELATED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOCUSED ON INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND CLASSROOM RESPONSE SYSTEMS By SHREYA J. DESAI A DISS ERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 Shreya J. Desai
3 To my loving and supportive parents Jayant and Sharmishtha
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my parents for their love, patience, and support through this degree program and dissertation process; without them, it would have been most difficult to persevere. I a lso thank my brother Vidit my and my friends especially Harold, for their encouragement, support, and understanding. The encouragement of my parents and friends was an essential factor in the completion of my doctoral program and this dissertation. I thank Dr. Kara Dawson, chair of my committee, for her guidance and knowledge through the dissertation process. I also thank Dr. Swapna Kumar and Dr. Erik Black for serving as mentors throughout the doctoral program and dissertation proce ss. I am grateful to them for their continued support, expertise, and mentorship. This dissertation also would not have been possible without the assistance of Jacki Donaldson, who assisted me with the final piece of the dissertation. I acknowledge the assistance of the teachers and principal at my school for their participation in this project; I appreciate their willingness to participate in the study
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 17 Purpose Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 21 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 23 Organization of the Capstone ................................ ................................ ................. 24 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 Professional Development ................................ ................................ ...................... 26 Effective Design Components of 21 st Century Professional Development ....... 27 Impact of Professional Development ................................ ................................ 31 Technology Initiatives in K 12 Education ................................ ................................ 33 Technology Integration ................................ ................................ ........................... 37 Technology Related Professional Development ................................ ..................... 38 Facto rs That Facilitate the Application of Technology Related Professional Development ................................ ................................ ................................ 39 Ineffective Factors of Existing Technology Related Professional Development ................................ ................................ ................................ 42 Technology Related Professional Development and Successful Technology Integration ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 43 Interactive Whiteboards ................................ ................................ .......................... 44 Classroom Response Systems ................................ ................................ ............... 45 Student Outcomes as a Result of Technology Integration ................................ ...... 47 Best Practices of Technolo gy Related Professional Development ......................... 50 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 51 3 DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 53
6 Needs Assessment: Prior to the Technology Related Professional Development Sessions ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 53 Purpose and Goals of Technology Related Professional Develo pment ................. 54 Technology Related Professional Development Sessions ................................ ...... 56 Development of Session ................................ ................................ ................... 56 Session Activities ................................ ................................ ............................. 59 Demonstration and Explanation of Interactive Whiteboard and Classroom Response System Methods and Research Based Strategies for Implementing the To ols Into Instruction ................................ ................................ ..................... 60 Collaboration and Lesson Plan Development ................................ ......................... 61 Hands On Sessions for Practice ................................ ................................ ............. 62 Orientation/Overview ................................ ................................ ........................ 62 Objective ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 63 Sessions 1 and 2: IWB Lesson Content ................................ ........................... 63 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 63 Sessions 3 and 4: CRS Lesson Content ................................ .......................... 65 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 65 Support and Mentoring ................................ ................................ ..................... 66 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 66 4 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 68 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 68 Participants and Sample ................................ ................................ ......................... 70 Context of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 72 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 73 Question 1: Perceptions ................................ ................................ ................... 73 Interview ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 74 Reflection logs ................................ ................................ ........................... 75 Question 2: Technology Applications ................................ ............................... 76 Classroom observation ................................ ................................ .............. 76 Lesson plan framework ................................ ................................ .............. 77 Researcher reflective journal ................................ ................................ ..... 78 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 79 Organize the Data ................................ ................................ ............................ 79 Familiarize the Data ................................ ................................ ......................... 80 Identify Categories and Generate Them es ................................ ....................... 80 Code the Data ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 80 Interpret the Data ................................ ................................ ............................. 81 Researcher Subjectivit y, Trustworthiness/Validity, and Limitations of the Study .... 81 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 83 5 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 84 Question 1: Perceptions ................................ ................................ .......................... 84 Effective Components of Technology Related Professional Development ....... 86 On site ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 87
7 Ongoing ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 87 Reflective ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 88 Support ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 90 Collaboration ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 92 Negative Perceptions/Barriers of Technology Related Professional Development ................................ ................................ ................................ 94 Tech nical difficulties ................................ ................................ ................... 94 Time and limitations ................................ ................................ ................... 95 Teacher Perception of Student Effects ................................ ............................. 96 Student engagement and enjoyment ................................ ......................... 97 Knowledge of content matter ................................ ................................ ..... 98 Modifications/Suggestions for Technology Re lated Professional Development ................................ ................................ ................................ 99 Personal and customized sessions ................................ .......................... 100 One on one facilitator ................................ ................................ .............. 101 Question 2: Technology Applications ................................ ................................ .... 101 Use of Technologies ................................ ................................ ....................... 103 Teacher behavior ................................ ................................ ..................... 104 Student behavior ................................ ................................ ...................... 105 Use of Research Based Strategies ................................ ................................ 107 Use of peer instruction ................................ ................................ ............. 107 Use of dialogic teaching ................................ ................................ ........... 108 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 109 6 DISCUSSION AND IMPL ICATIONS ................................ ................................ ..... 110 Summary of the Study ................................ ................................ .......................... 110 Discussion of Results ................................ ................................ ............................ 112 Add itional Outcomes ................................ ................................ ............................. 118 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 119 Small Group and Site Based ................................ ................................ .......... 121 One on One Faci l itator and Support ................................ ............................... 122 Choices and Time to Practice ................................ ................................ ......... 123 Recommendations for Future Sessions ................................ ......................... 124 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 128 APPENDIX A PROMPTED QUESTIONS ................................ ................................ ................... 130 B LESSON PLAN FRAMEWORK ................................ ................................ ............ 131 C PEER AND DIALOGIC INSTRUCTION STRATEGIES ................................ ........ 132 D CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ ................................ 134 E REFLE CTION LOG/JOURNAL ................................ ................................ ............. 136
8 F INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE ................................ ................................ ........... 138 G POST TRPD INTERVIEW ................................ ................................ .................... 139 H CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT ................................ .................... 140 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 143 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 160
9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Overview of sessions ................................ ................................ .......................... 59 4 1 Alignment of research questions with data collection and a nalysis methods ...... 73 4 2 Timeframe for each phase of data collection and analysis ................................ 79
10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Influence in the design of TRPD ................................ ................................ ......... 57 5 1 Perceptions concept map ................................ ................................ ................... 86 5 2 Applications concept map ................................ ................................ ................. 102
11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CRS Classroom Response Systems IWB Interactive Whiteboard PD Professional Development TRPD Technology Related Professional Development
1 2 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education OF A SITE BASED, TECHNOLOGY RELATED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRA M FOCUSED ON INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND CLASSROOM RESPONSE SYSTEMS By Shreya J. Desai December 2012 Chair: Kara Marie Dawson Major: Curriculum and Instruction based, te chnology related professional development (TRPD) program focused on the i nteractive w hiteboard (IWB) and the c lassroom r esponse s ystem (CRS) and the TRPD sessions. One p perceptions of their experiences in a site based TRPD workshop and to specifically engagement in a middle schoo l context. A secondary purpose was to explore the ways in which teachers use the IWB and the CRS in their specific content areas after attending TRPD sessions. To reach these objectives, I employed a qualitative methodology to gather detailed data about experiences, and integrations regarding the IWB and the CRS, both of which are used to engage students. Data collection included classroom observations, interviews, reflection logs, and lesson plan artifacts Based on the results of the design, I intend to create school wide, site based staff development workshops that are effective with
13 teachers and serve as customizable resources for other technology specialists across the county
14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 p rovides an introduction of the capstone ; it includes the background of the problem, statement of the problem, purpose of the capstone, conceptual framework, and significance of the study. Chapter 1 concludes with an overview of the capstone. The 21 st ce ntury marked by a competitive, technological, and global economy, makes it necessary for students to acquire new skills in order to learn and succeed (Burkhardt et al., 2003; Cuban, 2001). Literacy is an important 21 st century skill, and to be literate i and creatively, as well as process large amounts of information and solve complex problems. Literacy encompasses more than reading and writing it includes the ability to use ne w forms of technology and to analyze the information presented through higher order thinking, inquisitiveness, creativity, and elasticity (Rakes, Fields, & Cox, 2006; Rakow, 2007). According to the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE, 2008), com ponents of 21 st century literacy include proficiently using technological tools, solving problems, and critically analyzing and evaluating multimedia information. Conceptual knowledge of subject matter is important. Student learning of content should inv olve the application of conceptual knowledge to reasoning and problem solving (Cass, Cates, Smith & Jackson, 2003). Educational technology can enhance student learning in ways that deeply engage students in content matter and its relevance to the real wo rld, thereby increasing higher order thinking skills, such as problem solving and decision making (Rakes et al., 2006). Educational technology is also critically important for preparing students for the future by teaching them 21 st century skills, such as content literacy (Shaunessy, 2005). Due to the value of
15 educational technology, the No Child Left Behind Act ( NCLB, 200 2 ) and the U.S. Department of Education ( ED, 2004 ) have raised the bar on technology proficiency expectations for all students. These school reform initiatives require more levels in order to meet the demands of the 21 st century. These national initiatives have led to a focus on increasing skills bey ond basic reading and writing, to include problem solving, critical thinking, and communication (Wagner, 2008). Twenty first century skills are also supported by organizations such as the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2008 ), wh ich have implemented technology standards (National Educational Technology Standards [NETS]) that encompass and emphasize the importance of problem solving, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking. Technology helps engage students with meaningf ul, relevant, and personalized learning that can further their academic progress (North Central Regional Educational Library [ NCREL] 2001). The school district in which I work provides funds to supply and maintain technology in its schools. The interact ive whiteboard ( IWB ) is one technological tool that is commonly used throughout these schools. IWBs exist in many classrooms throughout the United States (Blanchette, 2009), including the school in which this study was conducted. Studies on IWB usage in the classroom demonstrate increased student involvement in learning (Painter, Whiting, & Wolters, 2005). In many cases, however, IWBs are used only as visual aids to support teacher centered or traditional approaches to instruction (Glover, Miller, Aver i s & Door, 2007). When IWBs are used interactively, they target varying learning styles, such as those responsive to verbal, kinesthetic and visual stimuli (Glover et al 2007), and they lead to student
16 engagement. Effective use of IWBs also allows for interactive learning (Mildenhall, Swan, Northcote, & Marshall, 2008). Another technological tool used by my school district is the classroom response system ( CRS ) The CRS is used to provide formative and summative assessments that promote higher learnin g and prepare students for the rigors of standardized testing ( Cotner, Fall, Wick, Walker, & Baepler, 2008; Kenwright, 2009; Koenig, 2010; Penuel, Boscardin, Masyn, & Crawford, 2007; Salemi, 2009). Teachers use the CRS as a tool to help increase student e ngagement, provide immediate feedback, and encourage higher levels of thinking (Blood & Nell, 2008; Cotner et al., 2008). The IWB and the CRS are emerging tools used in schools to equip students with 21 st century skills by promoting higher levels of cogni tion and improving student engagement. They also satisfy federal initiatives calling for technology use in the classroom. Before teachers can successfully implement technology in the classroom, however, they must learn how to integrate educational techno logy skills into their existing curricula in order to teach new skills to their students. Many factors lead to technology rich curricula, and the amount of time a teacher practices with technology is possibly the most influential factor (Hew & Brush, 2007 ). Although the use of technology alone is not sufficient, the effective use of technology focused on a content area is important ( Flick & Bell 2000 ; Garofalo, Drier, Harper, Timmerman, & Shockey, 2000 ; Mason et al. 2000) ; therefore, TRPD sessions corre lated with content areas are needed for teachers. The pressure on teachers in my school district to better engage students and increase conceptual knowledge of content matter has increased with the requirements
17 of the newly implemented teacher evaluation rubric. School administrators and teachers have increasingly turned toward technological tools, such as the IWB and the CRS, as a means of accomplishing student engagement that promotes not only higher learning but also 21 st century skills. This study extent to which the instructional practices in their classrooms changed following their TRPD experiences Problem Statement Teachers engage in professional development (PD) sessions every year, but participation is limit ed due to a variety of reasons, such as the frequency of on site TRPD offerings and the effectiveness of implemented TRPD sessions (Klingner, Ahwee, Piloneita, & Menendez, 2002). Teachers may need to learn new methods, and fragmented PD sessions do not se rve this need (Johnson, 2006). If contextual material only addresses few and sparse topics, which are of little interest to participating teachers, teachers are not likely to attend sessions (Nat ional Research Council, 2000). Failure to account for teach of traditional PD For instance, a highly skilled teacher m ight attend the same workshop as a teacher not skilled in the same areas (Hirsh & Killion, 2009). Moreover, traditional methods of PD tend to be one s ize fits all approach es, which often fail to provide teachers with the proper amount of experiences to implement workshop information in their classrooms (Desimone, Smith, & Ueno, 2006). The main reason traditional methods do not work is because they fai l to include ongoing on the job support or feedback for teachers (Desimone et al., 2006 ). Lockwood, McComb s and Marsh (2010) reported that only a small percentage of teachers (less than 15%) generalized their learning from traditional sessions into their
18 classrooms. Furthermore, traditional PD sessions generally include only 1 to 2 days of workshops that often occur off site, on teacher planning days or weekends, and with little or no sustained support, such as a follow up contact with facilitators and f ellow participants (Wei, Darling Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009 ). Other problems with traditional PD sessions include a failure to focus on the needs of teachers and a lack of consideration regarding varying content matter taught by teachers (Engstrom & Danielson, 2006; Guskey, 2002). The frequency of TRPD sessions in schools and the effectiveness of those implemented are limited. Current TRPD sessions also follow a traditional PD model and, thus, endure similar limitations. In ad dition, traditional TRPD sessions tend to focus on technological tools rather than the processes of integrating technology in classrooms. Little attention has been placed on the pedagogy of integrating technology in classrooms (Earle, 2002). Technology o n its own does not improve learning. Technology integration encompasses both tools and content, and it involves effective and sound teaching practices. It also involves using technological tools to deliver content and practices, and it focuses on curricu lum and learning. TRPD sessions should not focus on the type of technological tools and the amount of use, but on how and why the tools are used (Earle, 2002). Second order barriers are intrinsic to the teacher and are evident by way of teacher beliefs a nd pedagogies (Ertmer, 1999). These barriers could yield counterproductive effects on workshops because teachers m ight will never fully develop if they are not monitored t hereafter.
19 The initial need for this study stemmed from an informal and brief survey I conducted at the end of the 2010 2011 school year. A majority (80%) of teachers stated that existing TRPD sessions were not meeting their professional learning needs. They expressed the desire for on site support to provide technological troubleshooting while they implemented technological tools in their classrooms. Another impetus for this study was the request from local teachers for opportunities to participate in effective PD sessions offering instruction in the proper use of the technology available at their schools. According to these teachers, PD sessions were ineffective in developing necessary knowledge and skills for using technology, teaching with technolo gy, or both. sessions were offered off site, occurred in just 1 day provided no support, and were not This study focuse d on the prob lem of teachers reporting that workshops d o not provide the necessary skills and follow up support to allow them to confidently use technology in their classrooms. The content, context, and design of PD sessions are the key ingredients that create (or do n ot create) a substantial impact (Wei et al., 2009). In relation to these three dimensions, research indicates that PD sessions should focus on practical activities or hands on work to increase content knowledge and teaching skills (Desimone, Porter, Garet Yoon, & Birman, 2002 ). In addition, PD sessions must extend beyond the traditional duration of 1 to 2 days (Darling Hammond, 1998; Garet Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). The focus of PD sessions should be on the best practices that promote lea rning (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2009). Furthermore, current forms of PD sessions need to follow the
20 National Staff Development Council guidelines (NSDC, 20 11 b ), which are intended to provide a connection between PD sessions and teacher learning, to include collaboration, ongoing support, and feedback. Essentially, teachers are able to transfer their knowledge and skills to their classrooms when their PD needs are met (Mouza, 2002/2003). Finally, one can note that traditiona l PD sessions support a behaviorist learning theory ( i.e., a direct instructional format) and a student learning approach, instead of a constructivist learning theory, a constructivist teaching approach, and adult learning principles. Since t he success of PD sessions is influenced by how well teachers implement them in their classrooms (Southerland, Smith, Sowell, & Kittelson, 2007 ) it is important to design PD sessions based on constructivist and adult learning principles Purpose Statement The purpose o f this study was two fold: to examine the perceptions of middle based TRPD sessions with the IWB and the CRS and to explore the ways in which teachers transferred what they learned from TRPD into the ir classrooms after participating in the sessions. Teachers are change agents within the school system, and they are tasked with improving student create successful sessions (Anderson 2002). Perceptions may vary among teachers, depending on their instructional methodologies and pedagogies (Southerland et al 2007 TRPD offerings and the tr ansfer of the knowledge and skills that occur in their classrooms as a result of the sessions. It is also imperative that teachers share whether their learning affects their perceptions of change in their classrooms.
21 Conceptual Framework Use of 21 st centu ry technology to support academic learning involves higher order processing skills, such as critical thinking and problem solving. These skills are embedded in the constructivist theoretical framework (Rakes et al., 2006 ; Shaunessy, 2005), which involves a pedagogical thought process (Molebash & Fisher, 2003). meaning and knowledge of subject material and, consequently, to manage this newly constructed information. Acco rding to this theory, based on the works of researchers such as Piaget, Dienes, and Brunet ( Lynn & Wheelock, 1997 ), previous knowledge is combined with new learning and experiences that lead to construction of new knowledge. Its central tenets state that humans learn by actively constructing and reconstructing their knowledge. In other words, individuals create knowledge out of new information by constructing new relationships with their learning in order to accommodate new knowledge ( Lynn & Wheelock, 199 7 ). In the constructivist approach, learners participate in activities that foster communication during and after learning development. These activities provide the opportunities for individuals to collaborate and share in the process of forming their ide as (Lunenburg, 1998). This collaborative process allows learners to develop a shared understanding of the topic (Richardson, 2003). Self reflection is a key element in this process, allowing learners to develop a meta awareness of their own understanding s and learning, which further assists in the retention of knowledge. Andragogy is an adult learning theory suggesting that learning activities should focus on adult needs and should allow adult input in sessions. If teacher input is taken into conside ration when designing TRPD sessions, teachers will be more motivated to
22 engage in lesson activities ; thus, teachers should be given opportunit ies to provide input on the content and information they are going to learn. This process allows them to carry ov er the knowledge gained in the sessions into their classrooms. Adult learning theories, such as andragogy and the constructivist approach, should be taken into consideration when designing TRPD sessions in order to be benefit teachers. Teachers are more likely to commit to the learning activities if the objectives are important and relevant. The daily activities of TRPD sessions must be in line with and relevant to and sp ecific experiences they can apply to authentic settings (Knowles, 1980). TRPD sessions must be structured in a manner that provides the support adult learners need. Teachers should have the option of participating in small group activities to prepare the m for applying in their classrooms their knowledge and skills. Preferably, TRPD sessions should be designed based on andragogy and the constructivist theory. This aim of this study was to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by examining how TRPD sessions grounded in constructivist learning approaches ; andragogy ; and effective research experiences of TRPD and integration of the IWB and the CRS to influence student engagement of content material. The two research questions that were explored in this study were: What are the perceptions of middle school teachers of the site based IWB and CRS PD? How do middle school teachers use IWB and CRS tools after participating in a site bas ed PD opportunity ?
23 Significance of the Study This study will make a significant contribution to the educational technology field makes TRPD effective. This contribution to TRPD research will aid future teacher workshop initiatives designed to affect the instructional practices of teachers, especially need proper PD sessions focusi ng on the use and implementation of technological tools in their classrooms (Keller, Bonk, & Hew, 2005; Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007; Sandholtz, Ringerstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). The goals for effective TRPD include encouraging leadership, promoting collaborativ e learning, providing adequate time for application in the classroom, focusing on content knowledge, and including resources and support ( e.g., an on site technology support representative). Technological tools, such as technical and collegial support cou pled with TRPD, can transform educational practices, especially in the area of conceptual knowledge. The TRPD activities used in this study follow corresponding literature review (Chapter 2) of the six principles of best practices in TRPD These include adult learning principles, content specific topics ongoing facilitator support and feedback, focus on peer collaboration, standards based lesson development, and reflection. It is important for TRPD in school s to focus not only on the IWB and the CRS b ut also on effective teaching practices using technology. In general, more workshops are needed in order for teachers to use technology effectively in the ir classroom s (Zevenbergen & Lerman, 2007 ). Based on teacher input via lesson plans, interviews, ref lection logs, and classroom observations, this qualitative study experience provided implications and
24 recommendations for the future design of effective TRPD sessions at school sites and in the county. The purpose of using this research design was to unde rstand what changes occur red in classrooms when teachers participate d in site based TRPD their experiences as a result of the participation. The qualitative methodology (Cre swell, 2003; Yin, 2009) also yielded detailed information used to assemble rich The sample population consisted of five teachers from the same school. Data was gathered during and after TRPD ses sions via semi structured open ended interviews; classrooms observations; and artifacts from teaching, such as lesson plans and reflection logs (Shaunessy, 2005), to examine the impact of the sessions and to add 009). The results of the study will provide designers of staff development workshops with the variables that should be considered in the planning of TRPD programs, at least with similar populations Organization of the Capstone This capstone is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 includes the introduction, problem statement purpose statement and significance of the study. Chapter 2 features a review of the literature, which addresses PD, TRPD best practices, technology integration, and student outco mes as a result of technology integration. Chapter 3 describes the TRPD and explains the procedures used to gather data. Chapter 4 details the methodology and limitations of the study. Chapter 5 highlights the results of the study, and the capstone conc ludes with Chapter 6, which describes implications for future studies.
25 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Much research has been conducted on PD and its impact on teacher learning (Guskey, 2003b ; Vontz & Lemig, 2006 ; Wei et al 2009 ) Despite challenges in im plementing effective PD, such as time and money restrictions, PD sessions can positively influence student achievement if they are designed using effective research based components. According to research conducted by Detert, Louis, and Schroeder (2001), teacher PD is not a priority at many schools, and, consequently, teachers are left to pursue their own staff development opportunities at other locations. Effective PD sessions can generate profound changes in classroom instruction, though, and as a resu lt, can bolster student achievement (Darling Hammond Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; NSDC, 2011 a ). the classroom. At the same time, federal government stan dards and recent reform initiatives have concentrated on technology as a way to engage and prepare students for the 21 st century ( ISTE 2007; NCTE 2008; Partnership for 21 st Century Skills Framework, 2009). Reforms, in turn, guide the constant changes in standards and assessments and drive the focus of PD sessions. The purposes of this literature review are to examine the importance and impact of PD and to explore the effective components of TRPD. This review summarizes current research on the component s of PD necessary for effective technology use in the classroom and the potential impact of technology use on overall teacher instructional practices and student performance. The following topics will be discussed: professional development, technology ref orm
26 initiatives, technology integration, TRPD, the IWB, the CRS, student outcomes as a result of technology integration and best practices of TRPD Professional Development The purpose of PD is to help build and expand upon work related knowledge, skills, and behaviors (Guskey, 2003b; Wei et al., 2009). Due to recent changes influenced by national reforms and standards, teachers require continuing education so they can develop as professionals and improve the quality of their teaching (Desimone et al. 20 06; Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007). Teachers are vehicles of change, and they need innovative skills and adequate knowledge to meet the needs of students in the information age (Lock, 2006). Effective PD leads to teachers learning new skills and influencing changes in classroom practices, which can increase student achievement (Darling Hammond et al., 2009; Mundry & Loucks Horsley, 1999) by suppor t ing the implementation of curricula ( Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007 ). According to the NSDC (201 1 a ), the goal of staff development workshops is to increase student achievement via teacher continuing education. Accordingly, the NSDC has created standards to help guide PD programs, which benefit students by preparing teachers with the skills and knowl edge necessary for effective 21 st century classroom learning. Requirements include that PD should be results driven, standards based, and job embedded (Lauer, Stoutemeyer, & Van Buhler, 2005; NSDC, 2011 b ). Results driven PD involves examining student dat a and student outcomes that result from professional development sessions. Standards based PD requires that all professional development sessions focus on standards and objectives for accountability purposes (Sparks & Hirsh, 2000). Job embedded PD allows teachers to engage in learning opportunities during the school day and on site (Sparks & Hirsh, 2000).
27 Effective Design Components of 21 st Century Professional Development Given the significant amount of research conducted on teacher workshops over the pa st 10 years, it is clear that there are many factors to consider when designing an effective PD experience (Loucks Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003). There are many existing models, structures, and concentrations for PD; however, the type of PD targeted is not as important as the level at which teachers are actively involved (Garet et al., 2001). Among other factors, effective PD must be ongoing (Bryan, 2000; Desimone et al., 2006; Hawley & Valli, 1999; Hirsh, Mizell, & Aviss Spedding, 2005; Lock, 2006; Salpeter, 2003; Slavit, Sawyer, & Curley, 2003; Williams & Kingham, 2003) and must provide support (Berry, Hoke, & Hirsh, 2004; Lock, 2006) and follow up (Salpeter, 2003). With ongoing sessions that are sustained and site based, teachers have ample time to implement learned strategies in their classrooms (Culp, relevance to learning (Wagner, 200 8 ). Ongoing support is necessary for teachers to apply learned ski lls into their curricul a and classrooms (Lock, 2006). Classroom assistance is necessary, especially when attempting to develop and implement innovative te aching strategies. Advantages o f site based, job embedded workshops are that they occur during teach er workdays, and teachers can immediately apply in their own environments what they learn (Lock, 2006 ; Loucks Horsley, 1995), allowing for increased relevancy to their own contexts. If PD sessions are site based and sustained over time, PD can be effect ive and of high quality (Haar, 200 1 ; Linek, Fleener, Fazio, Raine, & Klakump, 2003; S alpeter, 2003). For PD to be durable and effective in transforming teacher practices, it should also be aimed toward improving student outcomes and collaboration (Hawley & Valli, 1999 ;
28 Salpeter, 2003; Slavit et al. 2003) and offering resource availability for assistance when needed (Desimone et al 2002; Friesen & Clifford, 2003; Lieberman, 1995). Desimone et al. (2006) analyzed teacher surveys and noted that the compo nents of PD that influenced changes in teacher practices and increased student outcomes included support, options to participate in active engagement, focus on content matter, and teacher collaboration with similar grades and subject areas. Collaborative t eaching involves teachers participating in the same school, department, or grade level (Darling Hammond et al., 2009 ; Desimone et al., 2006 ). share with colleagues immedi ately after the sessions the concepts and knowledge obtained from PD sessions (Elmore, 2002; Slavit et al. 2003). Teachers often seek opportunities for exchange with one other (Guskey, 2003b; Lock, 2006; Penuel, Fishman et al., 2007), and this sometimes leads to personal and professional learning communities (PLCs), which further advance teacher learning (Borko, 2004). Collaboration and relationship building are important because they lead to mutual benefits in terms of peer learning (Guskey, 2003a; Wei et al 2009), and they also motivate teachers to become active participants in their own learning. Lauer (2005) study demonstrated that with time to collaborate, teachers improved their instructional practices. According to Bolam (2000), PD se ssions are research based courses of action that allow teachers to learn as individuals and collaborate with one another in environments that hold teachers professionally accountable. When PD sessions are designed to include collegiality, teachers have op portunities to observe
29 method allows teachers to construct meaning via collaboration and experience. If PD sessions are sustained and are offered over a long period of time there is a greater chance that teachers will successfully implement learned strategies (Sparks & Hirsh, 2000). Windschitl and Sahl (2002) studied the ways in which teachers learned to use their laptop computers to support instruction. The resear chers found that teachers who engaged more often in informal conversations and collaborative lesson planning integrated technology in more innovative ways than those who collaborated less. Thus, the interaction that occurs among teachers is necessary in s upporting the meaningful importance of teacher interaction for facilitating the transfer of new skills learned from PD into classroom practice. Collegial support was found to be the most effective component of PD. Teachers who participated in PD using the constructivist model reported a 95% gain in knowledge, mastery of new skills, and ability to transfer these skills into their classrooms (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Penuel, Fish man et al. (2007) conducted a study of 454 teachers of varying backgrounds and experiences. The researchers investigated the results of various during sessions. The study f ound that on existing practice s for students. The researchers reported that given the opportunity for immediate classroom application, teach ers saw the direct results of workshops and shared information for enhanced follow up and support a positive feedback loop that increased the value and meaning of what teachers learned during workshops.
30 Another component of effective PD is the matching o f current skills and needs of needs when designing PD sessions leads to an increased likelihood of teachers implementing the strategies presented in the sessions (Dext er Anderson, & Ronnkvist, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Keller et al., 2005; Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007). According to Ingvarson, Meiers, and Beavis (2005), when teachers find PD sessions valuable, meaningful, and relevant to their own needs, PD is often deemed very effective. of how specific tools can boost student achievement. Studies conducted by Garet et al. (2001) and Loucks Horsley (1995 ) support the importance of tyin g into the classroom context the relevancy of instructional strategies and the delivery within PD sessions. Loucks Horsley explained that content background knowledge and learning styles via active engagement. I n a quantitative, longitudinal study, Garet et al. found that teachers with increased knowledge and skills reported that changes in their teaching practices were beneficial for student learning outcomes. The success of PD is dependent on sessions that are designed with a focus When developing PD sessions for teachers, it is important to consider the needs of the teacher learner (Becker & Riel, 2000; Vannatta & Fordham, 2004; Wozney, Venkatesh & Abrami, 2006). Wi th respect to this interdependence of instruction and learning, constructivist and adult learning theories offer a relevant and highly attuned framework for focusing PD on student centered instructional needs (Williams &
31 Kingham, 2003). In a constructivis t framework, PD includes an instructional goal that makes educators focus on curricula first, then on how specific tools can be integrated into existing curricula (Pitler, 2006). An approach that focuses on how teachers learn and contextualize this learni Adults learn differently than children because they have different learning needs. Andragogy, an adult learning theory that focuses on motivational factors and needs evaluation, is applied to technol ogy use and other barriers associated with teachers (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998). According to andragogy, adults are self directed, intrinsically motivated problem solvers (Knowles, 1980). Adults use their previous personal experiences to immediate ly apply new knowledge. Adults construct meaning from new experiences, so PD sessions should involve engaging activities. Adults are more likely to use technology if they are able to make direct links with their existing classroom environments and their existing barriers. Additionally, adults prefer to participate in small group activities in order to apply and synthesize new knowledge (Speck & Knipe 2005). Allowing opportunities for follow up and support help s adults put new knowledge into practice (C ohen, 1995; Speck & Knipe 2005). According to McKenzie (2001), focusing on adult learning theories when designing PD sessions should, therefore, be involved in the PD planning process. Since adults are self directed, activities should be tied closely to real life situations. Impact of Professional Development Results from several years of studies (Darling Hammond et al 2009) on the quality and ef fectiveness of PD point to t he ineffectiveness of the existing structure of teacher workshop programs; specifically, sessions taught outside the classroom setting
32 over the course of 1 to 2 days fail to intertwine pedagogy, curriculum, and the skills and tools therein. When research based components of PD are not considered during the design process, teachers are isolated and feel content is not int egrated into existing curricula; it is, instead, simply supplementary (Lock, 2006). This is the case for several reasons. Many sessions occur in 1 day, with little or no follow up (Desimone et al 2006; Slavit et al. 2003; Williams & Kingham, 2003), and because workshops tend to be taught off site, many criticize PD as superficial and fragmented (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Darling Hammond, 1998 ; Darling Hammond et al., 2009; Lock, 2006; NSDC, 2011 a ). Desimone et al (2006) and Darling Hammond et al. (2009) found that new and veteran teachers encounter difficulty applying innovative strategies learned in one shot PD sessions without support or c ollaboration. Lauer et al. (2005) established that one time workshops were not as helpful as sustained workshops. In addition, Slavit et al. (2003) found that workshops taught in 1 to 2 days did little to influence teaching practice. Scotchmer, McGrath, and Coder (2005) determined that fewer than half of public school educators receive more than 8 hours of PD every year. Darling Hammond et al. (2009) noted that most PD sessions last from about 5 to 14 hours, which is not conducive to a substantial incre ase in teacher learning. As a result, the current and traditional format of PD sessions often does not lead to constructive learning for teachers (Birman, Desimone, Porter & Garet, 2000). When results driven, standards based, and job embedded PD is imple mented, teachers are more likely to employ concepts, skills, and knowledge learned during workshops; however, teachers traditionally receive limited opportunities to participate in effective PD sessions (Scotchmer et al., 2005). Extensive research demonst rates that
33 effective components of PD include the incorporation of curriculum standards, adult learning theories, and school contexts that are ongoing, collaborative, and reflective; however, these elements remain absent in most PD designs (Guskey, 2003b). Incorporating these elements within PD programs can lead to educator effectiveness in ways that resonate with students in each classroom and, eventually, with students in the entire school (Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007). existing instructional practices (Dexter et al. 2002; Keller et al., 2005; Mouza, 2002/2003) in a ( Darling Hammond et al., 2009). Standards based, content focused PD sessio ns are the key influences for transforming teacher practices and impacting student achievement (Desimone et al., 2006). According to Darling Hammond et al. (2009), limited studies indicate that PD sessions lasting for more than 14 hours had a positive eff ect on teacher pedagogy and led to student gains in achievement. Technology I nitiatives in K 12 Education Teachers must learn how to use existing and emerging technology and to adapt to unforeseen technological issues in order to prepare students for the 2 1 st century. A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence on Education, 1983), a national report that initiated the changing roles for teachers, placed a greater focus on PD with its attempt to improve student achievement. Policymakers and adminis trators have recognized the importance of technology in K 12 classrooms, as demonstrated by proposed standards designed specifically for meeting the goals of technology literacy and use (Shaunessy, 2005). The United States government, along with reform ad vocates and educational leaders, has devised initiatives based on studies that demonstrate the influence of technology on education (Culp, Honey, & Mandinach,
34 2003; ED, 2004). The federal government created several frameworks to increase technology infuse d teaching and learning, such as NCLB ( 2002) and the National Education Technology Plan ( ED 2010), both of which share a goal of raising technology assisted student achievement. Achieving this goal requires an increase in the quality of PD centered on te chnology integration in classrooms (Guskey, 2003a). as the invention of motion pictures (Hew & Brush, 2007). Since the 1960s, computer use in education has been linked to an improve ment in student learning scores school instruction, policymakers have spent large amounts of money on technological resources and equipment. For instance, for p ast 10 years, the United States has spent more than $66 billion to improve technology in schools (Quality Education Data, 2004). When significant sums of money are spent on technology, policymakers demand assurances of effective technology use (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002). Funding helps obtain technological equipment and train teachers to meet technological goals; however, current funding is primarily used to buy equipment, rather than invest in the staff development of teachers (Williams & Kingham, 2003). The Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2001 (ED 2001) a llocated more than $700 million toward improving student learning through technology use, and 25% of that budget was reserved for PD focused on technology integration With funding provid ed for initiatives supporting ongoing, sustained, high quality PD, teachers receive workshops on how to use technological tools to increase student achievement. According to the Web B ased Education Commission (2000), at least 40% of funds support teacher development.
35 Despite these expenditures, Oppenheimer (2004) and Wetzel (2001) showed that Pelligrino (2007) also found that technology use has not produced the skills ne cessary student learning is the failure to train teachers to properly use technology in the classroom. ISTE (2008) created standards for students, teachers, and administrat ors in 1993 in order to prepare educators to increase the use of technology in the classroom and ensure school improvement in these areas Later modified in 2007 to focus on increasing 21 st century skills and student achievement (ISTE, 2007), the standard s now Garet, Desimone, & Birman, 2003). integration involves using technology as a tool to improve learning in an interdisci plinary setting. NETS also emphasized goals for students, teachers, and administrators that involved developing appropriate skills required to be technologically literate (Judson, 2006; Swain & Pearson, 2003). Because administrators and school leaders ex pect teachers to use technology more often in classrooms to improve student learning and outcomes (Shaunessy, 2005), technology use has become more pertinent and important. When former P resident George W. Bush introduced the NCLB Act of 2001 (2002) the initiative included a required guideline for technology integration in schools nationwide The specific technology goal of NCLB was Title II, Part D Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT), which required that all students attain
36 technology literacy by eighth grade (Boyle, 2005). This goal specified classroom technology integration, fostered student achievement, and acknowledged the requirement for high quality and effective PD in support of technology integration ( ED 2001). In addition, the ED fo unded the Office of Educational Technology (OET) to the use of educational technology nationwide ( ED 2007). This decision reflects the importance of educational tec Education Technology Plan ( ED 2010) was later created by the OET to increase funding for technology and to improve teacher PD sessions for effective technology integration in support of NCLB goals ( ED 2004). One of the steps toward realizing the goals of the National Education Technology Plan and emphasizing many of the OET reports is to increase the frequency of teacher all of which are crucial for increasing student achievement and other goals for the 21 st century and beyond. Within the context of the National Educational Technology Plan, it was found that while nearly all schools had access to the Internet and an incr easing number of technology resources, the use of resources for education remained ineffective. The main reason for this lack of efficacy was insufficient educator staff development ( ED 2004). In addition, the National Science and Technology Council (NS TC) Work Group on Advanced Technologies for Education and Training identified tools and applications for technology learning in the classrooms ( ED 2010). The Partnership for 21 st Century Skills (2009) f ramework also created skills, outcomes, and knowledg e categories to ensure that students possess the abilities required to become effective citizens.
37 Technology Integration Technology integration has several definitions. According to Okojie, Olinzock, and Okojie Boulder (2006), technology integration entai ls managing and coordinating available instructional tools and resources, including the use of electronic media for hies of pedagogies and their work toward integrating technology with existing content matter (Ireh, 2006). Considerable debate exists about the success of technology int egration within the classroom (Cuban, 2001), and there is only one consensus s imply having technology on hand is insufficient (Williams & Kingham, 2003). Teachers m ight have access to an abundance of technology resources, but access alone does not necessa rily improve and situation of the environments in which the actual technology is utilized (Byrom & Bingham, 2001). Integrating technology into the classroom is an essential part of successful teaching in the contemporary classroom (Shoffner, 2009). The proper integration of technology in classroom teaching affects both classroom structure and function (Becker, 2001). The benefits of technology integration include providing in depth content knowledge, preparing students for the 21 st century, enhancing higher level thinking student interest in content matter (Dockstader, 1999). Technology integration involves more than teachers simply lecturing from PowerPoint presentations or using document cameras to display notes (Beaver &
38 Moore, 2004). Effective technology integration involves teaching with a combination of content knowle dge and theories of learning and instruction (Ertmer & Ottenbreit Leftwich, 2010). Technology integration is also a process, and it should not be misconstrued as a single occurring event. As a process, it serves as a constructivist tool that can assist s tudents with active learning and higher order thinking skills, such as synthesis, inference, analysis, and prediction. According to Chee (2002) and Mellon (1999), teachers are slowly introducing technology into their existing curricula without a conscious intention to do so. One barrier to technology integration is the lack of effective PD. The need for technology related PD arises when teachers lack the knowledge and skills for integrating technology (Ely, 1999). According to Earle (2002), successful t echnology integration is prevented when there are inadequate resources, when there is a lack of time and support, and when PD is ineffective. John and Sutherland (2004) studied the ways in which teachers integrate tools into existing pedagogies, and these researchers discovered that merely having technology resources in place is insufficient and will not directly improve teaching or learning; thus, PD may help overcome technology related barriers for teachers (Mills & Tincher, 2003). Technology Related P rofessional Development The literature on TRPD highlighted in this section is related to the previously mentioned information regarding PD. General PD best practices literature relates to TRPD best practices in several ways. TRPD sessions may help teache rs and students across the nation; however, the sessions must incorporate several features in order to effectively transform teaching and learning (Darling Hammond, 1998). One important feature is an ample amount of time for teachers to practice using tec hnological tools
39 ( ED 2005). Also, teachers must be given opportunities to use technological tools within ownership of the tools (Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007). Collabo ration helps teachers reflect on skills and knowledge and build confidence in using technology in their classrooms (Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007). Chee (2002) showed that teacher pedagogy, not a particularly new advance in technology, primarily impacts stud 21 st century skills via active engagement. In their review of prior research, Matzen and Edmunds (2007) found that the type of TRPD face to face, blended, or online and the amount of time to practice what was taught in the TRPD sessions increased ir classroom s When TRPD sessions were tailored to focus on content and teaching styles, teachers learned to use technological tools much more effectively (Williams & Kingham, 2003). Such effectiveness can be a chieved by allowing teachers opportunities to practice incorporating technology within their existing pedagogies, teaching styles, and content related standards (Koehler, Mishra, Hershey, & Peruski, 2004; Rosaen, Hobson, & Khan, 2003). Factors That Facil itate the Application of Technology Related Professional Development Effective TRPD sessions require workshops that prioritize content and technology and their integration with one another (Garet et al 2001) and offer follow up support (Mouza, 2006 ). In addition, if TRPD includes hands on interactive activities with accompanied technology support, there is a greater likelihood that teachers will generalize into their classrooms (Lieberman, 1995; Ludwig & Taymans, 2005; Wood & McQuarrie, 1999). TRPD ses sions are more effective if they do not primarily consist of lectures and when they focus more on hands on implementation and practice (Darling
40 Hammond, 1998) which permits teachers to implement and practice technology in more authentic settings (Wursta, Brown DuPaul, & Segatti, 2004). Teachers should be given time to focus on their existing curricula and on how technological tools can be included not on how their curricula fits into using tools in their classrooms. McCabe and Emery (2003) showed that t he need for on site technology support and assistance, as well as the design of TRPD, are crucial components of successful classr oom technology integration. Teachers, therefore, must be educated and supported accordingly (Mills & Tincher, 2003). Many tea chers, despite having access to a multitude of technology resources, do not possess the skills to make effective use of technology for instruction (Becker, 1994; Pedersen & Yerrick, 2000). Teachers need technology skills and a well developed pedagogical g rasp of the content matter they are teaching. It is the process and manner in which technology is integrated into a curriculum that has an effect on overall student learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Chee (2002) emphasized that pedagogy. Still, existing PD programs tend to center on teaching with the technological tools and not on pedagogy. Teachers need time to experiment with and practice strategies learned in TRPD before feeling comfortable with implementing them in their i nstruction ( ED 2005). In order for teachers to understand and fully implement new strategies, they must NSDC 20 11 a ). Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) conducted a meta analysis study of TRPD se ssions. They noted that the most common designs of TRPD included sessions with sustained follow up, and they found that offering opportunities to learn technology while meeting needs led to increased confidence and a greater likelihood of transfer in the classroom. Options to
41 reflect on session knowledge and collegial support to assist with teacher needs also led to increased confidence in utilizing tools in the classroom. Lawless and Pellegrino concluded from the literature that teachers who participate d in TRPD reported greater confidence in using technology and an improved ability to integrate technology in their classrooms. Mouza (2009) investigated whether TRPD built on research based practices would produce a change in the technology integration pr actices of teachers and concluded that when workshops were based on TRPD best practices, teacher learning improved, and, subsequently, teacher practice was positively influenced. This 3 year longitudinal study revealed not only short term changes in teach er technology integration practice, but also evidence of increased capacity for continued learning. Garet et al. (2001) found that s are evident. They reviewed the structural features of PD and found that (a) opportunities for active hands on learning focused on specific learning goals were provided; (b) options offered for collective participation of a group of teachers from the same school, same grade, or same subject were required; and ( c) participation in PD sessions was extended beyond 2 days in length. These features led to increased opportunities for in depth communication and collaboration related to implementation successes and challenges. When teachers from the same school, same grade, or same subject worked with similar students, there were increased opportunities to discuss how implementation of PD content in their classrooms affected student learning (Garet et al 2001). In conjunction with collegial support, sustained TRPD i s also needed if teachers
42 are expected to transfer knowledge and learned skills from the TRPD sessions into their classrooms. Ineffective Factors of Existing Technology Related Professional Development s Part D EETT of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) is to enhance and advance the academic performance of each student. Many current TRPD sessions are not consistent with existing literature on TRPD best practices. As much as teachers may want to utilize available techno logy, they need more concrete directions, support, and collaboration (Charp, 2003). The lack of quality TRPD results from initiatives geared toward spending money on resource acquisition rather than on teacher workshops (Mouza, 2002/2003). Although a lot of focus and importance is placed on TRPD for teachers, research continues to show that existing teacher TRPD is ineffective (Ansell & Park, 2003; CEO Forum on Education and Technology, 1999; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). According to Williams and Kingham (2003), the most cited reasons teachers provide for not using technology are a lack of effective TRPD and a lack of support, particularly for teachers who have limited oppo rtunities for integrating technology in their classrooms are limited (Kotrlik & Redmann, 2009); thus, quality TRPD is the key to integrating technology effectively. One major barrier to effective technology integration is ineffective TRPD because teachers are not, nor do they feel, fully prepared to integrate technology. Workshops on technology do exist, but since they tend to focus solely on hardware and software, rather than the process of using technological tools, quality workshops are rare (Diaz & Bo ntenbal, 2000).
43 Research indicates that little or none of what is taught in TRPD workshops generalizes to the classroom because the knowledge is neither contextualized to, nor meaningful in, the classroom (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Friesen & Clifford, 2003). Furthermore, existing workshops are ineffective because they are not built upon best practices ; they do not occur at the school site, they are not relevant to the classroom, they do not include follow ing needs (Fullan, 1991; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Mouza 2002/2003). Technology Related Professional Development and Successful Technology Integration Quality TRPD can aid teachers by providing the technical knowledge and skills to allow them to integrate and effectively apply technology in their classrooms (Gningue, 2003; Mouza, 2009; Wenglinsky, 1998). Consider, for instance, a study conducted by Penuel, Fishman et al. (2007 ) in which teachers attend ed a TRPD session developed from research findings that s pecified the components of effective PD ; this study showed that participating teachers employed a greater variety of technological tools more frequently and on a more continual basis in their classrooms compared to teachers who only participated in traditi onal PD. Clearly, effective teacher PD is necessary to aid teachers in the development of proper knowledge and skills to integrate technology into their curricula. Unfortunately, simply possessing basic technology skills and knowledge are insufficient (L iu & Velasquez Bryant, 2003). The amount of time teachers spend in rigorous TRPD positively correlates with the effectiveness of using technology in their classrooms (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Becker, 2001; Reynolds & Morgan, 2001); therefore, TRPD is neces sary to aid teachers in the development of proper knowledge and skills to integrate technology into their existing curricula. Teachers are at varying
44 levels of technology integration, and PD designers who understand this can better ities and levels. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) is one of the earliest studies conducted on the distinct types of PD teachers need ( Sandholtz et al., 1997 ). In the ACOT study, researchers categorized teachers into five stages in terms of developmen t: entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and invention (Sandholtz et al., 1997). The first and second stages, entry and adoption, involve d teachers using technology at the basic level and fitting it into the physical structure of their classrooms. For teachers at these stages to effectively integrate technology into their classrooms and move into advanced stages, they had to develop the necessary skills to be in the entry and adoption categories. The third stage, adaptation, involve d teachers using technology in basic classroom practices. In the fourth stage, appropriation, teachers were comfortable using technology as part of regular classroom activities. The fifth and final stage, invention, entail ed teachers exploring innovative ways to impleme nt technology in their existing curricula (Sandholtz et al. 1997 ) Interactive Whiteboards Many studies (Ball, 2003; Beeland, 2002; Bush, Priest, Coe, & Evershed 2004 ; Cogill, 2003; Glover et al., 200 7 ; Kent, 2006 ) have been conducted on IWBs and their e ffect on student motivation, engagement, and academic achievement. Beeland (2002) conducted an action study involving 10 middle school teachers and focusing on utilizing d that both teachers and students strongly preferred the use of the IWB in the classroom. (2002) results, the use of the IWB increased student engagement due to a correlation with the visual aspect of using the whiteboard. Accordin g to the survey data, students gained a deeper understanding of IWB lessons
45 and were able to apply the skills and knowledge to different situations when utilizing IWB features. Teachers found it most beneficial that IWB lessons could be saved for future a IWBs as an interactive tool was shown to have a positive impact in classrooms, student learning is more greatly impacted when IWBs are used with effective teaching practices (Murc ia, 2008). Gerard and Widener (1999) researched the use of IWBs in foreign language classrooms. The goal of their study was to determine how IWBs facilitate The resea rchers concluded that IWBs support teaching in at least three ways they improve interaction and increased conversation in the classroom, they aid in presenting new and linguistic components, and they enable teachers to be more organized. IWBs also support the learning process in at least three ways they provide opportunities to support oral skills, they support the cognitive process, and they increase motivation and emulation. Also, IWBs bring 21 st century learning into classrooms and make information ava ilable to all students without the need for a computer or mobile device for every student. Classroom Response Systems E ducators have used t he CRS as an alternative means of promoting interactivity and student engagement in order to boost academic achieveme nt (Cotner et al., 2008). Student engagement and academic achievement depend on the quality of the interactions among and between students and teachers. Interactive classrooms provide students with frequent opportunities to receive constructive feedback about the success of their efforts. The CRS has shown promise in providing interactive engagement (Draper & Brown, 2004; Smialek & Boburka, 2006) by allowing for active interaction
46 between the teachers and students. Teachers can check student understandi ng by periodically posing multiple choice questions or problems, and students can submit their answers using the CRS. The range of student responses are immediately summarized and displayed on the whiteboard, facilitating further cognitive intervention (D raper & Brown, 2004). Resnick (1987) and Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) noted that increased engagement predicts improved achievement and is a hallmark of a productive classroom, a venue that is provided by the CRS. Guthrie and Carlin (2004) studied studen classroom by the CRS. In their study, two different instructors used the CRS to enhance instruction. One class used it to answer questions during the lecture, and the other class used it to answer questions prese nted at the end of the lecture. Guthrie and Carl in found that when the CRS was used, student participation averaged nearly 95%. They also concluded that 40% of the students in the first class believed they learned more compared to 8% in the second class, where questions were presented at the end of the lecture. More than 60% of the students in the first class indicated they preferred courses that used the CRS compared to 15% of students in the second class. In a study conducted by Hall, Collier, Thomas and Hilgers (2005), the CRS was used both during the lecture and to quiz students on material they were to have read before class. The researchers found that students were more engaged and motivated in the learning process and showed a more significant improvement in grades compared to the previous year. Ward, Reeves, and Heath (2003) found evidence that students were more attentive and exhibited fewer off task behaviors in classrooms where the CRS was used Those same students also reported that they enjoyed using
47 the CRS during instruction and preferred the CRS to traditional types of instruction. It was also noted that when the CRS w as used with well designed questions, nearly 100% of students responded. Classroom discussion on various topics also increased as a result of using the CRS during instruction. Student Outcomes as a Result of Technology Integration The process of integrating technology builds 21 st century skills and enhances student achievement in core subjects such as reading, writing, math, and science (ISTE, 2008). When technology is used in teaching and learning, critical thinking improves as students are given opportunities that focus on solving authentic real world problems (Roblyer & Edwards, 2000). As students use technology to locate information and apply it in meaningful ways, 21 st century skills are enhanced (Dockstader, 1999). Integrating technology increases student engagement in learning. Because technology affords new ways to communicate with others beyond classroom spac es, students are able to share their new understandings with an audience (ISTE, 2008). As a result, students learn more, and they become more engaged and interested in the content (Dockstader, 1999). The Center for Applied Research in Educational Technolo gy (2005) has shown that technology improves student performance in three main areas content area achievement, critical thinking, and workplace preparation. Cradler and Cradler (1999) also found remarkable improvements on standard achievement tests from t echnology integration. Other studies have also found improvement in student learning in certain content areas, such as mathematics and social studies, after utilizing software programs (Hillel, Kieran, & Gurtner, 1989; McCoy, 1996). Technological tools u sed in application of 21 st century skills, such as research skills and real world applications, increased
48 student interest in content areas and strengthened student organizational skills (Cradler & Cradler, 1999). Students exposed to technology by well tr ained teachers scored higher on standardized tests, exhibited keener aptitudes in the areas of literacy ( e.g., reading comprehension), and interacted more frequently with each other than their counterparts whose teachers did not receive the TRPD (Baker, Ge arhart, & Herman, 1994; White, Ringstaff, & Kelley, 2002). Eighth graders showed increases in math scores and on U.S. h istory assessments after teachers had participated in TRPD sessions based on TRPD best practices (Wenglinsky, 2006). Even as measured b y standardized and conventional tests, when technology wa s used appropriately, children learn ed more (Wenglinsky, 1998, 2006). Simply providing teachers with technological tools and resources alone has not significantly affected student learning (Oppenhei mer, 2004; Trotter, 199 9 ; Wetzel, 2001). Technology instruction should include knowledge of and proficiency in effective schools by analyzing data to determine if studen ts are acquiring knowledge on student achievement is often difficult, although can help. Obtaining a higher level of knowledge is much more facile and effective for students if technology is used (Sandholtz & Reilly, 2004), but there has not been much systematic research on the effects of PD in te acher instruction and student outcomes (Garet et al., 2001). Other variables, such as content matter and technology application, can also affect student achievement (Guskey & Sparks, 1996);
49 nevertheless, TRPD should focus on enhancing existing technology integration to affect student achievement and learning as profoundly as possible (Chee, 2002). Overall, studies show that student outcomes rise when PD focuses on teacher awareness of student learning needs and styles (Holland, 2005). For instance, Line k et al. (2003) found in a 5 year study that effective PD can affect student outcomes indirectly, and high quality PD based on best practices led to collaboration, autonomy, and opportunities for teachers, which then transferred to their classrooms. In th e study, 13.1%, 28.8%, and 16.5% in math, in each of the three grade levels, respectively. Several studies link ed increased student achievement amid instructional technology use to teacher commitment to TRPD workshops (Dick, 2005; Hew & Brush, 2007; Lei & Zhao, 2007; Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). At the middle school level, Sivin Kachala (1998) reviewed more than 200 studies on all subjects and grade levels regarding the effect s of technology on learning outcomes. This researcher found that technology increased achievement in core subject scores ( i.e., regular and special education) and improved attitudes. Another study conducted by ACOT (Baker et al., 1994) involved five schools over the course of 5 years. The researchers found that improved technology integration and access increased student attitudes and higher order thinking skills but had insignificant effects on standardized test scores in vocabulary, r eading, and math. Wenglinsky (1998) found, however, that students performed higher than grade level in math when teachers used computers to increase levels of application. No positive
50 effects of technology were found when technology was used for drill an d practice in the classroom; thus, technology use improved student learning at deeper and higher levels. Driscoll (2007) found that technology addresses various needs of students by allowing for collaboration, higher order thinking, application, and commu nication. Since student learning is directly influenced by teacher learning, the more effective PD sessions are, the greater the effect they have on increased student achievement (Berry et al., 2004; Haar, 2001; Hirsh et al. 2005; Reid, 2002). According to Speck and Knipe (2005), PD design should aim to improve student achievement because the ultimate goal of educators is to learn innovative ways to apply content knowledge in order to engage, motivate, and help students learn the content and skills manda ted by standards understand how students learn so that students can gain 21 st centu ry skills. Best Practices of Technology Related Professional Development If teachers are expected to integrate technology efficiently into their curricula, high skill le vels should be the primary consideration when designing and delivering staff development opportunities. Furthermore, teachers are more likely to build upon new instructional strategies and learn from ongoing TRPD when their existing knowledge and main con cerns are acknowledged and linked to their learning environments (Darling Hammond, 1998; Desimone et al 2002; Fullan, 1991; Lieberman, 1995; Slavit et al., 2003; Swain & Pearson, 2003 ). By allowing teachers time to learn actively and by designing TRPD s essions around adult learning theories (Lewis, 1998), workshops can
51 more penetrating understanding of how to implement strategies learned in workshops. me and learning need to be factored into the staff development process. Existing workshops focused on traditional forms of PD fail to include this crucial component. With ongoing training, access to technology, time to experience the technology, and supp ort from mentors and other teachers, teachers develop positive feelings toward attaining and implementing technology skills in their classrooms (Milbreth & Mable, 2000; Swain & Pearson, 2003 ). Thus, I plan ned and design ed a site based TRPD program based o current skill levels. The TRPD, as discussed in further detail in Chapter 3, focus ed on adult learning and constructivist principles and include d support, feedback, collaboration, and reflection time. The TRPD was also ongoing in nature. Summary As policymakers and administrators look to reform the efficacy of teaching methods, teacher training and development are being pushed to the forefront to raise student test scores. TRPD workshops offer a ready, comprehensive, and flexible means to successfully integrate technology in the classroom. Revamping TRPD is critical in order to significantly influence teacher and student learning because existing TRPD does not focus on authentic environments an d teacher needs. There are numerous reasons that existing TRPD sessions based on traditional forms are ineffective; namely, they occur off site, have little or no support, and do not focus on the needs of participants. Findings from this literature revie w conclude that it is possible to promote the design of a site based TRPD program consisting of effective research based components ; integrate the general principles of constructivist and adult learning ;
52 and provide a context that supports student centere d pedagogy. An attempt at creating such a program, as well as an examination of its impact, is presented in Chapter 3
53 CHAPTER 3 DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Effective TRPD occurs when existing instructional practices are t argeted (Keller et al., 2005), sustainable (Desimone et al., 2006), and site based (Lock, 2006; Penuel, Fishman, et al., 2007). Having technology resources at their disposal is not enough for teachers without effective TRPD, they will not possess the skil ls to effectively use technology in their curricula. Teachers require training to effectively use technological tools. Obtaining knowledge pertinent to their profession aids in skill enhancement. TRPD sessions should allow teachers time to meet and coll aborate with colleagues to build knowledge and skills and to examine teaching methodology (Sparks, 2002); therefore, a site based TRPD program based on effective, researched based components was created to provide teachers with the technology skills necess ary to use the tools. As described in the Problem Statement section of Chapter 1, the TRPD design included input from teachers in the initial needs assessment. The framework used to design this TRPD was influenced by the constructivist theory and adult l earning theory (Birman et al., 2000; Lock, 2006; Yin, 2009). Active involvement on the part of the learner is a crucial principle of both theories (McKenzie, 2001). Allowing teachers to construct meaning through authentic and contextual settings is impor tant for effective PD. Needs Assessment: Prior to the Technology Related Professional Development Sessions At the end of the 2010 2011 school year, I implemented an informal needs assessment to learn from teachers what they wanted and in what areas they n eeded assistance. This assessment was conducted via individual e mails with prompted questions (Appendix A). Teachers expressed the desire to utilize rarely used, on site
54 technological tools, such as the IWB and the CRS, and to have an on site facilitato r to provide troubleshooting and technical help when needed. In addition, all respondents expressed a desire for increased student participation and engagement with technological tools. This desire arose from the highly emphasized domains of their newly implemented evaluation rubric. At the beginning of the 2011 2012 school year, a school technology plan was developed between the school administrators and the technology leadership team. Taking into account the informal needs assessment, the technology p lan focused on both the school improvement goals and the county teacher evaluation rubric (Danielson, 2007). PD for technology use was a vital part of the school improvement plan due to the recent increased emphasis on technology use as determined by the county evaluation rubric domains. PD was considered a critical component for using technology to improve teaching and learning, and it also targeted the domains in the evaluation rubric. The evaluation rubric, based on the Danielson (2007) framework, foc used primarily on (a) demonstrating knowledge of resources and technology, (b) coordinating knowledge of content with technology resources to actively engage students in significant learning, and (c) using questioning and discussion techniques by increasin g student participation. The TRPD session was designed to target these domains, and it incorporated components from the literature review, adult learning principles, and best practices of technology strategies specific to the IWB and the CRS. Purpose and Goals of Technology Related Professional Development evaluated by the teachers on the county evaluation rubric (Danielson, 2007). For the purpose of this study, the emphasized d omains were translated into goals and
55 objectives specific to the IWB and the CRS. The rubric emphasizes that teachers use a variety or series of questions or prompts to cognitively challenge students, advance high level thinking and discourse, and promote metacognition. In addition, it was important that students be encouraged to formulate questions, initiate topics, and make unsolicited contributions. Students should also be engaged in the learning process. In order for teachers to attain exemplary poi nts, they should plan their lessons/units by using the following practices focusing on annual student achievement goals: (a) identifying the content standards their students will master in each unit, (b) articulating well designed essential questions for e ach unit, (c) employing backward design in structurin g units (McTighe & Wiggins, 2004 ), and (d) allocating an instructionally appropriate amount of time for each unit. The four sessions allowed time for teachers to design coherent instruction and practice integrating technology; thus, the purpose for this TRPD program was to assist teachers in accomplishing these domain areas by utilizing the IWB and the CRS in alignment with research based, best practice strategies in achieving 21 st century learning. The goals of TRPD stemmed from the rubric domains, as well as from the needs and wants of the teachers gathered from the informal needs assessment. The goals for this TRPD were: Teachers will learn effective, best practice strategies to create engaging lesso n plans that integrate the IWB, the CRS, and content standards as they relate to their curricula. Teachers will increase their awareness of the IWB, the CRS, and strategies to create effective question and discussion techniques within their lesson plans in order to increase higher order thinking while also enhancing student participation within their classrooms. The TRPD was developed from a combination of IWB and CRS pedagogy strategies and a reflection of needs at the school level derived from a technolo gy plan
56 developed at the beginning of the 2011 2012 school year. The TRPD was designed to assist teachers in following a methodological approach to meet standards and using planning time efficiently while creating classroom materials that increase student understanding of content knowledge via active engagement in the construction of higher order thinking and conceptual knowledge. The goals and objectives for each session were designed in correlation with the context and need for instruction and the ins tructional domains found in the county teacher evaluation standards rubric (Danielson, 2007). The sessions focused on the ability to use the IWB and the CRS in existing curricula to enhance active student learning. Technology Related Professional Develop ment Sessions The TRPD program consisted of four facilitator led sessions with peer collaboration, follow up activities, practices and reflections in the classrooms, and on site support. The sessions, led by me, took place on early release days over the c ourse of a 5 week time span. Sessions included informal discussions and collaborative work among the participants, and they were conducted in a face to face format to increase rapport with the participants. The TRPD sessions, which lasted for about two t o three hours, took place once per week in an on site computer lab. Development of Session The TRPD created for this capstone study consisted of six research based components identified in the literature review, along with a site based foundational comp onent. The six components are as follows: (a) The TRPD was based on adult learning principles, (b) it was content specific, (c) there was ongoing facilitator support and feedback, (d) there was a focus on peer collaboration, (e) the program was standards driven, and (f) the process was reflective. Principles for this TRPD model
57 were based on studies conducted by PD experts, including Darling Hammond (1998), Lawless and Pelligrino (2007), and Guskey (2003b). Based on effective, research based best practic es, this TRPD was site based (situated on site to allow for observation and interaction); collaborative (allowed teachers to work with others for support and to reduce isolation); constructivist (facilitative and provided hands on practice); reflective (in dividualized to teacher needs, content, and pedagogy); and supportive (provided a resource person devoted to follow up and assistance). Figure 3 1 illustrates the six components of the TRPD. Adult Learning Reflective Content Based Follow Up Standards Collaboration Figure 3 1. Influence in the d esign of TRPD The four TRPD sessions described in detail below were designed to meet the needs and wants of teachers and to reflect adult learning principles and best practices of TRPD as highlighted in the Chapter 2 literature review. Each session focused on how teachers can use IWB and CRS tools to increase student understanding of content and to enhance teacher instruction. Research based IWB and CRS best practices were introduced a nd demonstrated to teachers to model how the tools can be utilized to enhance active, rather than passive, student learning in the classroom. The activities provided in each session were intended to assist teachers in meeting the standards of Site Based TRPD
58 their evalua tion rubrics and curricula by developing skills gained in the TRPD sessions via practicing and experimenting with the IWB and the CRS. The model lessons and strategies focused on keeping students actively engaged via collaborative learning, a key componen t of 21 st century learning, while learning content matter. In addition, the specifically in terms of learning the skills to engage students while also enhancing their tec hnology skills and knowledge within the particular content area. The strategies introduction and sample uses of the IWB and the CRS, and opportunities to practice the applic as some teachers needed more practice than others. Allowing time to practice and share hands on ideas allowed teachers to feel more comfortable transferring learned skills into their classrooms. Also, time for peer review, sharing, and dissemination were included. Teachers shared ideas independently, in pairs, and in groups regarding the methods they used to apply their existing and modified knowledge and skills in their respective content areas. The TRPD session objectives and activities were based on the goals of the TRPD as detailed above. Table 3 1 outlines each session and its corresponding objectives. The objectives were aligned with the goals, and the activities w ere designed to meet the objectives.
59 T able 3 1. Overview of s essions Session Objective Orientation/Overview Using a concept from their specific content areas, teachers will design goals and explain ways in which the IWB and the CRS can be used in thei r content areas to actively engage students. Session 1: IWB Lesson Content Teachers will learn and utilize features of the IWB after enhanced understanding of the dialogic instruction of lessons. Session 2: IWB Lesson Content Teachers will create an IW B lesson for the purpose of interaction and engagement of students using the dialogic instruction method. Session 3: CRS Lesson Content Teachers will learn and utilize the features of the clickers (CRS) after gaining a deep understanding of the peer inst ruction approach. Session 4: CRS Lesson Content Teachers will create multiple choice questions to implement the CRS into new or existing lesson plans using the peer instruction approach. Session Activities The four sessions focused on utilizing the IWB and the CRS to equip teachers with the skills and knowledge necessary to engage students, increase student participation, and enhance curriculum knowledge. The activities gave teachers opportunities to acquire the confidence and skills to use the tools b y appealing to real world relevance tasks and allowing teachers to put into practice knowledge and skills on topics related to their specific content areas. Dialogic and peer instruction strategies were selected because they increase student participation encourage dialogue between students and teachers, and increase conceptual knowledge of content matter. Each session included time to collaborate and share the knowled ge the teachers gained. Each of the sessions followed a similar format. The breakdown of sessions included demonstration and
60 explanation of the simple uses of IWB and CRS techniques, collaboration and lesson plan development, and hands on sessions with o ptions for working independently or in pairs to gain experience with the IWB and the CRS. The IWB and the CRS were introduced to teachers using best practices in order to incorporate them into lesson plans and to engage students. Each session began with a description of the objectives of the session and a discussion of desired skills. Using lesson activities from the sessions, teachers worked in pairs and in groups to brainstorm topics and ways in which the tools could help instruct students on those topi cs. The model lessons shown were based on constructivist practices. Teachers were given time to create their own technology integration lessons using the lesson plan framework (Appendix B), which I created using components from the Danielson (2007) frame work. Teachers had opportunities to engage in weekly collaboration within the TRPD sessions. Demonstration and Explanation of Interactive Whiteboard and Classroom Response System Methods and Research Based Strategies for Implementing the Tools Into Instru ction Each session began with a demonstration of techniques and methods for introducing the IWB and the CRS into the classroom. The first two sessions focused on the IWB, and the final two sessions focused on the CRS. The introduction of the IWB and the CRS also included a reflection of current teacher practices and sample uses of the IWB and the CRS to increase knowledge of content by actively engaging students. The research based strategies used in teaching the IWB and the CRS included dialogic teachin g (Alexander, 2008; Armstrong et al., 2005) and peer instruction (Fies & Marshall, 2006; Mazur, 1997). Each of these strategies targeted using the IWB and the CRS to actively engage students and increase student participation. For instance,
61 dialogic teac hing (Alexander, 2008; Armstrong et al., 2005) increases teacher student lesson. Each student plays an active role by discussing lesson objectives with the teacher and engaging in discussions by sharing alternative viewpoints and constructing Higgins, 2006). The constant questioning that occurs during this process increases the inter activity and active construction of knowledge by the students. Using dialogic instruction is an essential part of IWB instruction (Higgins, Beauchamp, & Millen, 2007). Peer instruction (Fies & Marshall, 2006; Mazur, 1997), presented to teachers in the th ird session, involved students in their own learning. In such learning, conceptual, multiple choice questions are embedded within existing or new lecture presentations. Students are given 1 to 2 minutes to answer the questions, then 2 to 3 minutes for a follow up discussion about their responses this occurs with groups of three to four students before they attempt to answer questions again using the CRS. Best practice involves including two to three questions per hour of teaching (Beatty, Gerace, Leonar d, & Defresne, 2006). Although research shows best practices using dialogic teaching with the IWB and peer instruction with CRS, strategies to combine both tools and strategies were initiated as a discussion topic among participants in the fourth session for teachers who chose to utilize in the same lesson plan both the IWB and the CRS. Additionally, research and strategies were shared with the participants (Appendix C). Collaboration and Lesson Plan Development Each session allowed time for participants to meet collaboratively to share their experiences of creating ideas for a lesson plan that could integrate the IWB or the CRS.
62 Each session gave teachers time to work in pairs to create lesson plans and to share ideas. Following the Danielson (2007) fr amework and evaluation rubric, teachers were given time to identify objectives and standards they wished for their students to master. Teachers were asked to articulate essential questions for the unit, and using the backward design (McTighe & Wiggins, 20 04 ), they created lesson plans to implement the dialogic and peer instruction strategies. Individual assistance was provided as needed for teachers during their planning times and sometimes after school at the request of the teachers. As a facilitator, I provided assistance in planning lessons, providing feedback, answering questions, and giving technology assistance either through e mail or by classroom demonstrations. This support was provided until 3 weeks after the TRPD instructional sessions. Hands On Sessions for Practice At the end of each session, teachers were given the opportunity to model and practice using the IWB and the CRS before actually implementing the tools in their classrooms. On site support was provided as needed. The IWB and the C RS were utilized during the sessions to model and demonstrate the manner in which the tools could be used. On a weekly basis, teachers discussed implementation challenges and possible successes. I served as a technology resource guide, troubleshooter, an d technical assistant when needed. Sessions were broken down into manageable parts. Orientation/Overview The objective and activity description for the Orientation/Overview session are highlighted below.
63 Objective Using a concept from their specific conte nt areas, teachers will design goals and explain ways in which the IWB and the CRS can be used in their content areas to actively engage students. Brief activity description : After selecting teachers to participate in the study and receiving letters of con sent (Appendix D), I scheduled the first session to take place on an early release day. At the session, teachers were given a reflection log (Appendix E) and were asked to keep notes about their perceptions and experiences throughout the study. Then, I f acilitated a discussion about technological tools and how they are used in teaching. Teachers were randomly placed in pairs to discuss their goals for using technology in their classrooms. Goals included active student engagement, assessment, and applica tion to 21 st century skills using their evaluation rubrics. Sessions 1 and 2: IWB Lesson Content The objectives and activity description for Sessions 1 and 2 are highlighted below. Objectives Teachers will learn and utilize features of the IWB after enha nced understanding of dialogic instruction of lessons. Teachers will create an IWB lesson for the purpose of interaction and engagement of students using the dialogic instruction method. Brief activity description : Teachers were asked prior to the first se ssion to bring their assigned school laptops with wireless connections and previously installed SMART board notebook software so they could have a hands on experience. Teachers evaluated their own levels of IWB expertise and identified current and future session goals via a K W L chart, which tracks what a student knows (K), wants to know (W), and has learned (L) about a topic. Teachers took turns sharing their experiences in a group
64 discussion. IWB model lessons based on constructivist practices and dia logic strategies were presented to teachers using a SMART board notebook lesson available via SMART Exchange. Lessons included different activities that could be used in each subject area. Examples of successful uses in different content areas were shown to all participants. While I offered input, teachers were prompted to discuss the different ways in which they could use these tools in their specific content areas and to identify possible advantages and disadvantages. Teachers brainstormed content top ics and discussed how the IWB could be used to instruct students on those topics. Teachers were given time to develop their IWB content lesson utilizing SMART notebook software. Features of the software taught during the first session included drag and d rop (objects on the board can be moved around), hide and reveal (objects placed over others can be removed), highlighting (transparent color can be placed over writing or other objects), animation (objects can be rotated, enlarged, and set to move along a specified path), storage and quick retrieval of material, and feedback (when a particular object is touched, a visual or aural response is generated). The specific types of dialogic IWB strategies presented to the participants were (a) encouraging a diver sity of views and extended turns, (b) adapting to emerging circumstances, (c) building cumulatively on shared experiences, and (d) discussing topic areas to construct new knowledge via the whole class or in pairs. Best practices of dialogic teaching (Alex ander, 2008; Armstrong et al., 2005; Mercer, Littleton, & Wegerif, 2004) included discussion of learning objectives and alternative viewpoints; reasoning, generating,
65 co constructing new meanings and interpretations; and transitioning from passive lecturing to interactive lecturing. Teachers had one on one assistance from me, and I provided ongoing feedback to teachers throughout the lesson design stage during the wee k prior to the second session. The second session featured a review of the first session, more practice, and time for teachers to create lessons and share with peer feedback. Teachers were randomly paired and given time to demonstrate their lessons while their assigned partners provided input and suggestions. Sessions 3 and 4: CRS Lesson Content The objectives and activity description for Sessions 3 and 4 are highlighted below. Objectives Teachers will learn and utilize the features of the clickers (CRS) after gaining a deep understanding of the peer instruction approach. Teachers will create multiple choice questions to implement the CRS into new or existing lesson plans using the peer instruction approach. Brief activity description : Teachers were intro duced to the CRS by participating in a model lesson, and they were asked questions to assess prior knowledge regarding the CRS and the peer instruction approach. Then, the basic features of the CRS were taught to the teachers. The peer instruction strate gy was taught by engaging the teachers in the process. The purposes of the peer instruction strategy shared with the participants were to increase student engagement, increase learning of content, continue instant feedback, and increase knowledge. Best p ractices of peer instruction strategy (Fies & Marshall, 2006; Mazur, 1997) shared with the participants included (a) a cooperative learning activity to probe student understanding of lecture content; (b) questions written to measure learning objectives tha t involve
66 students discussing, debating, and defending; and (c) differentiation between jargon and understanding of concepts to clear up misconceptions. Wrong answers that seemed plausible or logical were developed and were used as distracters in multiple choice questions. Answer choices were limited to five. Teachers worked in their specific content areas to generate lists of questions and to demonstrate their ideas to the group during presentations of their lessons. Questioning occurred before introdu cing a concept to assess prior knowledge, throughout a lecture to build conceptual knowledge, and after coverage to assess learning. During the fourth session, participants discussed ways in which they could combine both the dialogic and the peer instruct ion methods into one lesson to utilize the IWB and the CRS together and to model the lesson for the group before implementing it in the classroom. This strategy was introduced in order to target multiple domains of the rubric at once and to combine intera ctive lectures and discussions into one lesson using the IWB and the CRS. Support and Mentoring Individual sessions occurred on an as needed basis during teacher planning meetings and sometimes after school at the request of the teachers. Teacher initiate d meetings took place at least once per week. As a facilitator, I provided assistance by helping plan lessons, providing feedback, answering questions, and offering technology assistance either through written and verbal explanations or by demonstrations. Summary The TRPD sessions focusing on the IWB and the CRS provided teachers with opportunities to participate in on site PD and to become familiar with the IWB and the CRS using research based practices of dialogic teaching and peer instruction. The
67 TRP D was based on adult learning theory principles and on the six components highlighted in Chapter 2 to be best practices. The sessions focused on using these increases e ngagement.
68 CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY This study employed a qualitative approach in order to provide a detailed account CRS as a result of their participation in a site based TRPD program featuring these tools. The goal of this study was to generate a descriptive account of middle school s. As such, the research questions for this study were as follows: What are the perceptions of middle school teachers of the site based IWB and CRS PD? How do middle school teachers use IWB and CRS tools after participating in a site based PD opportunity? In order to answer these research questions, I collected data from multiple sources to allow for an in depth analysis of the TRPD. Chapter 4 features an explanation of sampling procedures and criteria, instruments for data co llection, limitations of the study, and data collection and analysis procedures. Research Design I chose a qualitative research design method (Rossman & Rallis, 2012) because qualitative research is suitable for allowing participants to assign meaning to t he events, situations, experiences, and actions with which they are involved and engaged (Maxwell, 2004). Qualitative research plays an important role in developing an
69 describe and seek an understanding of the settings being studied. According to Patton (2002), a qualitative study method is comprehensive, exploratory, and detailed. To understand how TRPD can affect instructional practices of teachers, researchers must investigate the effects within its naturally occurring setting. Studying participants in real world settings allows one to interpret phenomena based on the meanings indi viduals attach to certain events (Creswell, 2003; Patton, 2002). According to B urstein et al. (1995), measured without actually going into the classroom and observing the interactions between teachers research questions because I wanted to understand the impact of sustained, site based sessions on changes in teacher practice and student outcomes via teacher perceptions and behaviors. The purpose of this study was two fold: to examine the perceptions of based IWB and CRS TRPD and to explore the ways in which teachers transferred what they learned in the TRPD to their classroo ms after actively participating in the sessions I used a qualitative research methodology to examine teacher perceptions of TRPD sessions and to examine the influence on technology integration. In this case, I attempted to explain how a site based TRPD experience affects middle school teachers. For this qualitative methodology, I sought to gather information ign was focused first on application in the context of the classroom. This research method makes
70 generalizations to an entire population impossible, but it has utility as a gu ide for developers of teacher programs and as an example for further research. Qualitative research allowed for the opportunity to include a variety of data sources, including observations, in depth interviews, and lesson plans (Glesne, 2006; Rossman & R allis, 2012), leading to an increase in credible data. In depth interviews were used to gather and examine teacher accounts. Classroom artifacts, such as lesson plans and teacher reflection logs, provided more in depth information than a survey could pro vide (Borko, Stecher, Alonzo, Moncure, & McClam, 2005). To address the previously stated research questions, I selected a qualitative methodology as a research design, and I analyzed specific statements and themes to search for possible meanings and comm on themes. The findings of this study will inform educational practices and suggest strategies that are more likely to be implemented in TRPDs. Participants and Sample The population of this study consisted of certified middle school teachers at a suburb an school in Tampa, Florida, who attended the IWB and CRS site based TRPD in Spring 2012. The teachers came from various disciplines, and they were selected based on their willingness to engage in all activities of the TRPD. The number of participants se lected was limited to six to ensure that I, the researcher, would have sufficient time to interact with and assist participants as needed in order to maintain motivation and avoid frustration during the technological tool practice and implementation of les sons in the classroom. I served as instructor and facilitator of the sessions, and I also provided instructional and technical support.
71 I used purposeful sampling, without regard to teaching experience, gender, age, or ethnic background of the participan t, to select the teachers from this population. Purposeful selection is grounded in the idea that in order to gain insight into a situation or event, a sample from which one can learn the most is selected (Creswell, 2003). Purposeful sampling was used be cause the teachers were readily willing to participate. While there is no definitive rule regarding sample size in qualitative studies, I believed that 10 participants was a sufficient number to reflect the range of the population under investigation. I expected that teaching expertise and the extent of technology use in the curriculum would vary. I sent a letter of invitation to 10 teachers who, via electronic communication in Summer 2011, showed interest in participating in a TRPD. All 10 teachers wh o expressed interest in participating in a June 2011 TRPD workshop were invited via e mail to attend the initial meeting (i.e., orientation). In the e mail, I explained the proposed research to the selected participants by providing them with a descriptio (Appendix F), and I reviewed the documentation needed to complete the study. At the initial meeting, teachers were informed that the research project was focused on a limited number of i ndividuals. The teachers, if they agreed to participate in the study, were asked to sign a letter of informed consent (Appendix D) approved by the and Assessment. Teac hers were given permission to attend the TRPD if they opted out of participating in the study. In my study, I wanted to learn what teachers thought about site based TRPD and how the actual components of TRPD influenced their decisions concerning effective technology integration in their classrooms, with the goal of
72 increasing 21 st century skills and conceptual knowledge among students. Accordingly, I needed to study teachers who chose to engage in TRPD. Of the six participants who opted into the study, five were female, and one was years of teaching in the state of Florida was 8. The in dividualistic and diverse primary subject areas of the participants were U.S. history, science, Spanish, medial skills, reading, and mathematics. One female participant dropped out of the study due to personal reasons. This goal of this study was to expl ore the perceptions of participants in the site based TRPD. Context of Study This study took place at Palms Middle School, which was my place of employment. This middle school serves a multi ethnic school population consisting of about 1,050 students. At the time of study, the Palms Middle School ethnic breakdown was 43.4% Hispanic, 37.6% White, 8.1% Black, 8.1% Multi Racial, 2.8% Asian, and .1% American Indian. In addition, 11.9% were English Language Learners. More than half of the student populatio n (64.9%) participated in the free and reduced lunch program, which resulted in the school holding a Title 1 status for the 2011 2012 school year. Palms Middle School had copious amounts of technology resources, including hardware and software available t o teachers a majority of the time, some of which are permanently accessible in each classroom. Resources included, but were not limited to, mobile laptop carts, desktop computer labs, IWBs, projectors, interactive tablets, the CRS, and document cameras. Resources were purchased when the school was initially built in order to provide up to date technology tools to teachers for the purpose of
73 technology integration. Additionally, during the 2011 2012 school year, IWB and CRS tools were purchased with Title 1 funds for each subject area. Despite the availability of technology, however, TRPD was only offered through the district about 25 miles from the school at an off site location. Another issue was that the district TRPD sessions focused on learning how to use technology tools and software, rather than on teacher pedagogy and specific content areas. Data Collection Data collection took a variety of forms in order to ensure reliability through triangulation of sources (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). Data coll ection consisted of lesson plans; reflection logs; classroom observations; and structured, open ended interviews. Each research question was aligned with corresponding data collection and analysis methods (Table 4 1). Each data collection technique and i nstrument is described in detail below. Table 4 1 Alignment of research questions with data collection and analysis methods Research q uestion Data c ollection Data a nalysis What are the perceptions of middle school teachers of the site based IWB and CRS PD? Classroom observation in combination with the lesson plans (created within the TRPD sessions) Type and organize observation notes immediately by creating tables to record and store data How do middle school teachers use IWB and CRS tools after parti cipating in a site based TRPD opportunity? Post TRPD interview and r eflection log Transcribe interviews and categorize by using the constant comparative method to refine and contrast categories Question 1: Perceptions Prior to the interviews, I made a co nscious effort to build a rapport with the teachers to ensure they knew I was available to assist. Participants were anonymous in
74 the data collection and analysis process. Data were initially gathered through e mail correspondence before the TRPD session was implemented. As noted in Table 4 1, I administered interviews and c ollected reflection journals to address the research based IWB his study was to examine the ended interview format. Structured, open experiences are an appropriate method for gathering data (Rossma n & Rallis, 2012). I asked teachers to keep a reflection log (Appendix E) while participating in the sessions. The reflection logs were gathered from individual participants at the time the interviews were conducted. Interview The purpose of the indi vidual interviews was to gather information about Rallis, 2012). The questions were created to allow for descriptive, open, and detailed responses. Structured, open ended i nterview questions (Appendix G) were developed based on components of the TRPD, and interviews were conducted near the end of the implementation of the TRPD sessions to gather information gained from teachers regarding their perceptions of the TRPD on thei r instructional practices and potential student learning and engagement. Open ended interview questions were created and were used to yield perceptions and experiences of teachers (Patton, 2002). The interview protocol included 10 fixed questions and was administered post TRPD implementation to each participant in the same order. The interviews lasted for about 30 to 45 minutes.
75 for accuracy. This allowed me the opportunity to replay interviews to ensure accurate transcription and analysis of the data (Merriam, 2002). After completing the interviews and prior to analyzing the data, I transcribed and typed the recordings for each teacher to review for accuracy. Reflection lo gs The purpose of the reflection logs was to allow the participants to process and report their perceptions of each of the sessions. As referenced in Chapter 2, participants need the opportunity to engage in reflection in order for PD sessions to be succ essful (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Reflection is a key component of quality PD (Loucks Horsley et al., 2003). Furthermore, writing reflection journals aids in the partic ipant was asked to keep a reflection journal, which included prompted questions. Prompts for the journal entries were given within the journal pages (Appendix E), and participants were given opportunities at the end of each session to discuss their journa l entries with each other. Participants were asked to respond to the prompts, which guided their entries, and they were required to write one entry per session. Participants were given the opportunity to complete their prompts electronically via word pro cessing software and to submit them to me by e mail. Participants kept journal s of their perceptions and thoughts of the TRPD activities, and they recorded dates, activities, and perceptions of activities. The journals were kept private and were only sha red with me after all TRPD sessions were completed. Giving participants time to jot down thoughts in their reflection logs allowed them to construct meaning from their experiences and to record their understandings of concepts (Patton, 2002).
76 Question 2: Technology Applications After teachers became familiar and comfortable with the technological tools in the four TRPD sessions, 45 minute scheduled observations occurred. Observations were ion. Before the scheduled observation, I visited classrooms on a weekly basis to observe, provide support, and troubleshoot technology related issues. As noted in Table 4 1, I conducted classroom observations and collected lesson plans to address the res earch a site udy was to explore how teachers applied their learning in their classrooms after the sessions. Classro om observations are conducted to understand the context and learning actions in the natural setting (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). Lesson plans were collected for technology integration analysis and feedback. Data collected from observations presented a firs t hand representation (Merriam, 2002) used in conjunction with the lesson plan analysis. Classroom observation The purpose of the observation was to collect a first hand account of the teacher integration of technology occurring in the classroom as a re sult of participation in the 2007), featured categories and observation checklist items regarding technological tools used in teacher instruction. The ICOT classroom obser vation tool was developed by the Education Leadership Department from ISTE and is used to identify features of technology integration. The format of the observation protocol included a chart to record observations and reflections in order to gather data a nd information regarding
77 the use of the IWB, the CRS, and the strategies that were used during the PD sessions (Glesne, 2006). Field notes were taken on the focus points of the research based strategies used (i.e., dialogic or peer instruction), student e ngagement, conceptual knowledge of content, and the ways in which teachers were utilizing the IWB and the CRS in their classrooms. The field notes were taken during the observation to help organize the observation and collection of data, including specifi c details of technology usage and student engagement. Field notes capture detailed information about the interactions that take place within the classroom. Description of the classroom environment and reflection were also included in the protocol (Patton 2002). Classroom observations occurred once during the study using a constructed protocol (Appendix H). The length of the observations corresponded with the length of each instructional class period to get the full description and understanding of the events occurring in the classroom (Glesne, 2006). The data derived from direct classroom gy integration is to determine whether the participants are able to apply the new learning to the context of their classrooms. Classroom observations formed a detailed picture of the events that occur in the classroom and give a holistic, detailed account of interactions and teaching methods. They provide insight on how teachers used the IWB and CRS tools; thus, the focus of the observations was on how the tools were being used during the instruction. Lesson plan framework The lesson plan helped gauge as a result of the TRPD. It provided the evidence of intended technology usage for
78 student engagement and increased conceptual knowledge of the content matter. The lesson plans were developed during the TR PD sessions and were implemented in the classroom when the observation occurred. I developed the lesson plan framework using the Danielson (2007) framework as a foundation. The lesson plan was used as supplementary evidence to technology integration, wit h standards allowing for an analysis of how technology was incorporated into the specific content areas. Lesson plans related to the observed classroom practices. Collecting one lesson plan from each teacher at the beginning of the classroom observations provided me with a perspective from which I compared my own observations of the settings and enhanced my understanding (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). It gave me an opportunity to view how teachers apply their learning; it represented a residual piece of learn ing. Researcher reflective journal During the study, I kept a reflective journal, which included a detailed record of participant interactions during sessions and classroom observations to obtain reflexivity (Patton, 2002). Reflexivity involves acquiring ownership of a perspective and allows for ongoing analysis. Complete objectivity is impossible, but having a reflective journal allowed me to record my thoughts and gain clarity. For every visit, I wrote my notes in a spiral notebook, logging location, d ate, and time. During this process, I explored my own viewpoints, assumptions, observations, reactions, and biases to reduce subjectivity (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). Table 4.2 summarizes the timeframe for each phase of data collection and analysis.
79 Table 4 2. Timeframe for each phase of data collection and analysis Task Begin End Recruit participants based on survey and e mail July 2011 December 2011 Administer TRPD April 2012 May 2012 Conduct and transcribe interviews and observations May 2012 J une 2012 Collect and analyze reflection logs and lesson plans May 2012 June 2012 Contact participants for member checking May 2012 June 2012 Conduct data analysis May 2012 July 2012 Data Analysis Data analysis was an ongoing process that inv olved continual reflection. The data were analyzed using the following five steps: (1) organize the data, (2) familiarize the data, (3) identify categories and generate themes, (4) code the data, and (5) interpret t he data ( Creswell, 2003 ; Rossman & Rallis 2012 ). Organize the Data The first step involved using Microsoft Word to transcribe the five interviews and observations with field notes in the right side of the margin. This allowed for data reduction because I could eliminate extraneous statements that did not contribute to the research questions. Member checking was used after the transcription of the interview. Member checking involves having the participants review their own statements for accuracy, confirmation, and generation of additional d ata if needed (Creswell, 2003 ; Rossman & Rallis, 2012 ). It also allows for participants to correct any errors that might have existed.
80 Familiarize the Data Several times, I separately read over the data from both the interviews and observations to creat e meaning from the gathered data. I added notes to the margins for reflection, and after reading and reviewing the data I identified trends and patterns that connected with the TRPD components, dialogic and peer instruction strategies, and integration of the IWB and the CRS. Identify Categories and Generate Themes The third step involved identifying consistent patterns or categories that emerged from reading and rereading the gathered data, which addressed each of the research questions and the conceptu al framework (Creswell, 2003; Rossman & Rallis, 2012). I created a concept map for each research question to develop categories and generate themes. The themes were generated from categories, and these themes led to the development of furth er categories. The themes described the findings and also added layers of additional analysis. I separately reviewed data from each participant, and as themes emerged, I compared them across the interviews and observations, re examining them to note how they addressed the research questions. I looked for possible patterns or similarities among the data that emerged across the data of each participant. Code the Data Once themes were determined, I coded the data to show the relationships to the themes. Coding was a d etailed process, which involved examining the data and organizing it into chunks that allowed for a new understanding of the data as seen in varied relationships. A peer reviewer helped me validate the connections made by the research. The wide margins o n the right side of the transcriptions in Microsoft Word
81 was where I coded the data by bracketing chunks and using the highlighting feature to document words or phrases representing a category. Further themes were generated from locating codes and subcode s and categorizing those codes (Glesne, 2006; Rossman & Rallis, 2012). The constant comparative method was used to identify, refine, and contrast categories with the interviews and reflection logs to describe based IWB an d CRS PD sessions. The codes were grouped based on patterns (Glesne, 2006; Rossman & Rallis, 2012), and the categorizing of codes led to the development of new themes. Triangulation was used with the reflection logs and lesson plans, which were not coded but were a source of evaluation information. The findings were compared across multiple data types. Interpret the Data The final step involved making meaning of the data. Once coding was complete, I looked for consistent patterns that allowed the data to be synthesized into meaning. I read and reread the transcription to compare the findings and to answer my research well as the applications of the IWB and the CRS in t he classrooms. Researcher Subjectivity, Trustworthiness/Validity, and Limitations of the Study I began my work as a middle school educator for the county in 2004 in the discipline of social studies. My interest in the integration of technology led to my s ervice appointment to head its technology initiatives. I meet with the committee monthly to discuss how technology can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of assessing teach ing practices and student learning, while also supporting strategies to obtain funding and resources. As a middle school technology resource specialist, I assist in
82 the implementation of technology for instruction across different subject areas, and I add ress methods for advancing student learning that respond s to an evolving set of skill demands in the 21 st century. In addition, I facilitate the design of on site TRPD. I understand, as a researcher, that my role as a technology resource specia list at the school site provided a favorable position with respect to implemen ting this study, but it also led to potential problems, such as bias. As a researcher, my attention is focused on creating meaningful TRPD, while also conducting research. A completely un biased qualitative study with valid data is nearly impossible (Merriam, 2002; Rossman & Rallis, 2012). By recognizing my own biases and preferences, I was honest with myself in order to seek them out. To avoid such issues, I used verbatim recordings when ever possible. Because I observed, interviewed, and facilitated the TRPD sessions during the entire project, some participants may have been less open to expressing themselves and could have answered in ways they thought I preferred. The fact that I have an existing working relationship with each teacher brought bias to each mance. Likewise, teachers may have brought bias to the interviews and reflection logs based on previously established rel ationships with me. Another limitation of this study relates to sample size. Resource limits contribute to the lack of breadth available for conducting this research. Because depth was the priority for me, only one school was chosen to participate in t his research project. The findings of this study will likely not generalize to other contexts because of sample size and because the unique experiences of participants cannot be replicated exactly. The results, however, will help determine whether TRPD s essions based on research based
83 teachers at the site. A further limitation is that the interview questions I created were not validated by an external source; they wer e created with the research questions and goals of the study in mind. To increase the trustworthiness and limit researcher bias of the study (Glesne, 2006), I aimed for objectivity by assessing my interpretations of the data collected. This was accompli shed by having participants review notes taken during the interview and in the classroom observations I conducted. Open ended questions were formed to address the study to avoid leading participants (Patton, 2002; Rossman & Rallis, 2012) and to allow for other questions to arise during each individual interview. P articipants reviewed a udio recorded interviews to confirm validity (Patton, 2002). Multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, lessons plans, and reflections logs, were used to conf irm data collected and analyzed. These limitations are mitigated by the fact that these results will be from a qualitative research study in TRPD of teachers with a variety of backgrounds. They provide important findings for designing and implementing sit e based TRPD experiences for teachers. Summary Chapter 4 provided an overview of methodology for this qualitative research study conducted at a middle school in Tampa, Florida. It also addressed the two research questions examined. Chapter 4 described the methodology, instruments used, criteria for participant selection, overview of data collection and analysis techniques, and subjectivity and limitations of the study.
84 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS This chapter includes the findings generated from the data analys is of interviews, observations, and artifacts, such as reflection logs and lesson plans. Analysis was conducted to address the following two research questions: What are the perceptions of middle school teachers of the site based IWB and CRS PD? How do middle school teachers use IWB and CRS tools after participating in a site based PD opportunity? applications of the IWB and the CRS in their classrooms after participation in the TRPD. After the completion of the last TRPD session, I conducted audio recorded interviews with the five participating teachers. In addition to participating in the interviews, all five teachers completed and turn in reflectio n logs for each of the sessions attended. Participants were given the option to turn in reflection logs electronically, but all five submitted them by paper submission. Participants also turned in completed lesson plans from the TRPD sessions prior to th e scheduled classroom observations. Classroom observations were conducted after the TRPD sessions. Question 1: Perceptions I administered the interview and collection of reflection logs for the research What are the perceptions of middle schoo l teachers of the site based IWB and CRS PD? different components and design of the TRPD, including suggestions for future TRPD sessions. The reflection log was an open format with q uestions specifically designed to
85 logs show that the participants, in general, perceived the TRPD to be a positive experience. I categorized the data from the inter views using the constant comparative method to refine and contrast categories that were relevant to the first research question. For analysis, I transcribed the audio recorded interviews into Microsoft Word, and the participants checked for accuracies and omissions. After transcribing the interviews, I reread each transcription several times. While reading each transcript, I wrote notes in the right margin in brackets and highlighted key words and phrases. The process also included developing codes by h ighlighting each section and narrowing them to represent the research question (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). As stated in Chapter 4, I created concept maps to categorize the codes and themes to answer each research question. Figure 5 1 displays an example of coding using a concept map for the research question regarding perceptions. As I color coded each interview into sections and identified codes, four specific coded themes emerged. They were Effective Components of TRPD, Negative Perceptions/Barriers of T RPD, Teacher Perceptions of Student Effects, and Modifications/Suggestions for TRPD. Participants were asked to fill out a reflection log after each session, and they were invited to submit electronically or by paper in a folder provided to them with pro mpted questions (Appendix E). The purpose of this data collection was to allow the participants the opportunity to reflect on their practice and to document perceptions of teachers. I coded the reflection logs in the same manner as I coded the interviews after
86 typing out the reflection logs in Microsoft Word. The themes that emerged in the interviews were compared with those in the reflection logs. Figure 5 1 Per ceptions concept m ap Effective Components of Technology Related Professional Development During the interviews, participant s were asked to reflect upon the specific components of the TRPD that influenced their learning. It became apparent that certain components of the TRPD had a bigger impact than others. The most common theme that emerged from the analysis of the interviews and reflection logs was Effective Components (i.e., features participants found to be beneficial to the TRPD sessions).
87 The five codes that emerged from this theme were on site, ongoing, reflective, support, and collab oration. On site Holding the sessions on participants with convenience, familiarity, and comfort. Participants found this component beneficial to the sessions as it allowed colleagues from the sa me school to meet outside of regularly scheduled meetings. For instance, Participant E (i nterview, were all in our little areas from different schools and backgrounds a nd it is hard to coordinate to meet in one spot to share ideas wit nterview, May 31, 2012), when asked about the format about the session, also noted that she found the on site component to be valuable: I also like that it wa s on comfortable to have an instructor I knew and colleagues as my classmates so there were no unfamiliar faces. I liked the fact that sessions took place on campus because on early release days when teachers are let out early, they are required to stay on campus. The participants shared that meeting in a convenient and familiar surrounding contributed to the success of the sessions. Participants are more likely to attend easily accessible sessions. Having ot her individuals and a facilitator they know helps them feel comfortable engaging in open communications and discussions. When participants from the same site meet, there is a sense of familiarity and comfort, which builds rapport and leads to increased in trinsic motivation to attend sessions. Ongoing Meeting on a continual schedule that was longer than a one shot session was another benefit mentioned regarding the on site sessions. When participants meet on
88 an ongoing schedule, it builds a habit that bec omes part of a schedule. It also allows participants to continue practicing the knowledge and skills gained from the sessions. As with any newly learned skill, practice and repetition are necessary in order for the skill to be retained. For instance, Pa rticipant E (reflection log, May 7, 2012) shared that knowledge was deepened because she had time to interact with the content and skills Throughout the guided and continual practice, retention occurred and the comfort level increased. My previous lack of knowledge had prevented technology integration. It takes repetition to believe that the ongoing sessions was the most useful to me because I was able to see Meeting on a consistent basis was mentioned as an important factor in becoming more familiar with technological tools and strat egies on a continual basis before using The immediate opportunity to consistently apply and implement the kn owledge and skills learned was seen as an important component of the TRPD design. It provided the participants time to carry over into the ir classroom s what they learned during the same week. Holding the sessions weekly gave the participants opportunity to revisit and reinforce what they learned from week to week. Reflective Allowing time for practice and including reflective activities met adult learning needs. Activities that permitted teachers to actively engage with the IWB and the CRS were discusse d as the most influential. While all five participants described these types
89 of activities as the most beneficial, it was demonstrated by Participant D (reflection log, rior to using it in the classroom. Not knowing how to do so will definitely slow down the opportunity to practice including the standards of our curriculum as a lesson. I need ed During the interviews, participants commented on how the time to practice provided opportunities to explore the IWB and the CRS. Learning by doing, like having time for practice, permitted the participant s to actively engage with the IWB and the CRS and led them to describe this activity as one of the most influential. For instance, like I previously thought is not needed but a mere consensus to transfer existing the standards in the smartbo ard notebook as a lesson. I needed the practice on how to Participants expressed their need for time to practice developing their skills and knowledge. Participants also discussed their increased understanding of strategies and their eagerness to use the strategies as a result of the opportunities to engage in hands on application in the session. The participants indicated that a combination of hands on application of tools and strategie s and opportunities to reflect both in their journals and via discussion with colleagues assisted in the success of carrying over into their classroom applications. Participant E (interview, June 2, 2012) stated,
90 I am more likely to integrate smartboard a nd e response clickers in my classroom as a result of these sessions because anything that makes me more reflective about my teaching makes me better in the classroom. I have to think about what I did; how I did it, what the responses were, how I can anti cipate the next time being better than that. Time for reflection during sessions also contributed to the success of the TRPD. Journaling, in addition to the hands on activities, was a method participants found useful. Participants were able to process th eir thoughts and ideas from previous sessions as they continued in the TRPD. Participant C (interview, June 1, 2012) reported that she gained a deeper understanding of the importance of reflection via journaling: I liked having journals where we could als about writing your own thoughts and ideas down. What I really liked about the journals was being able to understand my own thought process. I thought this was very valuable. Participant A (reflection log, April 9, 2012) fo und value in actively engaging in activities so she could solidify the learning for herself; she reflected that she felt more confident using the tools and that the hands on manner made it more applicable to the Allowing one to practice newly learned skills increases the confidence in the application thoughts and activities. The participants clearly believed that activities provided in the sessions were reflective and included hands on practice, which led the activities to be perceived as effective. Support In addition to the be nefit of sessions being held on site, several participants noted as an effective TRPD component the familiarity and comfort of attending an on site
91 TRPD with a facilitator they knew and colleagues with whom they were comfortable. This was an asset that fit their adult learning needs. For instance, Participant E (inter view, June 2, 2012) noted, I know the facilitator well since she works at my school. Having her assist and come to my classroom for informal observation is a little less am able to ask you questions that I might feel intimidated to ask when I am The comfort level that results from working with individuals who are familiar leads to participants feeling further supported; they find comfort i n knowing others are in a similar situation, and this support increases their confidence and motivation to learn new knowledge and skills. The increase in communication and availability also tie into this type of support; having an individual familiar wit h the surroundings and available for support and follow up contributed to the success of the TRPD. Participant D (interview, May 29, 2012) said, I think sometimes teachers need a catalyst to want to use and learn how to use technology tools. For this, yo u were my catalyst because I never thought of using technology that way. I feel with the technical support provided by you as well as the modeling and practice we had in the classrooms. Ask instructor for questions and on site support an important part o f my learning curve and improving of skills. The open communication and the fact that you were always available when I needed you for support and follow up to the sessions allowed me to identify what would work and not work with my other classes. The supp Participant B (reflection log, May 7, 2012) also reflected on the benefit of having an on to ols Participants felt an increased sense of confidence in their knowledge of IWB and CRS tools, and they felt equipped with research based strategies they could use in the
92 classroom during the time allotted to create lesson plans. It was also stated that participants preferred the small group of colleagues, which allowed each participant ample time to practice and receive support from the facilitator. Collaboration A common code under this theme was collabora tion and the opportunity to interact with fellow peers through the sharing of ideas and resources and practicing with the IWB and the CRS through different modeled lessons. All five participants found value in the opportunity to collaborate with each othe r. The collaboration helped them develop innovative new ideas, but one participant found that having the opportunity to work alone also contributed to the success. Participant D (reflection log, May 7, 2012) and strategies and having the support of Increased confidence and motivation arose from collaboration because working with familiar peers allowed participants to discuss best practice strategies, which led to increased knowledge and skills. This motivated the participants to further seek out additional resources outside the sessions. Several participants noted that the site based collaboration contributed to the effectiv eness of the TRPD sessions. There were numerous activities implemented to incorporate collaboration among the participants. The majority of them were weekly discussions. Based on the field notes I collected, the participants were observed sharing ideas and materials during the weekly sessions. The collaboration that occurred provided the opportunity for teachers to learn from each other. While the majority of participants described these types of activities as the most beneficial for them, it was demon strated by one participant that she preferred the option
93 to work individually since she would rather work with an individual who taught the same subject matter. In addition, excitement about regularly using technology with research based strategies was als o noted. Participants reported that they felt increased motivation and confidence as a result of collaboration and application of the skills. In coding this data, I found that participants were excited and eager to use the technologies with strategies in assistance increased this motivation. Participant B (reflection log, April 9, 2012) Participants found value in being able to work with colleagues and exchange ideas with nk I learn a lot from other people doing the same thing and I feel from other profession peer collaboration and identified it as a benefit to this TRPD. Due to their po sitive experiences with collaboration, the participants found value that they previously did not. Participant A (interview, May 31 during the days between classes about ideas we had, to use the tools even t hough we colleagues helped form mutually beneficial relationships. Participant C (interview, June 1, 2012) also believed the benefits of learning required the support of oth about the quality time that we had with each other. I am able to work collaboratively
94 from the same school and get more ideas central to our SIP plan and gain better things Participants seemed to value the collaboration and suppor t from colleagues. Collaborating helped the participants to feel more involved and less isolated, and they were able to learn from one another. Negative Perceptions/Barriers of Technology Related Professional Development Although the data analysis findin gs show that the participants had an overall positive perception of the TRPD sessions, some of the five participants acknowledged that the TRPD sessions were lacking in some areas; it was revealed that there was a need for more time, resources, and flexibi lity with curricular mandates. Three negative codes emerged in the data analysis, and they centered primarily on technical difficulties, as well as on time and limitations. Technical difficulties culties experienced while installing software during the sessions or while troubleshooting. They noted that a one on one facilitator would be helpful to assist when difficulties arose. Their main concern was a break in the lesson due to technical difficu lties, and they shared that having an individual available at all times for support would be helpful. For example, Participant D eparation time is needed for training and exploring the My frustration was due to the program not responding when downloading the lessons. The instructor had to reboo t a different way so that I could work with the lesson in the smart notebook. The process was time consuming and took a lot of trial and effort to determine how to resolve the issue.
95 Without the availability of an on site individual to support these techn ical issues, teachers would have been unable to proceed with the technical lessons they planned, leading to a learning barrier. One of the biggest barriers was the lack of administrative privileges to install the software. Participants were also frustra ted by their own limited technical abilities and skills compared to others in the group of colleagues. Participant B (interview, May 31, 2012) noted, I also felt that I was learning at a slower pace due to my limited technical skills compared to others i n the session. This emphasized the importance of taking sessions. These examples of experiences and barriers teachers faced when attempting to implement technologies in the classroom emphasize the importance of having an on site facilitator available at all times to help with troubleshooting issues. Time and limitations While some of the participants expressed their own frustrations with technical issues as being a barr ier to using the technological tools effectively, negative perceptions included frustrations with limited time to practice and limits set forth by curriculum mandates. Participants repeatedly named time as their biggest barrier. Limitations to effectivel y integrating technology into their curricula included constrictions of standards, pressure to teach all standards prior to standardized assessments, and pressure to stay aligned with the district pacing guide. Participant B (interview, May 31, 2012) emph asized being constricted by the district mandated curriculum: I am limited by my structured curriculum (reading and literacy) and that also limits my time and ability to practice. M y experiences with past professional development has been limited to the context of my curriculum at the district
96 level I am currently in charge of my subject area and I spend most of my free time working with teachers in my department to enhance their skills with curriculum when I have time The time constraints limited my ability to practice the skills and knowledge taught in the sessions. Lack of time was viewed as a barrier to technology use and application in the classroom. Participants revealed they needed more time to learn technology well enough to feel comfortab le to using it with their students. Participant A (i nterview May 31, 2012) said, I realize [it] is difficult with the time and resources allotted by the district and schools. District and school administrators must take into consideration the limiting factors placed on teachers that impede technology integration. Lack of support at the district in the classroom. While the TRPD sessions were designed to provide par ticipants with intensive workshops with support in side and out side of the classroom so they could immediately practice what they learned, the short time span was not enough time for teachers to feel comfortable implement ing what they learned in their class room s Teacher Perception of Student Effects The results from the study indicate that the participants had a positive perception of the effects on students in terms of application of the technological tools and strategies learned from the TRPD. When aske d about their perceptions about student effects, a majority of the participants stated that they believed technology would increase student enjoyment and engagement in the content matter, thereby increasing the desire and ability to gain knowledge. The mo st common codes representing this theme included perception of increased student engagement and enjoyment and knowledge of content matter. Participants believed that the hands on capabilities of the
97 IWB and the CRS would lead to an increase in knowledge a t a higher level of thinking for students. Student engagement and enjoyment The knowledge obtained by each participant regarding the potential uses of technology tools led to student engagement, and each participant found that their own enthusiasm carrie d over for their students as well. For instance, Participant A (reflection log, May 7, 2012) found that students were more engaged with their work because of based strategies with clickers is a great way to keep students engaged and assess learning students to use the smartboard will keep them engaged in the lesson. Students can come up to the whiteboard to highlight and circle answers The tactical and hands on features of the tools were seen as student engaging factors. In addition, offering participants the opportunity to provide students with ongoing assessment led to student engagement. Two other participants agreed that using technological tools had an effect on increasing student engagement. Participant on. They will get instant gratif ication because using smartboards and eresponse is more potential for student learning because the tool was student friendly and provided another form of differentiated instr visuals and manipulatives. It will not only tap into different learning styles but it is also a
98 al tools and strategies was seen as a potential to engage students. The technological tools provided variation and enhancement to existing teaching practices. Participant B on than we were normally doing in my day to day session would lead to an increase in student engagement. Teachers also perceived t hat student enjoyment and engagement would lead to an increase in knowledge of subject matter as a result of the implementation of tools and strategies in the classroom. in a world surrounded by technology so using something they enjoy while learning is an Participant D (interview, May 29 2012) stated, I have learned two n ew strategies that I can utilize with not only the clickers but with the other technology software I learned this past summer, Dyknow, in my curriculum that I believe will not only engage and interest my students but in doing so, will pique their interest further in the subject matter. activities in smart exchange on the smartboard will help students enjoy and learn the lesson and these activities are a simple way to actively i nvolve the students in the Knowledge of content matter Participants perceived overall that the use of the tools would increase student knowledge and would also increase understanding of the material. This led to participants feeling mor e motivated to use the tools and strategies in their content
99 area s Participant A (interview, May 31, 2012) explained the impact of the TRPD on students: I am more motivated to use it as an influencer for instruction and student learning, as well as diffe rent forms of assessment to enhance my existing content matter. Participant D (interview, May 29, 2012) added, I found that strategies taught in the sessions could engage my students v ia interaction with each other at a much higher cognitive level The strategies I learned in the sessions will help my students develop higher learning skills thereby increasing their knowledge. Participants expressed satisfaction that through the use of the technological tools, they could increase engagement and interaction with students at a level that would engage their ability to process conceptual knowledge of the content matter at a higher level beyond factual retention. The hands on feature s of the technological tools were seen as beneficial for students who could connect to the cont ent areas and establish inquiry using these tools and strategies will be more hands on for my students this way, my All five participants stated that they found an increased value in using the IWB and the CRS in conjunction with strategies to provide students with a conceptual understanding of content matter. Modifications/Suggestions for T echnology Related Professional Development suggestions related to TRPD modifications. Recognizi ng that there were areas of improvement for the site designed TRPD, participants were asked whether they had suggestions for future TRPD development. Participants provided suggestions to modify
100 ctives. Suggestions offered were mainly related to the barriers and negative perceptions the participants faced. The themes that emerged from these suggestions included personalizing and on one facilitator. Furthermore, participants noted that they were aware that time and resources were barriers to having a one on one facilitator; still, they felt that having an on site technical support person would alleviate frustrations felt during th e TRPD. Participants noted it would be beneficial to have ongoing follow up with the same collegial support system throughout the school year. Personal and customized sessions Since every individual learns differently, participants noted the benefits of having an individualized approach for TRPD sessions. Participant A (interview, May 31, 2012) stated, goals I think that goals are very specific so I would say to provide a ve ry personal, customized session where I could choose what I wanted to do to classroom already. Participants noted the importance of a customized approach for future development of TRP D. They expressed that they want the option to work collaboratively, but they also want to explore individual subject areas and work independently as needed. Participant E (interview, June 2, 2012) explained To have someone from the subject area in my class I know sometimes this is hard with The participants recognized the need for support to incorporate strategies into their curricula, as well as to modify curricular demands. Participant D (intervie w, May
101 constraints, participants felt that from the district to the individual school, it is i mportant One on one facilitator Having the opportunity to work with a one on one facilitator was suggested by two of the participants, who believe that further support and individual assistance is needed to e nhance the transfer of TRPD content and skills into the classroom. Participant C I would say have the facilitator come to my classroom and actually conduct a demonstration of it before actual implementation. fa cilitator available at times was a need that was also expressed by Participant D (i nterview I would have the sessions meet continually on monthly basis throughout the school year with more facilitators available for each teacher to help wi th technical assistance and troubleshooting when needed. The comfort and familiarity that surrounds having a one on one facilitator also assists participants by having an expert on hand when needed, especially when facing technical issues. Question 2: Tec hnology Applications The classroom observation and lesson plans completed by the participants How do middle school teachers use IWB and CRS tool s after participating in a site based TRPD opportunity? data lesson plan for research based strategies from the TRPD sessions.
102 Observations which ranged in duration from 40 to 50 minutes allowed me to see how teachers u sed technology tools to enhance student learning. In addition to the lesson plan, I used the observation protocol to guide my analysis to help answer the research question. The observation included observations notes, data, and reflections. Figure 5 2 s erves as an example of the coding process. Figu re 5 2. Applications concept m ap During the data analysis, two common the mes Use of Technologies and Use of Research Based Strategies emerged among participants in ter ms of technology applications. As shown in Figure 5 2, a concept map for the research question, I coded the observation protocol which included looking for recurring patterns. I removed codes Applications Use of IWB & CRS Use of Research Based Strategies Teacher Behavior Student B ehavior Use of Peer Instruction Use of Dialogic Teaching > use IWB to present & introduce concepts & content > use IWB to record notes & discussion questions > use laptop to navigate CRS question s > use IWB & CRS to assess student comprehension > use IWB & CRS to reinforce and build on prior knowledge > walk to IWB & tactile navigate > use CRS to answer questions individually & in pairs > stude nts listen to each other & discuss prior to navigating IWB > build on prior knowledge > increase higher level discussion > introduce & discuss diverse viewpoints > discuss new information in groups & in pairs > pose questions & answers > students discuss po ssible answers with each other > students debate & defend answers > students work in collaborative groups to discuss
103 that did not relate to the research question and reworded the mes and codes to appropriately represent the observation notes. I looked at relationships among codes to develop themes. The lesson plan was not coded but was used to constantly compare and contrast recurring codes and patterns to the coded observation p rotocol. The field notes were coded, as described in Chapter 4, and I created concept maps for the research question, developed codes and subcodes, and narrowed the data analysis process (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). As I coded the observations, I developed themes among the codes. The data showed that participants did use the IWB and the CRS for instruction, and they used researched based strategies, such as peer instruction and dialogic teaching. During the observation, participations asked for my assistan ce at times, primarily to help with technical troublesho oting. Due to the key features present in the observation tool, two main themes emerged during the data analysis under which I categorized the codes. The most common theme that emerged was Use of Tec hnologies, which included codes involving both through lectures, facilitations, discussions, and modeling of content matter and skills. The participants presented inform ation, graphic organizers, questions, graphs, simulations, and games on the IWB, and one teacher simultaneously used the CRS with the IWB as an interactive display board using both the peer and dialogic instructional strategies. Using the components of th e observation protocol, the coding analysis was relevant to these distinct areas. Use of Technologies All five participants adopted and adapted at least one of the two technologies IWB and CRS and the components they learned in the TRPD sessions by transf erring
104 specific activities or assignments they created during their sessions. Three of the participants chose to use the CRS to display questions created as a review for a formal assessment. Three participants chose to use the IWB in the classroom to sup port problem and project based activities through individual student research and online research. This led to observations of students using hi gher level skills For instance, both participants and students were involved in using the IWB and the CRS fo r instruction, discussion, and interaction. Teachers used the IWB to present, introduce, reinforce, and build upon prior knowledge concepts and skills while students used them interactively by coming up to the board. Examples of codes relevant to this th eme are Teacher Behavior and Student Behavior. Teacher behavior Teacher behavior involved using the IWB to present and introduce concepts and conte nt. For instance, Participant E used the IWB to incorporate Hispanic family and cultural values into her le sson for Spanish class. She explained concepts thoroughly by navigating the presentation she displayed on the IWB. Teacher Behavior also involved using the IWB to assess student comprehension to reinforce and build knowledge. Participant E used various graphic organizers displayed on the IWB to demonstrate and concepts. Participant B was observed using the IWB to assess comprehension, interpretation, and evaluation of va rious reading passages, which were portrayed on the knowledge by involving them in highlighting and tactile procedures on the IWB. Teacher Behavior also involved using the I WB to record notes and discussion questions. In addition, I observed participants using their mobile devices to navigate
105 CRS questions and also using the CRS to assess student comprehension to reinforce and build knowledge. For instance, Participant A wa s observed utilizing both the IWB and the CRS. He had previously inserted questions in a lecture style presentation, and the questions were designed in a multiple choice format. The questions were projected on the IWB via LCD projector. Before beginning the lesson, I observed him passing out the CRS and instructing students to ensure the clickers worked before beginning the lesson/lecture. Participant D also utilized the CRS and used her laptop to project questions on the board. The participant display ed a timer and provided 5 to 10 minutes for students to make their responses. The teacher clicked ahead to reveal the answers shown with bar graphs and percentages of student responses. Participant E used one to three questions every 15 minutes to allow students to discuss with each other and then the whole class. She projected the questions on the board and facilitated discussions, and she retaught any concepts that students did not understand. Participants assigned each student with a numbered CRS and took very little time to teach the process of using the CRS for the review activity. I observed the teacher reading the question that was projected on the large screen in the front of the classroom. The question had four possible responses ( i.e., A, B, C, or D), and the teacher verbally instructed the students to press the response of the key they believed to be the correct answer. The responses were collected electronically from a signal Student behavior Student Behavior involved students walking up to the IWB and tactile navigating the IWB. This was observed in all three classrooms where the IWB was utilized. Participant A had students walk up to the board twice to move concepts into the
106 appropriate areas of a branches of government diagram. Student anticipation level was high as students looked eager to approach the IWB and use the interactive features. Participant B instructed students every few minutes to navig ate through various compare and contrast graphic organizers. Students were able to discuss whether the information presented was fact, opinion, or propaganda. Students used the research to learn at a higher level in relationship to higher order questioni ng in which students were observed analyzing and synthesizing information. Students demonstrated high interest, and Participant B had students sit in groups and called on a volunteer from each group to represent group findings on textual reading comprehe nsion by highlighting key features and using markers to note them. During the observations and during the analyzing of lesson plans, students used the interactive tools on the IWB during the lessons. This allowed students to use the editing feature on th e IWB. For instance, students were observed highlighting, underlining, and making corrections to the paragraphs by writing the correct answers using the IWB markers. Students were observed using their fingers to touch a word on the IWB and then dragging the word into the appropriate box and/or sentence. Incorrect answers were shown to students by way of software that jumped word choices back into place if they were placed incorrectly. Student Behavior also involved students using the CRS to answer ques tions individually or in pairs. All three observed classrooms where the CRS was utilized involved students actively using the CRS to answer questions; students waited on the teachers to project the question, and after the teacher instructed them that they had a certain number of minutes or seconds to answer the questions, the students pressed the appropriate letter on their clickers. In the classrooms where students worked in
107 pairs or groups, I observed the students listening to each other and discussing prior to answering questions on the CRS or walking up to the IWB and navigating concepts or words. During all the observations, students had opportunities to work in either pairs or small groups using either the IWB or the CRS. Students were actively eng aged in conversations with their peers on how to approach the problem solving process and were overheard discussing variations of approaches and answers. I was aware of the energy in the classroom. The students looked engaged and enthused. Use of Resear ch Based Strategies The common codes developed from the observation using research based strategies were Use of Peer Instruction and use of Dialogic Teaching. Use of peer instruction Peer Instruction involved monitoring student progress by displaying da ta and discussing responses with students, providing feedback, and explaining incorrect answers using the CRS. To use the peer strategies, teachers displayed student responses either in bar or pie chart format with anonymous names to display questions to which students responded. Students discussed and responded to questions using the CRS. A few classes had students discuss in pairs while others had them grouped together. Results were discussed to clear up any misconceptions and to provide feedback and accurate information to students. Subcodes that emerged during the coding analysis for the use of dialogic teaching used open ended questioning techniques that led students into discussions and higher level thinking that built on prior knowledge. For exa mple, Participant C displayed questions in order of difficulty level as understanding of the material. When paired students answered incorrectly, they were
108 re paired with those who answered the question correctly so that the student who answered correctly could explain the answer to the other student. Participant D designed questions to start a discussion or, at times, to promote peer to peer conversation in her health science class. Some of the questions were worded in terms of statements with which students could agree or disagree. She also spaced the questions 15 minutes apart to allow students time to discuss answers with each other and to allow the teachers the chance to reteach and peers the chance to communicate with each other the correct answer. Use of dialogic teaching To demonstrate the dialogic instruction, teachers used the IWB to discuss the objectives of the lessons, and diverse viewpoints were introduced and dis cussed. Throughout the observations, I noted that teachers and students discussed methods for using the IWB and the CRS. Teachers took breaks throughout the lesson to instruct students on the steps to take with the tools while students answered, responde d, and discussed among each other. At times, this led to whole class discussions and debates, which led to higher level thinking; this was the case when Participant A utilized both the IWB and the CRS. He designed questions for the CRS related to the day lesson objectives as stated in the lesson plan; these questions were embedded throughout the lecture presentation. Participant B used the dialogic teaching strategy to complete web based activities and practice concepts and vocabulary, and she also wor ked on reading comprehension with the students. She did so by opening each activity with a prompt for students to discuss as a group and then as a class. These prompts were designed to access prior knowledge and evaluate texts projected on the IWB. Part icipant B correlated the standards in her presentation on the IWB. She
109 stopped frequently to check for student understanding of the concepts being taught. She used the ELMO and LCD projector to create a big book that all students could view while the stu dents followed along. The teacher periodically asked questions to check explaining concepts thoroughly and having students actively involved as a class and having them individua lly come up to the IWB. The conversations that occurred were at a class level with high levels of discussions and engagement between both the students and teacher. Summary Data findings and results from the data collection and analysis helped demonstrate based TRPD and their applications of the IWB and the CRS and peer instruction and dialogic teaching into their classroom s for the purpose of student engagement and enhancement of content matter. The findings show that teach ers had an overall positive perception to the TRPD, and they applied their le arning in their classrooms. Chapter 6 features a discuss ion of work and research.
110 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Chapter 6 includes a summary of the study, a discussion of the results, additional outcomes, implications of the study, and conclusions for both research questions. Additionally, implications for future research are discussed. Summary of the Study Existing TRPD sessions offe red to teachers in my district were not meeting TRPD sessions and to utilize on site technological troubleshooting support. The purpose of this study was to develop wor kshops in order to teach technological tools, strategies, and skills to teachers who could then transfer their knowledge to their classrooms. Follow up support and time for practice were key in the implementation of these workshops. Obtaining technologica engage students and increase content matter knowledge with the requirements set by ubric (Danielson, 2007). Therefore, I created a site based TRPD for this particular need based on the six effective, research based components (Darling Hammond, 1998; Guskey, 2003a; Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007) and principles from the adult learning theory (Birman et al., 2000; Knowles, 1980; Lock, 2006) to provide teachers with the skills necessary for using the available on site technological tools, such as the IWB and the CRS. I also incorporated factors from the school evaluation rubric (Danielson, 2007).
111 Despite a substantial amount of funding spent on technological tools at my school, few teachers were utilizing the tools in their classrooms. The TRPD I created provided five participants with four on site, ongoing s essions held on early release Mondays and conducted over a 5 week period. These face to face sessions consisted of instructor support, peer collaboration, follow up activities, practice, reflection time, and ongoing support. Each session focused on the d emonstration and explanation of the uses of the IWB and the CRS with a focus on collaboration, lesson plan development, and hands on activities. Participants were given the option to work individually or in pairs to practice the tools. The purpose of thi s study was two fold: to examine the perceptions of middle based TRPD session on the IWB and the CRS and to explore the ways in which teachers transferred what they learned in the TRPD into their c lassrooms after participating in the session. To determine teacher perceptions and technology applications of the TRPD, I used a qualitative research method design for data collection and analysis. The research questions for this study were: What a re the perceptions of middle school teachers of the site based IWB and CRS PD? How do middle school teachers use IWB and CRS tools after participating in a site based TRPD opportunity? To address the first research question, I collected data by conducting semi s tructured individual interviews and collecting reflection logs. To address the second a lesson plan that was created during the TRPD session. This lesson plan was als o collected for data collection and analysis pertinent to the technology applications
112 research question. The qualitative methods used for this study were based on the research question and data collection methods. The interview questions were created t o allow for descriptive responses (Patton, 2002). The questions were developed based on the TRPD components. Question prompts were provided in the reflection logs, allowing teachers to construct meaning from their experiences (Patton, 2002; Shaunessy, 20 05). I conducted interviews and collected reflection logs immediately after the TRPD sessions were completed. The (ISTE, 2007) and included an area to include field note s to record detailed descriptions of teacher and student activities (Patton, 2002). The lesson plan framework utilized by the participants was developed using the Danielson (2007) framework as a foundation. Lesson plans were collected and used in conjunc tion with the lesson observed in the classroom. Discussion of Results based TRPD and their applications of the knowledge and skills learned in the TRPD to their classrooms. The results showed observed increased use of the IWB and the CRS, as well as the dialogic and peer instruction methods demonstrated in their classrooms. For the first research question perceptions of middle school teachers of the site based IWB and an overall positive reaction to the TRPD sessions. They also started foreseeing a positive reaction amo ng their students once learning was applied to their curricula. They cited several effective components on which the TRPD was based, and they
113 reported that the sessions were designed to meet their needs. Participants provided few suggestions for future T RPD based on their individual experiences. and CRS tools after participating in a site displayed learned technology applications and strateg ies from the TRPD sessions by applying them to the classroom context and, thereby, increasing student engagement. The use of the IWB and CRS tools and dialogic and peer instruction were observed ers. During the observations, there was evidence of technology application in all five classrooms, but I found that while some teachers used the strategies and tools in similar manners, different pedagogies and student engagement strategies were used. Fo r instance, in the classrooms where the CRS was utilized, there were situations in which students worked in pairs or groups. In one case, pairs of students were switched throughout the class based on understanding of a concept a student who answered a que stion correctly, for example, was re paired with a student who answered it incorrectly. In another case, after students responded to questions, the questions were discussed as a whole class for 15 minutes rather than moving on to the next question. One t eacher changed the order of the questions based on the understanding of questions, slowly building to higher level questions. In addition, one teacher embedded CRS questions in a lecture style format instead of spending the entire class time on continual CRS engagement. In the classrooms where the IWB was used, the manner in which teachers asked students to navigate the IWB varied. One teacher used an approach in which students were called on individually to walk to the IWB and discuss
114 the results with the whole class. Another teacher placed students in groups and had each student from a group take turns walking up to the board to teach the rest of the class. The teacher who utilized both the IWB and the CRS made minimal requests for s tudents to come to the board; the main focus was on the teacher directing and navigating on the IWB while students spent more time engaged on the CRS. The conclusions presented below for each research question are based on the data findings from each ques a re the perceptions of middle school teachers of the site erms of the following codes: on site, ongoing, coll aboration, support, and reflection. These five components are related to the six research based components from the literature (Darling Hammond, 1998; Guskey, 2003 a ; Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007) and adult learning principles (Birman et al., 2000; Lock, 200 6; Yin, 2003) on which the TRPD sessions were designed and upon which they were focused. Therefore, the data results the research based best practices found in Chapter As found through this study and in the literature (Birman et al., 2000; Garet et al., 2001 ), teachers must be actively involved in their own learning if a modification to instructional practice is to be continued and carried over in to the classroom. All five participants either stated or reflected that actively participating in the sessions led to a desire to adopt the knowledge and strategies. The on site and ongoing components refer to the length and sustainability of the PD. Re search has also supported that PD that is sustained over time will affect instructional practices (Darling Hammond et al.,
115 2009; Garet et al., 2001). Desimone (2009) noted that longer hours and follow up provided over a span of time are most effective. T he participants in this study met with each other for 10 to 15 hours, and they also spent other time in the study. Vannata and Fordham (2004) found that time is essential to technology integration. This ongoing TRPD experie nce allowed the participants mo re time to become active participants in their learning. They met for 5 days, which allowed them time to revisit the learning from previous sessions and receive assistance from colleagues and from me. There was enough evidence from the data analysis and findings to suggest opportunities for the participants to collaborate and share ideas regarding tools and strategies to engage students and enhance content knowledge in relation to the county rubric. There were certain participants who cited that the coll aboration component would be much more beneficial if it aligned with similar content areas. Collaboration refers to the extent to which teachers from the same school site, department, or district participate in the same activities. Collaboration allows f or interaction and discourse to occur, and it can promote changes in instructional practices (Baker et al., 1994; Ball & Cohen, 1999; Desimone, 2009; Loucks Horsley et al. 2003; Penuel, Fishman, et al., 2007). Also, participant perceptions regarding the effects the tools and strategies would have on their students matched the need expressed by the teachers, with the emphasis on 21 st century learning, and with the county evaluation rubric. Technological tools, such as the IWB and the CRS, have the ability to increase student learning in ways that deeply engage students in content matter, thereby increasing higher order thinking skills, such as problem solving and decis ion making (Rakes et al. 2006). Such technology is also important for preparing student s for the future and teaching them 21 st
116 century skills, such as content literacy (Shaunessy, 2005). Technological tools are a means to help engage students with meaningful, relevant, and personalized learning that can further their understanding (NCREL, 2 001). The IWB and the CRS are two tools that can assist students with the skills needed in the 21 st century by promoting higher levels of cognition, improving student engagement, and satisfying federal initiatives calling for technology use in the classro om. Taking into consideration create more opportunities in their subject areas to fulfill this need and their desire; essentially, it would be more effective for teache Among the negative perceptions that were noted, recurring themes were the need for more time to practice and plan for lessons and the need for collaboration with similar content areas. Teachers perceived time to be the biggest b arrier to technology implementation. Teachers stated that another barrier was the number of standards they were required to teach. Time issues can be addressed at the administrative school level and at the district level by sharing the positive findings of the study. and CRS tools after participating in a site teachers were able to apply their learning and knowledge from the TRPD sessions i nto their classrooms via their applications of lesson plans and their effective incorporation of research based strategies, such as dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; Armstrong et al., 2005) and peer instruction (Fies & Marshall, 2006 ; Mazur, 1997 ) via th e IWB and the CRS. During my classroom observations and analyses of the lesson plans, I noted the use of these strategies with the IWB and the CRS to actively engage students and
117 increase student participation. For example, dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; Armstrong et al., 2005) increased teacher student interactivity because the teacher observations where the IWB was utilized, each student played an active role by disc ussing lesson objectives with the teacher and engaging in discussions by sharing final learning product (Smith et al., 2006). In peer instruction (Fies & Marshall, 2006 ; Mazur, 1997 ), students were involved in their own learning. Conceptual, multiple choice questions were embedded within existing or new lecture presentations (Beatty et al., 2006). In one of the observations I conducted, a participant included a lecture based, PowerPoint presentation using the IWB and integrated questions into the software that aligned with the county evaluation rubric, his curriculum, and both dialogic and peer instruction strategies. The pacing of the questions within the lecture and t he planned usage of both tools allowed the teacher to clarify misunderstandings and correct answers (Beatty et al., 2006). Using the CRS has been shown to prepare students with standardized testing (Cotner et al., 2008; Penuel, Fishman, et al., 2007). Th e presentation had content displayed on the IWB as precursors to the questions comprehension of the content matter displayed via charting features before further progression in the l esson. strategies was observed when teachers paced one to two questions every 15 minutes (Fies & Marshall, 2006 ; Mazur, 1997 ). The engagement and discussion among the
118 studen ts was prevalent as they discussed among themselves via the peer instruction method (Fies & Marshall, 2006 ; Mazur, 1997 ). The lesson included questions that motivated students to think about and create objectives for the upcoming assessments. Studies on the IWB show that this process increases student involvement in learning (Painter et al., 2005). Activities involving teachers creating lesson plans in the TRPD sessions and taking the time to practice with each other with the assistance of a facilitator greatly assisted teachers with implementation and with the carrying over of skills and knowledge into their classrooms. This rea l world relevance (Knowles, 1980 ) helped them construct meaning and gain confidence, and their reflection logs helped them refl ect on their learning and thoughts. Research based components of the TRPD sessions were found to be effective for developing future TRPD sessions, and suggestions were made by the participants for modifications to meet their adult learning needs. The con tinued, ongoing, supportive collaboration outside of the sessions increased confidence and comfort these were key features for making the TRPD a positive experience. Reviewing teacher perceptions is one way to gauge the effectiveness of TRPD and the effec tiveness of application into the classroom. Additional Outcomes During the data collection and analysis process, findings unrelated to the research questions guiding the study were revealed. The interviews and reflection logs noted the or individualized TRPD sessions involving a one on one facilitator. This topic surfaced when teachers were asked to elaborate on modifications and suggestions that would make the TRPD sessions much more effective. A one on one
119 facilitator would require m ore funding and time, which was also mentioned as a barrier to the TRPD by the participants. I believe that having a familiar facilitator with whom participants had a rapport affected their positive perception of support. Being available on site increase d comfort level because the participants had assistance as needed, and I spent a large amount of time helping them troubleshoot, offering suggestions, and answering questions (Desimone et al., 2006; Mouza, 2009), which led to an increase in positive percep tions of support during and after the sessions. In addition, support was available and seen as beneficial from colleagues (Desimone et al., 2006; Garet et al., 2001; Penuel, Fishman, et al., 2007). Implications The results from this qualitative study have future research implications for PD providers and administrators. The findings have particular relevance for those who plan and provide PD. There are several key components that are necessary in planning and implementing a site based TRPD ( Desimone et a l., 2006; Haar, 20 0 1 ; Penuel, Fishman, et al., 2007). The findings of this study support the assertion that these are important to effective PD. Those who are PD providers should devote their initial efforts to determining the needs of the participants a nd designing the PD to take place over an extended amount of time so that teachers have a chance to work on content and applications (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007). Ertmer (1999) noted that if teachers introduced to technology have th eir immediate needs supported, increased confidence level and effective use of technology will result. PD providers and taken into consideration when implementing TRPD The needs assessment in this study showed teachers were not fully using available technology. This study
120 successfully implemented the site based TRPD, and this design can be used in the future to instruct teachers on methods for truly integrating techn ology tools into their curricula based on standards and evaluation rubric components and not just simply using technology for daily maintenance and routine tasks, such as grade recording. Additionally, the integrated technological tools provided by the T RPD model in this study enhanced several classroom lessons by providing teachers opportunit ies to engage students with authentic tasks and skill sets. It has been shown that w hen technological tools are used in teaching, critical thinking improv e s. These tools allow students to foc u s on solving authentic, real world tasks (Roblyer & Edwards, 2000). attend TRPD sessions over time and when the sessions focu s not only on technological skills, but on application to curriculum (Garet et al 2001). The success of TRPD is dependent on standards based and content focused sessions (Desimone et al. 2006) which can transform teaching practices and impact student achievement. PD providers and administrators should focus on designing TRPD workshops by content area and providing PD that helps teachers incorporate technology tools into their existing teaching practice s RPD. promoting collaboration. Utilizing one on one facilitators is also key (Desimone et al., 2006 ; Guskey, 2003 b ). In this study, teachers benefited from numerous opportunities to
121 share and engage in dialogue (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Also, teachers should be provided with assistance as they apply the learning. The findings of the data analysis showed that an individualized TRPD was desired and needed by teachers. A small group of site based individuals should continue to be the focus of future TRPD. In addition, an in house, one on one facilitator available at all times is n ecessary to provide expertise, support, and technical troubleshooting (Lock, 2006). Teachers should be provided with more choices, and the TRPD should be tailored to individual needs with specific curricula rather than focus ing on a whole group (Dexter et al., 2002; Guskey, 2003 b ; Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007). Smal l Group and Site Based I believe that one of the reasons the teachers in this study perceived the overall TRPD to be positive was due to the small cohort of on site individuals. In order for the TRPD to bring change to instructional practices and be effective, it needs to be conducted in smaller groups (Birman et al., 2000). In this study, the sample consisted of five individuals and was initially limited to 10 participants. This allowed me, as a facilitator, to provide support and assistance to each individual participant. The participants felt comfortable due to the familiarity of the individuals from the same school. One of the components of the TRPD was built upon being site based, which c ontributed to this success (Sparks & Hirsh, 2000). Another component was collaboration. The emphasis on collaboration and communicating with one another was assisted with face to face and ongoing sessions that were held on a weekly basis (Johnson, 2006; Lock, 2006). This also led to communication among teachers outside of the sessions. Participants were able to provide each other with support and share ideas that assisted with learning and the application of the IWB, the CRS, and research
122 based strategi es into their classrooms. I, as the facilitator, was able to provide enough time and support to the teachers due to the small number of individuals. This gave the participants an opportunity to collaborate with each other and provided them enough time to practice with the tools on their own schedules (Hew & Brush, 2007). As noted in and confidence (Desimone et al., 2006). A future TRPD modification would be to contin ue forming small groups from similar subject areas and then to implement a train the trainer model with participants as experts. This would fulfill the suggestion of having more one on one facilitators and would save time and money for the district. One o n One Faci l itator and Support It was found that participants preferred an on site facilitator rather than an outsider because this person provides familiarity and comfort while building rapport (Haar 20 0 1 ). This provides individuals with the opportunity to ask questions normally not asked and to feel comfortable asking for ongoing support (Salpeter, 2003). This also allows on site facilitators to be available in classrooms as needed for additional support (Penuel, Fishman, et al., 2007). In addition, a facilitator from the same school c an serve as a peer coach, who is fully aware of SIP plans, school environment structure, school and administrator policies, and evaluations conducted at the school and district levels this arrangement can help all parties better understand each other. According to Joyce and Showers (2002), in order for PD to be effective, it should include a combination of theory, modeling, practice, feedback and coaching. Content focused peer coaching can help instructional coaches as t hey work with teachers to develop their technology based content knowledge. Peer coaching is a component of PD sessions that c an be further explored based on the additional findings in this study. It is important to offer
123 time for participants to work to gether and exchange ideas. If funds are available, participants can meet with each other and the facilitator during the day while substitute teachers fill their roles. Another method to use would be a train the teacher program or partnering a less experi enced teacher with a more experienced teacher for observation and modeling. Choices and Time to Practice One observation I made during my reflections during the TRPD sessions and observations is that teachers were provided the choices to choose their strat egies and tools, and they chose when to implement what was learned. Giving them this choice, as well as time to practice with support and assistance, increased the confidence among the teachers (Knowles, 1980; Lock, 2006). Participants must be given suff icient time and opportunity to practice the knowledge and skills they learn. Time is an important factor that must be addressed when designing PD (Hew & Brush, 2007). One participant suggested provid ing more time to practice and allow ing teachers more ti me in sessions to make it longer throughout the year. This would provide the teachers with more confidence and would allow for follow up sessions after formal implementation in the classroom, which would be a series of sessions instead of a few (Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007). This fulfills the adult learning principles of an active, authentic, and real world learning environment (Knowles, 1980). Workshops based on individualized learning rather than on the one size fits all model would benefit teachers if r elated to specific content area s (Flick & Bell, 2000; Mason et al., 2000). This type of TRPD would benefit teachers as it provides strategies they could implement in their classrooms. I believe that allowing participants to choose
124 to collaborate with sim ilar subject areas would enhance this feature; it would make it more authentic and meaningful (Knowles, 1980). The need for additional time for teachers to practice, plan, and collaborate is clearly supported in the literature (Darling Hammond et al., 2009; Garet et al., 2001; Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007). Recommendations for Future Sessions As mentioned above, TRPD sessions should remain at a small number, preferably at eac h subject area or grade level. Ultimately, teachers can bring this information to personal and professional learning communities to collaborate among each other individually on their own choice and time. It is important, however, to allow participants to choose to attend and to not make session attendance mandatory. Although observations and interviews would not occur with future perception evaluations of the TRPD sessions, results from this study can be used to create further ongoing, on site TRPDs that are more extensive and focused on small groups of individuals. Data collection instruments, such as surveys, possibly online, and open forum discussions can be implemented to provide continual feedback on the effect of the sessions on ns. Also, a group of students can be evaluated on the effect of technology use on their perceived skills and knowledge via survey construction and test assessments. This study provides a PD model approach for identifying future in i tiatives for teacher per ceptions and student effectiveness (Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007). For those interested in determining teacher pe r ceptions and applications of their TRPD sessions I recommend a pieced approach that begin s with reviewing the school improvement and
125 current P D plan s and rolling out the TRPD model in phases over one or more school years. This w ill allow for opportunities to address any issues or weakness es that may arise and to modify them as needed. First, an individual should review the school improvement a nd current PD plan s to look for weaknesses and to assess the needs in guide. The PD literature and learning theories should also be considered in this process. Most PD initia t ives take pl ace over sev e ral years, so it is important to carry out the PD sessions over at least one school year to determine overall effectiveness and impact. I recommend focusing on teacher and student perceptions initially because as Guskey (2003) note d these l evels are important before determining the true impact and effectiveness of TRPD sessions on student achievement. Once the perceptions prove to be effective, I suggest measuring during the following year student learning outcomes and achievement. From the data analysis and findings, it is evident that TRPD sessions should include adult learning principles and research based components found to be effective according to literature and previously used instructional design methods. Alth ough time and cost are factors, a model approach can be used consistently among different schools in the same district, and evaluation can occur in order to implement at a district level since all schools use the same evaluation tools. Were I to repeat th is study, I would define the types and levels of technology integration for teachers to reach, such as more active student centered approaches. The data I collected and analyzed helped d skill levels using the IWB and the CRS for student engagement and led to an increase in content
126 and conceptual knowledge. This study has influenced my stance related to PD; going forward, I will create a more formalized PD session with increased collabo ration from teachers to meet their individual needs this will help improve my practice, as teachers need more collaboration so they can transfer their learning to authentic, real world experiences (Knowles et al., 1998). Teachers need additional time to l earn and practice various research based strategies to engage students and meet their diverse learning styles. Further studies into the connection between use of teacher and student achievement would be useful. Another study could be a quantitative resear ch study standardized tests. A qualitative research study examining whether students believe they learn more with technological tools in the classroom would provide insight and perspectives from the learners. Student perceptions would present teachers with data they could utilize to guide their lessons. For other districts and schools interested in based TRPD, I recommend a similar approach that would last for about one to two school years and would involve a longitudinal analysis. It would enable teachers to evaluate pre and post student effectiveness. Future research is recommended to explore t he use of the IWB and the CRS and dialogic teaching and peer instruction in the classroom. Further exploration can occur to examine the transfer and gain of knowledge among students. Further research in the form of a longitudinal study is needed to deter mine student effects as a result of TRPD implementation. Research is needed to study the role of school level administration in defining and implementing
127 technology int Although not used for data in the study, the researcher reflective journal provided me with in for mation that was helpful during the data an a ly s is pr ocess. It included records of behavior and participant interaction observations during the sessions and within the classrooms and it helped ensure reflectivity (Patton, 2002). Data collection in qualitative research occurs naturally in the setting of a reflective practitioner (Rossman & Rallis, 2012); thus, keeping a reflective jou rnal helped me focus on how to modify sessions in the future to improve the overall effectiveness of the professional development. There were some limitations noted. While the participants and I established a rapport, which led to an increase in comfort and familiarity among the participants, it should be noted that the participants may have been hesitant to give constructive feedback or criticism in their interviews and reflec tion logs because I served as the professional developer and researcher. Another limitation of the study is transfer to other districts. A limitation of the study is that the instruments used were ultimate goal of this TRPD is to increase student academic learning, such that it can be evaluated by the impact of a TRPD over a sustained amount of time. Looking at pre and post comparison assessments for the whole year of the study can be made. Further research is needed to determine whether providing knowledge and skills though a well designed TRPD would impact student learn ing.
128 Conclusion The conclusions of this study are significant for the school and district in which the study was conducted. This study found that teachers who participate d in a site based TRPD featuring effective PD practices and focused on research base d components were positively impacted by increasing levels of technological practice in the classroom and by engaging students. Findings from this study are aligned with the research on PD that states that successful sessions need to be on site (Penuel, F ishman, et al., 2007; Sparks & Hirsh, 2000), ongoing (Desimone et al., 2006; Lock, 2006), supportive (Berry et al., 2004; Lock, 2006), content based (Flick & Bell, 2000; Mason et al., 2000), and standards based (Guskey, 2003 b ). Over the past decad e, many studies (Darling Hammond 1998; Guskey, 2003 b ; & Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007) have focused on pants instructional practice. Results from this study suggest modifications to this TRPD model to affect teacher about their instructional practices. Teachers need to be committed to changes; otherwise, they will not devote the time necessary to see the impact on student learning. Using the current TRPD model, it is critical to continue focusing on changing teacher beliefs through activities that engage participants through sustainable sessions. It is necessary to include follow up opportunities to observe, engage, and share ideas to overcome barriers. Support from each other is also impor tant. Teachers should be provided with a significant amount of choice and variety among the PD sessions,
129 including sessions based on individual needs, choices, and provisions for individualized curriculum.
130 APPENDIX A PROMPTED QUESTIONS In what ways have you integrated technological tools into your classroom to date? Were you able to connect standards to this content? What are some of the technolog ical tools you currently use in the classroom? In your opinion, does the technology you currently use in your classroom influence student learning outcomes in terms of literacy and 21 st century skills? If applicable, in what way do the technological tool s you use in your classroom help students make a connection to the real world? Which of the tools me ntioned at the orientation are you most interested in using for this study?
131 APPENDIX B LESSON PLAN FRAMEWORK What 21 st century skill or concept is being addressed (brief description) : NETSS standards : How will the skill/concept be demonstrated: Materia ls/Location : Subject area standard(s): Objective : Plan /Strategies : Timeline : Resources : Student Assessment: (Use additional space as needed.) Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Associatio n for Supervision and Curriculum Development
132 APPENDIX C PEER AND DIALOGIC INSTRUCTION STRATEGIES CRS Peer Instruction (Fies & Marshall, 2006; Mazur, 1997): Pose a thought provoking question (create a question to stimulate deep thought) Use the question to bring to light any m isconceptions Give students an allotted amount of time to think individually about their response s; have students vote Review c hart data Instruct s tudents to discuss with partner ; revote If class average is low, have students engag e in a class wide discussion Use c ooperativ e learning activity to probe student understanding of lecture content discussing, debating and defending Write questions to measure learning objectives Ensure that q uestions differentiate between jargon and under standing of concepts to clear misconceptions Develop w rong answers that seem plausible/logical to serve as multiple choice distracters Limit a nswer choices to five IWB Dialogic T eaching (Alexander, 2008 ; Armstrong et al 2005; Mercer, Littleton, & Wegeri f, 2004 ) Discuss learning objectives and alternative viewpoints Discuss r easoning: generating, justifying and evaluating ideas Discuss r Discuss c o constructing new meanings and interpretations Discu ss t ransition ing passive lecturing to interactive lecturing Discuss e ncouraging a diversity of views Discuss e ncouraging extended turns
133 Discuss a dapting to emerging circumstances Discuss b uilding cumulatively on shared experience Discuss b uilding areas fo r discussion to construct new knowledge (whole class or pairs)
134 APPENDIX D CONSENT FORM You are invited to take part in a doctoral research study of a site based t echnology r elated p rofessional d evelopment (TRPD) The study is being conducted by Shreya D esai, a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida. You were chosen for the study because you indicated interest in the project at the beginning of the 2011 2012 school year and you are a classroom teacher at Palms Middle School. The information ga ined from this research study may help design more effective professional development (PD) in the future. Please review the requirements of the project and feel free to ask for any clarification before agreeing to be part of the study. Background Infor mation: of a site based TRPD and its impact on integrating technology in the classroom to affect student engagement and 21 st century learning. Procedures: If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to k eep a reflection log p articipate in a n interview lasting 45 minutes to 1 hour and agree to be audio recorded during this interview p articipate in TRPD activities for about eight weeks and keep a journal t hroughout th e activities a llow the researcher (Shreya Desai) to observe you r classroom activities twice during the study and c reate a l esson p lan to integrate the technology in your c lassroom and create a reflection journal during this process Voluntary Nature of the Study: Your part icipation in this study is completely voluntary. If you decide to join the study now, you can still change your mind later. If you feel stressed during the study you may stop at any time. You may skip any questions you feel are too personal. Risks and Benefits of Participating in the Study: No risks are anticipated as a result of participation in the study. The expected benefits include the opportunity for professional and personal growth. Sharing Results of the Study: The results of this study will be shared with all stakeholders through print in the form of a doctoral study or in summary form as in a report of the findings. Your name will be protected.
135 Compensation: You will receive six in service credit points upon completing the whole study. Co nfidentiality: Any information you provide will be kept anonymous. The researcher will not use your information for any purposes outside of this research project. Also, the researcher will not include your name or any other identify ing information in any reports of the study. Contacts and Questions: You may contact the researcher via e mail at firstname.lastname@example.org at any time during the study reg arding questions, concerns, etc You may also contact her via phone at (813) 792 5125, ext. 231 The researcher will give you a copy of this form to keep. Statement of Consent: I have read the above information. I have received answers to any questions I have at this time. I am 18 years of age or older, and I consent to participate in the study. Elect ronic signatures are regulated by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Legally, mail address, or any other identifying marker. An electronic signature is just as valid as a written signature a s long as both parties have agreed to conduct the transaction electronically. Participant Printed Name : __________________________________________________________ Electronic* Signature: ______________________________________ ___________ _________ Electronic* Signature: _________________________________________________ _________
136 APPENDIX E REFLECTION LOG/JOURNAL (**You can choose to submit this electronically using word processing software via e mail to me ) Please note the prompted questions at the end, as well as the short questionnaire. NAME: __________________________________________________________ DATE: __________________________________________________________ ACTIVITY/EVENT: (Describe activ ities/lessons used): ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _________________________ _____________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ T HOUGHTS : went well in your opinion, etc.) _____________ _________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Questions to guide reflection. Please respond accordingly below. What was your overall perception of t Wh ich How so?
137 What did you learn as a result of today? What are possible outcomes of today ? How do es this connect with an aspect of your teaching practice? How does this activity meet your curricular and teaching goals? Desai: Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Incorporated research based instructional p ractices Contributed to my learning Met my needs as a learner Connected to my prior knowledge Included useful and meaningful content Gave time and opportunity to consider use of tools in my subject area Include d time for refle ction and/or lesson development Included discussion and/or collaboration Was facilitated in a professional manner Was conducted at a convenient time Showed ways that students could be highly engaged Use additional space as needed. Modified from: Fuller, J. (2011). An evaluation of professional development on using student response systems and interactive whiteboards for formative assessment in the middle schools of a southeastern school district (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida) Retrieved March 30, 2012, from http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0043254/fuller_j.pdf
138 APPENDIX F INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE You are invited to participate in doctoral study research focused on professional development (PD) As demands on increasing teacher effectiveness continue from national reforms and our duty to prepare students for the 2 1 st century, it is our responsibility to continually participate in PD to stay current on innovations to assist with teacher pedagogy. You will have the opportu nity to engage and participate in technology r elated professional development (TRPD) to address your current needs at our school. The study will last about eight weeks. In addition to attending and being an actively engaged participant in the sessions, y ou will plan a lesson inte grating technology collaboratively and will keep a reflective journal. You will also observe while members in the group teach lessons, reflect on the observations and offer suggestions as needed. You will also be observed once and will partake in a post TR PD open ended intervie w. In doing so, you will gain valuable knowledge and skills that you can apply to your classroom and use for your new county evaluation rubric to score exemplary points. I would appreciate your serious consideration of becoming a research participant. You will receive six in service credits and an opportunity to collaborate with colleagues and learn to implement technology tools in your curriculum as a result.
139 APPENDIX G POST TRPD INTERVIEW Reflective: 1. Have you participated in similar TRPD sessions before this one? 2. Overall, how would you describe your experience with this PD ? 3. Will you be more or less likely to use technology in your lessons as a result of this PD ? Explain. Collaboration: 4. Explain if and how your experience working with other teachers at your site through the PD sessions contributed to success of this PD. Content Based/Strands: 5. Do you believe that participating in this PD will help you use the IWB and the CRS more efficiently in y our teaching in general? If so, how (cite a specific example)? If not, why not? 6. Do you feel t hat participating in this TRPD will enhance you r If so, please describe or give a specific example If not, please specify why not. Adult Learning: 7. Identify and explain the most useful learning component of this type of PD. Follow U p: 8. In what ways, if any, could I modify this PD to help you meet your goals? Reflective 9. What changes if any, would you make to the PD sessions?
140 APPENDIX H CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT Setting Date: ___________________ School: ___________________________ Teacher: ________________ Grade: ____________________ Subject: _________________ # of Students: ______________ Observation Start Time: ________ Observation End Time: _____________ Room description and student characteristics: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ ____________________________ Student groupings (check all observed during the period): ________ Individual student work _________Small groups ________ Student p airs _________Whole class ________ Other (please comment): Teacher roles (check all observed during the period): _______ Lecturing ________ Facilitating/Coaching _______ Interactive direction ________ Modeling _______ Discussion _______ Other (pl ease comment):
141 Learning activities (check all observed during the period): ______ Creating presentations ______ Test taking ______ Research ______ Drill and practice ______ Information analysis ______ Simulations ______ Writing ______ Hands on skill training ______ Other (please comment): Strategies used: ______ Dialogic Instruction ______ Peer teaching ______ Other (please comment): How essential was technology to the teaching and learning activities? ______1. Not needed; other approaches wo uld be better ______2. Somewhat useful; other approaches would be as effective ______3. Useful; other approaches would not be as effective ______4. Essential; the lesson could not be done without it Technologies used and the amount of time spent using: Too ls Teacher Student IWB CRS Other: Focal points of observations: Type of research based strategy used Student engagement Conceptual knowledge of content
142 Ways in which teachers are using IWB and CRS Ob s ervations Reflections/Evidence
143 LIST OF REFERENCES Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching : Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). York: Dialogos. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Scie nce Education, 13 (1), 1 12. Ansell, S. E., & Park, J. (2003). Tracking tech trends: Student computer use grows, but teachers need training. Education Week's Technology Counts, 22 (35), 43 48. Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57 (4), 457 469. doi:10.1080/00131910500279551 Association for Supervision and Curriculum D evelopment. (2009). Planning professional development programs Retrieved January 10, 2012, from http://www.ascd.org/professional development.aspx Baker, E. L., Gearhart, M., & Herman, J. L. (1994). Evaluating the apple classrooms of tomorrow. In E. L. Bak Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 173 197) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ball, B. (2003, Spring). Teaching and learning mathematics with an interactive whiteboard. Micromath, 19 (1), 4 7. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3 32). San Fran cisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Baylor, A. L., & Richie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology using classrooms? Computers & Education 39 (4), 395 414. doi:10.1016/S0360 1315(02)00075 1 Beatt y, I., Gerace, W., Leonard, W., & Dufresne, R. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics 74 (1), 31 39. doi:10.1119/1.2121753 Beaver, R., & Moore, J. (2004). Curriculum design and technology integration. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32 (1), 42 45. Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291 321.
144 Becker, H. J. (2001, April). How are teachers using technology in instruction ? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.crito.u ci.edu/tlc/FINDINGS/special3/How_Are_Teachers_Using.pdf Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructive compatible computer usage (Report No. 7). Retrieved February 15, 2011, from the Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations website: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_7/ Beeland, W. D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Action Research Exchange, 1 (1). Retrieved December 10, 2011, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beeland_am.pdf Berry, B., Hoke, M., & Hirsch, E. (2004). NCLB: Highly qualified teachers the search for highly qualified teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 85 684 689. Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership 17 (5), 613 649. Star Tribune. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.startribune .com/local/west/37826489.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y Blood, E., & Nell, R. (2008). Using student response systems in lecture based instruction: Does it change student engagement and learning? Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 16 (3), 375 383. Bolam R. (2000). Emerging policy trends: Some implications for CPD. Journal of In Service Education, 26 (2), 267 280. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33( 8), 3 15. doi:10.3102/0013189X 033008003 Borko, H., Stecher, B. M., Alonzo, A. C., Moncure, S., & McClam, S. (2005). Artifact packages for characterizing classroom practice: A pilot study. Educational Assessment, 10 (2), 73 104. doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1002_1 Boyle, A. (2005). A formula f or successful technology integration must include curriculum. MultiMedia & Internet@ Schools, 12 (1), 30 32. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school Washington, DC: National Academies Pr ess. Bryan, P. (2000, October). Sherman Oaks School: A seamless integration of technology. Edutopia Retrieved January 15, 2011, from http://www.edutopia.org/seamless integration technology
145 Burkhardt, G., Monsour, M., Valdez, G., Gunn, C., Dawson, M., Lemk e C., & Martin, C. (2003). enGauge 21 st century skills: Literacy in the digital age Retrieved May 13, 2011, from http://pict.sdsu.edu/engauge21st.pdf Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., VanWinkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Bush, N., Priest, J., Coe, R., & Evershed, B. (2004). An exploration of the use of ICT at the millennium primary school, Greenwich Retrieved December 30, 2010, from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1602/1/becta _2004_greenwichschool_report.pdf Byrom, E., & Bingham, M. (2001). Factors influencing the effective use of technology in teaching and learning (2nd ed.) Retrieved November 10, 2010, from http://www.seirtec.org/publications/lessons.pdf Cass, M., Cates, D., Smith, M., & Jackson, C. (2003). Effects of manipulative instruction on the solving of area and perimeter problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 112 120. doi:10.1111/1540 5826.00067 Center for App lied Research in Educational Technologies. (2005). Topic: Student learning Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://cmartel.ep.profweb.qc.ca/PlanTic/Caret_siteW.pdf CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (1999). Professional development: A link to better lear ning (year two report). Washington, DC: Author Charp, S. (2003). Technology integration in teaching and learning. THE Journal, 30 Chee, Y. (2002). Refocusing learning on pedagogy in a connected world. On the Horizon, 10 (4) 7 13. doi:10.1108/107481202104 52102 Cogill, J. (2003). How is the interactive whiteboard being used in primary school and how does this affect teachers and teaching? Retrieved December 23, 2010, from http://www.activewhiteboards.co.uk/IFS_Interactive_whiteboards_in_the_primary_ school.p df Cohen, N. H. (1995, Summer). The principles of adult mentoring scale. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 66 15 32 doi:10.1002/ace.36719956604 Cotner, S., Fall, B., Wick, S., Walker, J., & Baepler, P. (2008). Rapid feedback assessment m ethods: Can we improve engagement and preparation for exams in large enrollment courses? Journal of Science Educational Technology, 17 437 443. doi:10.1007/s10956 008 9112 8 Cradler, R., & Cradler, J. (1999). Just in time: Technology innovation challenge grant year 2 evaluation report for Blackfoot school district No. 55 San Mateo, CA: Educational Support Systems.
146 Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cuban, L. (2 001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy Retrieved December 15, 2010, from www.ed.gov/rschst at/eval/tech/20years.pdf Culp, K. M. Honey, M., & Spielvogel, R. (1999). Critical issue: Using technology to improve student achievement. Retrieved December 15, 2010, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm Danielson, C. (20 07). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Darling Hammond, L. (1998, February). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55, 6 11. Darling Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009, Spring). State of the profession. Journal of Staff Development, 30 (2), 42 44, 46 50. Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24 (2), 81 112. doi:10.3102/01623737024002081 Desimone L. M., Smith, T. M., & Ueno, K. (2006). Are teachers who need sustained, content focused professional development getting it? An Educational Administration Quarterly, 42( 2), 179 215. doi:10.1177/0013161X04273848 Detert, J. R., Louis, K. S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2001). A culture framework for education: Defining quality values and their impact in U.S. high schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 12 (2), 183 212. doi:10.1076/sesi.220.127.116.1154 Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Ronnkvist, A. M. (2002). Quality technology support: What is it? Who has it? And what difference does it make? Journal of Educational Computing Research 26 (3), 265 285. doi:10.2190/WFRB PE10 WAMJ G2P1 Diaz, D. P., & Bontenbal, K. F. (2000). Pedagogy based technology training. In P. Hoffman & D. Lemke (Eds.) Teaching and learning in a network world (pp. 50 54). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press. Dick, D. M. (2005). Clearing hurdles. Learning and Leading with Technology 32 (6), 31 33.
147 Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21 st century know what, why, and how of technology integration. Technology Horizons in Education Journal, 26 (6), 73 74. Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81 94. doi:10.1111/ j.1365 2729.2004.00074.x Driscoll, K. (2007, May). Collaboration in today's classrooms: New web tools change the game. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools 14 (3), 9 12. Earle, R. S (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Prom ises and challenges. Educational Technology, 42 (1), 5 13. Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperatives for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved October 30, 2010 from http://www.ashankerinst.org/downloads/bridging_gap.pdf Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 34 23 27. erceptions of an on site staff development model. The Clearing House, 79 (4), 170 173. doi:10.3200/TCHS.79.4.170 173 Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first and second order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology R esearch and Development, 47( 4), 47 61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597 Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (3), 2 55 284. Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15 (1), 101 109. doi:10.1007/s10956 006 0360 1 Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1 (1). Retrieved December 1, 2011, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/science/article1.htm Friesen, S., & Clifford, P. (2003). Working across different spaces to create communities of practice in teacher professional development. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from http://www.galileo.org/research/publications/different_spaces.pdf Fullan, M. G. (1991). The meaning of educational change New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
148 Fuller, J. (2011). An evaluation of professional development on using student response systems and interactive whiteboards for formative assessment in the middle schools of a southeastern school district (Doctoral diss ertation, University of Florida) Retrieved March 30, 2012, from http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0043254/fuller_j.pdf Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a na tional sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915 945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915 Garofalo J., Drier, H., Harper, S., Timmerman, M., & Shockey, T. (2000). Promoting appropriate uses of technology in mathematics teaching Conte mporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 1 (1). Retrieved December 1, 2011, from http://www.citejournal.org/ Directory: vol1/iss1/currentissues/ mathematics/article1.htm Gerard, F., & Widener, J. (1999). A smarter way to teach foreign language: Th e SMART board interactive whiteboard as a language learning tool Retrieved December 9, 2011, from http://edcompass.smarttech.com/en/learning/research/SBforeignlanguageclass.p df Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson. Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007, March). The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32 (1), 5 20. doi:10.1080/17439880601141146 Gningue, S. M. (2003). The effectiveness of long term vs. short term training in selected attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 22 207 224. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and P ractice, 8 (3/4), 381 391. doi:10.1080/135406002100000512 Guskey, T. R. (2003a). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development to promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 87 (637) 38 54. doi:10.1177/019263650308763702 Guskey, T. R. (2003b). Professional development that works: What makes professional developme nt effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 748 750.
149 Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development 17 (4), 34 38. Guthrie, R. W., & Carlin, A. (2004, Augu st). Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom Paper presented at the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY Retrieved April 19, 2011, from http://www.mhhe.com/cps/docs/CPSWP_Wakind Dead082003.pdf Haar, J. (2001). Providing professional development for rural educators. The Annual Convention of the National Rural Education Association, 1 14. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from ERIC database. ( ED464774 ) Haldane, M. (2007). Interactivity and th e digital whiteboard: Weaving the fabric of learning. L earning, Media, and Technology 32 ( 3 ) 257 270. doi:10.1080/17439880701511107 Hall, R. J., Collier, H. L., Thomas, M. L., & Hilgers, M. G. (2005). A student response system for increasing engagement, mo tivation, and learning in high enrollment lectures. Proceedings of the Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1 7). Omaha, NE. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/hall_et_al_srs_amcis_proceedin gs.pdf Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127 150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K 12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55 (3), 223 252. doi:10.1007/s11423 006 90 22 5 Hiemstra, R. (2001). Uses an d benefits of journal writing. Using journal writing to enhanc e reflective practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 90 19 2 7. Higgins, S. Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (3), 213 225. Hillel, J., Kieran, C., & Gurtner, J. (1989). Solving structured geometry tasks on the computer: The role of feedback in generating strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20 1 39. doi:10.1007/BF00356039 Hirsh, S., & Killion, J. (2009). When educators learn, students learn: Eight principles of professional learning Phi Delta Kappan 90 (7), 464 469.
150 Hirsh, S., Mizell, H., & Aviss Spedding, E. (2005). A study of professional d evelopment for public school educators in West Virginia Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://wvde.state.wv.us/techworkplan/WestVirginiaStudy_5.pdf Holland, H. (2005). Teaching teachers: Professional development to improve achievement. American Education Re search Association, 3 (1), 1 4. Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of outcomes and efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13 (10), 1 28. International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). NETS for students 2007 Retrieved June 2, 2010, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets for students/nets student standards 2007.aspx International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). NETS for teachers 2008 Retrieved June 2, 2010, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets for teachers/nets for teachers 2008.aspx Ireh, M. (2006). Effects of product based technology professional development model on P 8 teachers Retrieved December 24, 2 011, from ERIC database. ( ED491469 ) John, P. D., & Sutherland, R. (2004). Teaching and learning with new technology, new pedagogy? Education, Communication, and Information, 4 (1), 101 107. doi:10.1080/1463631042000210971 Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective pr ofessional development and change in practice: Barriers teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 1 12. doi:10.1111/j.1949 8594.2006.tb18172.x Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff dev elopment Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection? Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 14 581 598. Keller, J. B., Bonk, C. J., & Hew, K. (2005). The TICKIT to teacher learning: Designing professional development according to situative principles. Journal of Educational Computing Research 32 (4), 329 40. doi:10.2190/68XG THRV HT4D ECA4 Kent, P. (2006, June). Usi ng interactive whiteboards to enhance mathematics teaching. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11 (2), 23 26. Kenwright, K. (2009). Clickers in the classroom. TechTrends 53 (1), 74 77. Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2002) Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research based practices. Exceptional Children, 32 (1), 49 61.
151 Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From andragogy to pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your students: A new model for faculty development and online course design Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 12 (1), 25 55. Koenig, K. (2010). Building acceptance for pedagogical reform through wide scale implementation of clickers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39 (3), 46 50. Kotrlik, J. W., & Redmann, D. H. (2 009). Technology adoption for use in instruction by secondary technology education teachers. Journal of Technology Education, 21 (1), 39 55. Lauer, P., Stoutemeyer, K., & Van Buhler, J. (2005). The McREL Rural Technology Initiative: Research and evaluation study Retrieved December 1, 2011, from http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/EducationTechnology/5051RR_RTIEvaluation.pdf Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and w ays to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77( 4), 575 614. doi:10.3102/0034654307309921 Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers and Education 49 (2), 284 296. doi :10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.013 Lewis, A. C. (1998). A new consensus emerges on the characteristics of good professional development. In R. Tovey (Ed.), Professional development (pp. 12 15). Cambridge, MA: The Harvard Educational Letter Focus Series No. 4. Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591 596. Linek, W. M., Fleener, C., Fazio, M., Raine, I. L., & Klakump, K. (2003). The Impact of The Journal of Educational Research, 97 (2), 78 89. doi:10.1080/00220670309597511 Liu, L., & Velasquez Bryant, N. (2003). An information technology integration system and its life cycle: What is missing? Computers in the Schools, 20 (1/2), 91 104. Lock J. V. (2006) A new image: Online communities to facilitate teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663 678.
152 Lockwood, J., McCombs, J., & Marsh, J. (2010). Linking reading co aches and student achievement evidence from Florida middle schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32 (3), 372 388. doi:10.3102/0162373710373388 Loucks Horsley, S. (1995). Professional development and the learner centered school. Theory into Pr actice, 34 265 271. doi:10.1080/00405849509543690 Loucks Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA : Corwin Press. Ludwi g, M., & Taymans, J. (2005). Teaming: Constructing high quality faculty development in a PT3 project. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13 (3), 357 372. Lunenburg, F. (1998). Constructivism and technology: Instructional designs for successful edu cation reform. Journal of Instructional Psychology 25 (2), 75. Lynn, L., & Wheelock, A. (1997). Making detracking work. The Harvard Education Letter 13 (1) 1 4 Marzano R. J. (2003). Using data: Two wrongs and a right. Educational Leadership, 60( 5), 56 6 0. Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1 (1), Retrieved December 1, 2011, from http://www.cite journal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/socialstudies/article1.htm Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development. Journal of Researcher on Technology in Education 39 (4), 417 430. Maxwell, J. (2004). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mazur, E. (1997). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. McCabe, R. & Emery, W. (2003). Teaching media literacy in grade five: The deve lopment of technical literacy among teachers and students A case study. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 29 (2), 1 10. McCoy, L. P. (1996). Computer based mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28 (4), 438 460. McKe nzie, J. (2001). How teachers learn technology best. From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal 10 (6), 2. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://www.fno.org/mar01/howlearn.html
153 McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2004). The understanding by design professional workbook Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mellon, C. (1999). Technology and the great pendulum of education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32 (1), 28 35. Mercer, N ., Littleton, K., & Wegerif, R. (200 4). Methods for studying the processes of interaction and collaborative activity in computer based educational activities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13 (2), 193 209. doi:10.1080/14759390400200180 Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in prac tice: Examples for d iscussion and analysis San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Milbreth, Y., & Mable, K. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 8 (4), 373 396. Mildenhall, P., Swan, P., Northcote, M., & Marshall, L. (2008, March). Virtual manipulatives on the interactive whiteboard. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13 (1), 9 14. Mills, S. C., & Tincher, R. C. (2003). Be the technology: A development model for evaluating technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (3), 382 401 Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers Colle ge Record, 108 (6), 1017 1054. Molebash, P. E., & Fisher, D. (2003). Teaching and learning literacy with technology. Reading Improvement 40 (2), 63 69. Mouza C. (2002/2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional development Journal of Research on Technology in Education 35 (2), 272 289. Mouza, C. (2006). Linking professional development to teacher learning and practice: A multi case study analysis of urban teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34 (4), 405 440. d oi:10.2190/2218 567J 65P8 7J72 Mouza, C. (2009). Does research based professional development make a difference? A longitudinal investigation of teacher learning in technology integration. Teachers College Record, 111 (5 ), 1195 1241 Mundry, S., & Loucks Ho rsley, S. (1999, April). Designing professional development for science and mathematics teachers: Decision points and dilemmas. NISE Brief, 3 (1), 1 8.
154 Murcia, K. (2008). Teaching for scientific literacy with an interactive whiteboard. Teaching Science, 54 ( 4), 17 21. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform Washington, DC: Author Retrieved June 1, 2011 from http://teachertenure.procon.org/sourcefiles/a nation at risk tenure april 1983 .pdf National Council of Teachers of English (2008). NCTE f ramework for 21 st c entury c urriculum and a ssessment. Retrieved June 1, 2010 from http://www.ncte.org/governance/21stcenturyframework National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and national scienc e education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Staff Development Council. (2011a). About NSDC Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://www.learningforward.org/standfor/nsdcpurpose.cfm National Staff Development Council. (2011 b ). NSDC standards Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://www.learningforward.org/standards/index.cfm No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Pub. L. No. 107 110, Â§ 115, Stat. 1425 (2002) Retrieved February 11, 2011 from http://www2. ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. ( 2001). Understanding the No Child Left Behind Act: Technology integration Retrieved April 19, 2011, from http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/qkey3.pdf Okojie, M., Olinzoc k, A., & Okojie Boulder, T. (2006). The pedagogy of technology integration. The Journal of Technology Studies, 32 (1), 66 71. Oppenheimer, T. (2004). The flickering mind: Saving education from the false promise of technology. New York, NY : Random House. Pai nter, D. D., Whiting, E., & Wolters, B. (2005). The use of an interactive whiteboard in promoting interactive teaching and learning. Virginia Society for Technology in Education, 19 31 40. Painter, S. R. (2001). Issues in the observation and evaluation of technology integration in K 12 classrooms. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17 (4), 21 25. Partnership for 2 1 st Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21 st century l earning Retrieved May 30, 2011 from http://www.p21.org/overview/skills framework Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
155 Pedersen, J. E., & Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Technology in science teacher education: Survey of current uses and desired knowledge among science educators. Journal of Science and Technology in Education, 11 (2), 131 153 Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K. Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55 315 346. doi:10.1007/s11423 006 9023 4 Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Education al Research Journal, 44 (4), 921 958. doi:10.3102/0002831207308221 Pitler, H. J. (2006). Viewing technology through three lenses. Principal 85 38 42. Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & Birman, B. F. (2003). Providing effective professional de velopment: Lessons from the Eisenhower program. Science Educator, 12 (1), 23 40. Quality Education Data. (2004). Technology purchasing forecast, 2003 2004. Denver, CO: Scholastic Rakes, G. C technology use on instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38 (4), 411 426. Rakow, S. (2007). All means all: Classrooms that work for advanced learners. MiddleGround: The Magazine of Middle Level Education, 11 (1), 10 12. Reid, S. (2002). The achievement gap 2002: How minority students are faring in North Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Justice & Community Development Center. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Reynolds, C. & Morgan, B. A. (200 1). T of technology in service: A case study In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2001 (pp. 982 986). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record 105 (9), 1623 1640. Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
156 Roblyer, M. & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd ed.). Columbus, O H : Prentice Hall. Rosaen, C. L., Hobson, S., & Khan, G. (2003). Making connections: Collaborative approaches to preparing today's and tomorrow's teachers to use technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11 (2), 139 172 Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376 391). New York, NY: Macmillan. Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2012). Learning the field: An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salemi, M. K. (2009). Clickenomics: Using a classroom response system to increase student en gagement in a large enrollment Principles of E conomics course. Journal of Economic Education, 40 (4), 385 404. doi:10.1080/00220480903237950 Salpeter, J. (2003, August 15). Professional development: 21 st century models. TechLEARNING. Retrieved January 10, 2011 from http://www.techlearning.com/story/s howArticle.jhtml?articleID=13000492 Sandholtz, J. H., & Reilly, B. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 106(3), 487 512. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teachin g with technology: Creating student centered classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Scotchmer, M., McGrath, D. J., & Coder, E. (2005). Characteristics of public school teachers' professional development activities: 1999 2000 (NCES 2005 030). Ret rieved April 10, 2011 from http://www. nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005030.pdf Shaunessy, E. (2005). Assessing and addressing teachers' attitudes toward information technology in the gifted classroom. Gifted Child Today, 28 (3), 45 53. Shoffner, M. (2009). Persona l attitudes and technology: Implications for preservice teacher reflective practice. Teacher Education Quarterly Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Personal+attitudes+and+technology%3a+implication s+for +preservice... a0209477038 Si to One Laptop Program on middle school teachers and students: Phase one summary evidence. Maine Education Policy Retrieved May 20, 2010, from http://avoca37techcomm.edublogs.o rg/files/2006/11/mlti phase one evaluation report.pdf
157 Sivin Kachala, J. (1998). 90 Slavit, D., Sawyer, R., & Curley, J. (2003). Filling Your PLATE : A professional development model for teaching with technology. TechTrends, 47( 4), 35 8. Smialek, T., & Boburka, R. R. (2006). The effect of cooperative listening exercises on the critical listening skills of college music appreciation students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54 (1) 57 72. doi:10.2307/3653455 Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Researc h Journal, 32( 3), 443 457. doi:10.1080/01411920600635452 Southerland, S. A., Smith, L. K., Sowell, S. P., & Kittleson, J. M. (2007). Resisting National Accountability Movement. R eview of Research in Education, 31, 45 77. Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving profession al development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved June 30, 2010 from http://www.learningforward.org/news/authors/NSDCPlan.cfm Speck, M., & Knipe, C. (2005). quality professional developmen t for standards based schools (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Polic y Analysis, 21 1 29. doi:10.2307/1164544 Swain, C., & Pearson, T. (2003). Educators and technology standards: Influencing the digital divide. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 326 335. Trotter, A. (1999, September 23). Preparing teachers for the digital age. Technology Counts '99, 19 (4). Retrieved December 30, 2010, from http://edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/teach.htm U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Elementary & secondar y education: Part D Enhancing Education Through T echnology Retrieved April 17, 2011 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html U.S. Department of Education. (2004). A guide to education and No Child Left Behind Retrieved January 13, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/guide.pdf
158 U .S. Department of Education. (2005). No Child Left Behind teacher to teacher initiative e learning: Teacher professional development Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/tools/initiative/e Learning.pdf U.S. D epartment of Education. (2007). Welcome to the office of educational technology Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/index.html?src=oc U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National Educational Technology Plan: Toward a new golden age in education Retrieved December 15, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/index.html Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004, Spring). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (3), 253 271. Vontz, T. S., & Lemig, R. S. (2006). Designing and implementing effective professional development in civic education. The International Journal of Social Education, 20 (2), 67 88. Wagner, T. (2008). T the survival skills our children need and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Basic Books. Ward, C. R., Reeves, J. H., & Heath, B. P. (2003). Encouraging active student participat ion in chemistry classes with a web based instant feedback, student response system. Retrieved December 18, 2011 from http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/confchem/2003/a/ward/ConfChem_SRS.htm Web B ased Education Commission (2000). The power of the Internet for l earning: Moving from promise to practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from http://www2.ed.gov/offices/AC/WBEC/FinalReport/WBECReport.pdf Wei, R., Darling Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2 009). Professional learning in a learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad Palo Alto, CA: National Staff Development Council. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does is compute? The relationship between educational te chnology and student achievement in mathematics Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center. Retrieved November 28, 2010 from ftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/technolog.pdf Wenglinsky, H. (2006). Technology and achievement: The bottom line. Educational Leadership 63 (4), 29 32.
159 Wetzel, K. (2001). Preparing teacher leaders. Learning & Lead ing with Technology, 29 (3), 50. White, N., Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). Getting the most from technology in schools Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/kn02 01.pdf Williams, H., & Kingham, M. (2003). Infusion of technology into the curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30 (3), 178 184. n a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39 (1), 165 205. doi:10.3102/00028312039001165 Wood, F. H., & McQuarrie, F. (1999). On the job learning. Journal of Staff Development 20 (3), Retrieved February 10, 2011, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/wood203.cfm Wozney, L., Venkatesh V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing technologies: Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14 (1), 173 207. Wursta, M., Brown DuPaul, J., & Segatti, L. (2004). Teacher education: Linking theory to practice through digital technology. Community College Journal of Research & Practice 28 (10), 787 794. doi:10.1080/10668920390 254726 Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design & methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2007). Pedagogy and interactive whiteboards: Using activity theory approach to understand tensions in practice? In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential r esearch, e ssential p ractice (Vol. 2, pp. 853 861 ). Griffith University, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Austral as ia
160 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Shreya J. Desai earned her Bachelor of Arts in s ociolo gy from the University of Florida and her Master of Arts in Teaching in social sciences e ducation from the University of South Florida. She has worked in public school education as a teacher and technology resource specialist. She also currently facilita tes workshops for distance learning faculty development. In addition to researching faculty development, her research interests include blended learning environments, technologically innovative approache s, and data driven instruction.