an ecological case study of two middle schools' technology integration
DESCRIPTION
This presentation, given at AERA 2010, provides findings from research comparing two schools and the use of technology both at home and at school by students, both personally and professionally by teachers and by administrators.TRANSCRIPT
An Ecological Case Study of Two Middle Schools’ Technology Integration
Michelle Fulks Read, Sara Jolly Jones, Joan E. Hughes, Gloria Gonzales-DholakiaThe University of Texas at Austin
Technology Integration
•Digital Communication Technologies
•Support Socio-constructivist Instruction
•Subject Area Content
Saguaro MS
• Rural
• 1,000 students
• 74% Hispanic
• 20% African-American
• 74% Econ. Disadvantaged
• MET AYP “Acceptable”
• 1 lab, 2 carts, 8 library computers
• Shared Tech. Integration Specialist
Porter MS
• Urban
• 1,000 students
• 50% White (w/transfers)
• 50% Hispanic/African-Am
• 39% Econ. Disadvantaged
• MET AYP “Acceptable”
• 4 labs, 2 carts, 18 library computers
• Dedicated Tech. Integration Specialist
Research Question
Are there differences in technology integration between Porter and Saguaro Middle Schools looking at factors related
to students, teachers, and leaders?
Data collection…
• Student, teacher and leader surveys
Saguaro MS
• 4 leaders• 11 teachers• 234 students
Porter MS
• 9 leaders• 16 teachers• 309 students
Data Analysis…
• Descriptive measures
• Pearson’s coefficient
• Chi-square
• t-Tests
Technology Activities
• Communication
• Web
• Productivity
• Creativity
Significant Factors…
• School
– Strong and significant for in-school
– None or weak significance outside of school
• Gender
• Grade
• Computer Ownership
– 83% of Saguaro students own a computer
– 95% of Porter students own a computer
Reported Student Use
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f St
ud
en
ts(o
f th
ose
wh
o in
dic
ate
d u
se)
Porter Saguaro
In-school
Out-of-school
Both
Porter Students…
• 3.5 to 5 times more likely to participate in technology activities in school
– Most difference in Creativity Activities
• 3.5 to 4.75 times more likely to participate in technology activities both in and out of school
– Most difference in Creativity Activities
Saguaro Students…
• Reported more frequent use of technology in all categories
•Reported higher skill levels in regards to productivity activities
In-Class Technology Use
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Math Writing Math Writing
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f U
sers
Teachers
Students
Summary…
• More out-of-school technology use than in-school use at both school
• More teacher use of technology than student use
• Porter students are significantly more likely to report use of technology in school and in- and out-of-school
Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes
• Technology Self-efficacy:– Porter= 3.14– Saguaro=2.96
• Attitudes Toward Technology:– Porter=3.17– Saguaro=3.46
• Directive /Constructivist Philosophy– Porter=2.05– Saguaro=1.9
Breakdown of teachers use…
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Read a blog or wiki Social Networking Online productivity Share creations online
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f Te
ach
ers
Porter
Saguaro
Participation in professional development opportunities
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Pe
rce
nta
ge r
ep
ort
ing
Porter Saguaro
Skill
Content
Differences in leaders’ knowledge
17 1320
30
1023
715 12
29
1218
16 2118
22
11
17
1410
9
19
14
18
17 1922
17
20
21
1317
18
25
19
17
1922
15
26
11
14
10
1410
26
9
26
8
15 13
21
8
18
15
18
10
12
11
2027
2114
31
12
17
11
22
12
27
12
28
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
NET
S-A
To
tal S
core
Social, Legal & Ethical Issues
Assessement & Evaluation
Support, Management & Operations
Productivity & Professional Practice
Teaching & Learning
Leadership & Vision
Differences in leaders’ ranking of improvement in various categories.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f A
gre
em
en
t
Porter Saguaro
Not Successful Moderately Successful Very Successful
Digital DivideDigital
Inequality
For more information or a copy of the complete paper, contact:
Joan E. Hughes, PhD
The University of Texas at Austin
E-mail: [email protected]
www.techedges.org