download file (ppt)
TRANSCRIPT
Videoconferencing and Elluminate as
follow up to TPD in rural middle schools
Margaret Blanchard, Jennifer Sharp, & Lauren Greene
The Issues
• Increased focus on students’ readiness for 21 Century skills
• Little evidence that science and mathematics teachers are using technology
• Professional development of teachers a central strategy for achieving changes
• PD follow-up is effective, but challenging with teachers at a distance
Context—21 Century Teaching & Learning Program
• Rural, high poverty middle schools in NE North Carolina• 3-day Summer PD • Fall/Spring refresher
day• Summer 1: 15 teachers• Summer 2: 30 teachers
(6 from Summer 1)• 6 districts/7 schools• 1 Technology person/ county
Central Question
Is videoconferencing a feasible strategy for supporting teachers in
rural, historically underserved schools?
Study Design
• Controlled Study• Two, 1-hour follow-up sessions encouraged 6 districts in NE North Carolina, 29 teachers, at
7 middle schools▫ ½ teachers – Face-to-Face (3 counties/4
schools/14 teachers)▫ ½ teachers – Videoconferencing (3 counties/3
schools/15 teachers)
Details of Follow-up Sessions
• Teachers invited to participate– During workshops, emails, phone calls, and school
visits
• Follow-up sessions consisted of:– Help with selected technology– “Walk through”– Editing curriculum materials
Data Sources
• Videotape/audiotape of technical support session
• Videotape of classroom lessonData source focus of this paper:• Satisfaction survey (Blanchard & Sharp, 2007)• Technology Familiarity Survey (SERVE)– Likert scale 1-5 on familiarity with 20 technologies
Research Questions
When comparing Videoconferencing (VC) and Face-to-Face (FF) technical support sessions:
- Do teachers’ rates of participation differ? - Do teachers’ stated levels of satisfaction differ? - Do reported strengths & weaknesses differ? - Do mean scores on the Technology Familiarity Survey
differ?- Do teachers find alternative ways to get support, and
does this vary by treatment method?
Do teachers’ rates of participation differ?
• Face-to-Face:-64% (9) participate in face-to-face follow-up– But 42% (6) actually teach & tape lesson
• Videoconferencing:- 40% (6) participate in videoconferencing follow-up- 40% (6) teach & tape lesson
Do teachers’ stated levels of satisfaction differ?
• Satisfaction survey item topics:1. Was relevant to my needs2. Enhanced my understanding of ways to use
technology3. Helped me gain new information4. Will assist me in integrating technology into the
curriculum• Face-to-Face: 4.5/5• Videoconferencing: 4.1/5
Do reported strengths and weaknesses differ?
• Number of strengths cited– Face-to-Face – 16 (100%)– Videoconferencing – 4 (50%)
• Number of weaknesses cited– Face-to-Face – 1 (11%)– Videoconferencing – 1 (17%)
Do teachers’ mean scores on Technology Familiarity Survey differ by treatment method? FF: 4.5/5 VC: 4.1/5
Name TechnologyPost July Tech 1 Tech 2 Post May
Support Type
Teacher 1 Temperature 2 5 5 5 VC
Teacher 1 TI84 2 3 4 5 VC
Teacher 1 Light 2 2 5 5 VC
Teacher 1 Doc Camera 1 5 5 5 VC
Teacher 2 Doc Camera 1 3 5 5 FF
Teacher 2 TI84 2 3 3 2 FF
Teacher 2 Temperature 5 3 5 5 FF
Teacher 2 pH 5 3 5 5 FF
Do teachers find alternative ways to get support, and does this vary by treatment method?
• Face-to-Face: 44% (4 teachers) sought additional help
• Videoconferencing: 17% (1 teacher) sought additional help
Additionally, all of the teachers sought additional help from the technical support person who videotaped the lesson(s)
Challenges
• Very difficult to get teachers to participate in either type of session
• Teachers needed help but were afraid to use new technologies and needed substantial help
• Jen was asked to help when she came to videotape, regardless of VC or FF
• We were committed to helping teachers employ new technologies
Discussion of Findings
• Slightly harder to get teachers to participate in VC
• No real differences in satisfaction by method• Technical familiarity closely linked to technical
support session: teachers receive help with the technologies
they use, then report less familiarity with the technologies they did not use
Implications
• Technical support through videoconferencing is a viable option
• Increasing individuals who can help at school sites would be a ‘tapped’ resource
• It’s not enough to teach it once: Teachers need refreshers on technologies they haven’t used recently
• Participation/Change issue trumps delivery method
Teacher n Face-to-Face Videoconferencing
Assigned n 14 15
Participated n (t-test, p=0.1772) 9 6
Rates of participation in FF/VC session
64% 40%
Rates of implentation in teaching/taping lesson 42% 40%
Item
1. Level of satisfaction with sessions 4.5/5 4.1/5
2. Number of strengths cited (% of teachers reporting positives) 16 (100%) 4 (50%)
3. Number of weaknesses cited
1 (11%) 1 (17%)
4. Scores on familiarity with technology* 4.5/5 4.6/5
5. Number of teachers who seek additional support 4 (44%) 1 (17%)
Vernier Probeware
Vernier Probeware
Presentation Equipment
Magnetic Field Sensor
Gas-Pressure Sensor mimio
Dual-Force Sensor pH Probe DocumentCamera
Go! Motion Sensor Conductivity Probe Projector
Temperature Probe Heart Rate Monitor Graphing Calculators
Light Sensor Laptop computer with accessories