Professional development that increases technology integration by K-12 teachers:

The influence of the TICKIT Program. John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana.eduLee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana.eduCurtis J. Bonk, cjbonk@indiana.edu

Indiana University

AERA

April 21, 2003

Chicago

TICKIT

Teacher Institute for Curriculum Knowledge about Integration of Technology

http://www.iub.edu/~tickit

Overview of TICKIT• In-service teacher education program

• Rural schools in central & southern Indiana

• Supported by participating school systems, Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and Indiana University

• Cohorts of 4-6 teachers from 4-6 school corporations

TICKIT Goals

• Knowledge, skill, & confidence

• Thoughtful integration of technology

• Leadership cadres in schools

• Link schools and university

• Help schools capitalize on their technology investments

Program Structure

• Teachers attend three workshops at I.U. for a total of 4 days

• Reports to colleagues and school “giveback”

• Curriculum-based, technology supported classroom unit or lesson each semester

• In-school workshops to support teachers in their unit or lesson design

• Final products are two action research reports

Program Structure• Various online activities using a course

management tool (COW, Virtual University, Blackboard, Web CT, Oncourse)

– Article critiques

– Chats with technology experts (Bernie Dodge, Annette Lamb)

– Free Tool Reviews

TICKIT Project Gallery

Example Projects

TICKIT Teachers

Research QuestionDo teachers who have been through the TICKIT program differ from teachers who have not on dimensions of computer integration?

Structure of Paper

• How the TICKIT program compares with the literature on effective professional development.

• Results of the study.

• Discussion of the relative impact of the TICKIT program.

• Limitations, Future Directions, Conclusion

Professional Development Literature

New Vision:• Darling-Hammond (‘97)• Palincsar (1999)

– Technical vs. Intellectual View of teaching

• Richardson & Placier (‘01)– Normative-Reeducative

Characteristics of:• Little (1993)• Loucks-Horsely et

al. (1998) • Hawley and Valli

(1999)

Effective Professional Development

Components Description

Form Reform vs. traditional (Study groups or networks vs. workshops or conferences).

Duration Number of hours and span of time.

Collective participation

Participation by established groups (same school, grade, department vs. educators from various schools).

Content focusProfessional development aimed at increasing disciplinary knowledge.

Active learningMeaningful analysis of teaching and learning (examining student work, getting feedback on teaching).

CoherenceDegree of consistency between professional development and teachers’ goals, standards and opportunities for continued professional communication.

Structure

Core

Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Suk-Yoon, 2001

Effective Professional Development

Garet et al. TICKIT

Form

Duration

Collective participation

Content focus

Active learning

Coherence

Structure

Core

Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Suk-Yoon, 2001

??

Methodology 1/3Study Design

• TICKIT Completers– Teachers from the first four years of TICKIT– The survey is a post measurement– Dropouts. . .

• TICKIT Applicants– Teachers who applied for the fifth year of TICKIT– The survey is a pre measurement

Methodology 2/3Participants

• Schools– Rural– Central and southern Indiana– Better than average technology infrastructure

• Teachers– Cohorts of 4-6 teachers from each school– Average teaching experience 11.5 years

Methodology 3/3Instrumentation

Two Part Survey

– Demographics and TICKIT-Related Questions

– Levels of Technology Implementation Survey (LOTI) Moersch (1994, 1995, 2001).

Results 1/3Survey Returns= 79 %

CohortSurveys

SentSurveys

ReturnedReturn

Percentage

1998-99 25 16 64%

1999-00 29 21 72%

2000-01 30 22 73%

2001-02 22 20 91%

2002-03 Applicants 27 26 96%

Total 133 105 79%

Results 2/3Factors Description Reliability

Technology Integration

Frequent/regular use; learn with and about; variety of learning tasks; often thematic or project-based instruction

.93

Technology Limitations

Perceived access to technology .78

Technology Resistance

Technology use that supports only traditional pedagogy, reticence about computer use based on skill level or time constraints, and lack of perceived pedagogical value

.66

Computer Proficiency

Computer proficiency is an index of one’s general comfort level and confidence in using computers

.80

Learner-centered Instruction

Personal needs of students, lessons and curricula that are in some measure responsive to student interests, and assessment strategies that are performance oriented

.79

Results 3/3

Factors

Means

TICKITCompleters

TICKITApplicants t Sig.

Effect Size

1. Technology Integration 74.05 38.25 7.663 .000*** 1.81

2. Technology Limitations 11.60 15.79 -3.281 .002** .63

3. Technology Resistance 4.37 7.91 -3.143 .003** .80

4. Computer Proficiency 25.51 18.84 4.614 .000*** 1.20

5. Learner-centered Instruction

18.29 12.40 5.120 .000*** 1.22

**p< .01 ; ***p< .001All effect sizes favor TICKIT groupLower scores on factors two and three indicate more positive responses The ‘n’ for each comparison varies due to incomplete data. We used list-wise deletion of missing data (Completers n=66-77; Applicants n=18-20)

Possible High Score

126

28

56

35

28

Relative Impact 1/2Source of Influence

1st choice

2nd choice

3rd choice

% Ranking this 1,2

or 3

Peer Teacher Support 3 5 4 15%

Grant Money 0 2 2 5%

Administrative support 4 3 4 14%

Undergraduate Training 0 1 3 5%

Stipends 1 1 0 3%

Curriculum technology integration expectations 3 5 5 18%

Graduate courses outside TICKIT 2 4 4 13%

Personal ambition and interest in technology

34 16 12 78%

Parental and community expectations 1 2 3 8%

TICKIT professional development 15 23 16 68%

In-school professional development other than TICKIT 4 6 15 32%

Conferences, institutes, and other external 5 9 8 28%

Other 5 2 1 10%

Relative Impact 2/2Source of Help % Choosing as one of their choices

Business Partner 1.9%

Classroom Teacher 62.9%

District Coordinator 10.5%

University Professor 14.3%

Site Principal 8.6%

Student 14.3%

Technology Coordinator 76.2%

Other (Internet, friends, family, other school personnel)

21.9%

From which individuals do you seek primary guidance, information, and/or direction relating to the integration of technology into your curriculum?

Multiple Sources

Internal Motivation Influences

I want to be able to help provide the most challenging, interesting lessons for students. As a result of this I need to keep current.

I’m not required to use the technology but do so to learn for myself and help the students.

Even before the TICKIT experience, I was looking for ways to integrate technology into my classroom. I am enthusiastic and committed to this.

TICKIT Teacher Voices“This class was very helpful. I gained a lot of confidence as a technology user from this class.”

“The door is now open. I will continue to try to find technological ways to teach them.”

“This was the best program I have ever been involved with as a teacher.”

Limitations• Non-random sample• Participants not representative

– Above average infrastructure– Above average interest in technology

• Self-reported data• No correlation to corroborate the constructs identified by factor analysis• Ex post facto analysis limits ability to infer change due to the TICKIT program

Impact

• Researchers and Teacher Educators

• K-12 Teaching and Administrators

• Government Officials and Politicians

Future DirectionsAdditional Research• Growth of current cohort over the course of this year

• Correlation of other data sources with current findings (i.e. observation, document analysis)

• Impact of technology integration on student learning

Discussion/Questions

References 1/2Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.

Loucks-Horsely, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

References 2/2Moersch, C. (1994). Levels of Technology Implementation. Retrieved February 13, 2002, from http://www.learning-quest.com/LoTi/lotihome.html

Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology Implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 40-42.

Moersch, C. (2001). Next steps: using LoTi as a research tool. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(3), 22-27.

Palincsar, A. (1999). Response: A community of practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 272-274.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905-950). Washington D. C.: American Educational Research Association.