Innovative Technology Implementation in Elementary Schools A Study of Challenges and Successes

Erin Shepherd, University of Portland

ReferencesButcher, K. R., Leary, H., Foster, J., & Devaul, H. (2014). Facilitating Teachers’ Thinking about Pedagogy and Technology with an Online Curriculum Planning Tool. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,, 22(4), 423-447.

Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). Measuring self, task, and impact concerns: A manual for use of the teacher concerns questionnaire. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.

Hepp, P., Fernández, M. À. P., & García, J. H. (2015). Teacher training: technology helping to develop an innovative and reflective professional profile. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12(2), 30-43.

Johnson, D. & Mielke, N. (2013) Rubric for effective teacher technology use (organized by the four domains of Danielson’s framework for teaching). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el201303_johnson_rubric.pdf

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the one-to-one equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 46-62.

Literature ReviewContent/pedagogy must drive instruction. Technology enhances.

TPACK Framework for supporting teacher understanding and implementation.

A shift in pedagogy is necessary for technology implementation. Foster cooperative, collaborative learning environments.

Consistent, ongoing monitoring of implementation is critical for teacher support. CBAM Framework.

 

PurposesTo investigate the implementation processes that technologically-minded teachers use.

To identify successes, challenges, and supports for teachers implementing technology in elementary schools.

Research QuestionsHow is technology used in the elementary classroom to enhance content knowledge? What are the factors that contribute to successful technology implementation? What are the teacher-perceived barriers that prevent successful technology implementation?

 

Methods Participants: 9, K-6 teachers in

Pacific Northwest. Each teacher had received a technology grant.

5 data sources: interviews, classroom observations, survey, blog analysis, grant application analysis.

Data coded according to TPACK framework.

Instruments TIQ (Technology Integration

Questionnaire-modified)

TPACK Framework (Mishra and Koehler, 2009)

Rubric for Effective Technology Use (Danielson-based framework)

Preliminary Results

SuccessesDifferentiation of student needs with technology.

Technology adding value to solid content and pedagogy.

Risk-taking.

ChallengesBandwidth.

Time to plan, set up devices, maintenance.

Non-alignment of teacher perspectives of technology use.

Feeling pressure to always do more, without adequate training in current strategies and programs.

Identified Needs

•Increased hands-on training for teachers.

•PD in specific content, grade-level.

•Time provided for planning, collaboration and teacher sharing.

Discussion and Implications

Preliminary results indicate:

Innovative teachers require support.

Need for consistent district technology goals.

Specific and hands-on PD is critical for moving technology instruction forward.

Limitations

•Small sample size.

One round of observations, surveys, and interviews.