smintoneportfolio.pbworks.comsmintoneportfolio.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/42298968/ci… · web...

1

The Effects Of Training And Collaboration For Teachers Resistant To Technology Integration

Shannon Minton

Texas State University- RRHEC

CI-5390

Nancy Langerock, Ph.D.

August 12, 2009/ Summer II 2009

Do not publish without the permission of the author.

2Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the processes teachers use and barriers they

face when designing technology enhanced curriculum in a large suburban public school district

in Central Texas. Processes were observed in collaborative planning sessions. Teacher attitudes

towards technology integration were assessed using surveys and interviews. The population for

this study consisted of one school district in Central Texas during the 2009-2010 school year. It

was determined that providing adequate professional development in technology training and

providing many collaborative opportunities among grade levels, as well as among departments,

had a positive impact on the increased efforts of integrating viable technology enhanced

curriculum.


3Table of Contents

Title Page.........................................................................................................................................1

Abstract............................................................................................................................................2

Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................3

Literature Review......................................................................................................................4 - 12

Problem Statement and Purpose of Proposed Study......................................................12 - 13

Methodology............................................................................................................................13 - 16

Research Questions...........................................................................................................13

Operational Definitions....................................................................................................13

Population.........................................................................................................................14

Procedures and Instruments of Data Collection...........................................................14 - 17

Instrumentation of Design................................................................................................17

Analysis and Display of Data........................................................................................................18

Significance of Study, Implications for Further Study, and Conclusions..................................19

References...................................................................................................................................22 - 24

Addendum......................................................................................................................................25

Addendum 1 - Letter to Principal for Permission..............................................................26

Addendum 2 – Teacher Survey.......................................................................................27 - 29

Addendum 3 – Observation Checklist...............................................................................30

Addendum 4 – Interview Questions..................................................................................31

Addendum 5 – Arts-Based Project...................................................................................32 - 33


4Introduction and Literature Review

Teachers more comfortable with traditional teaching methods have found challenges in

their planning and processes to effectively infuse their curriculum with technology. Barriers

discussed included the notion of not wanting to change what already works for them (O'Hanlon,

2009), the lack of pre-service training (Hardy, 2008), the need for professional development for

the technology with sharing of best practices, and the need for time to plan and the use of reliable

technology tools (Levin & Wadmany, 2008; McNierney, 2004). Training, collaboration, and

sharing have been found to be effective strategies in facing the attitudes and challenges of

reluctant teachers in this digital age.

Teachers as well as new-to-profession teachers have indicated that they feel as if their

courses in college did not prepare them properly for technology teaching methods. As a result, a

program was developed to help teachers with this dilemma; the Technology in Mathematics

Education (TIME) Project was based on the constructivist teaching philosophy. Hardy (2008)

studied nineteen teachers certified to teach secondary mathematics with varying years of

experience, including a pre-service candidate, with various levels of educational degrees. Their

teaching environments were either in urban schools or rural, low socioeconomic schools.

Participants attended numerous class sessions learning tools such as PowerPoint, Geometer's

Sketchpad, and videos as well as how to embed them within the curriculum design. Follow-up

sessions were provided throughout the school year for support and helping to maintain the

momentum. The survey data indicated that all of the teachers benefited from the learning

experience and would highly recommend it to other teachers wanting to integrate the use of

technology tools effectively (Hardy, 2008).


5A survey conducted by Coffland and Strickland (2004) indicated that a vast majority of

teachers had technology in the classroom while only 15% of those actually integrated it into their

lessons. Because the State of Idaho mandated the curriculum be enhanced with technology, he

was looking for relationships between teacher attitudes, their experience, administrator support,

and technology training offered. From the participating middle schools and high schools

offering geometry in both urban and rural areas, he found that there was a positive relationship

between the type of training received and the implementation of the technology. In addition, he

found that the more geometry classes a teacher taught the less often the technology was

integrated into the curriculum regularly. A common complaint among teachers was the time

constraint that implementation of technology imposes on the already difficult task of lesson

presentation in its basic form. The data did not indicate a significant correlation between

teachers' attitudes versus training or use of technology (Coffland & Strickland, 2004).

Another study focusing on six teachers' attitudes toward the integration of information

and communication technologies (ICT) was conducted by Levin and Wadmany (2008) spanning

three years; the participants taught fourth through sixth grade. Many barriers played a role in the

teachers’ attitudes toward technology integration within the classroom. They complained that

access to computers was difficult, increased technology integration expectations created burnout,

technological support from facilitators was poor, planning and implementation was inadequate,

planning time was limited, and the fear that the students would know more than the teacher about

the technology tool further reduced his/her confidence. Prior to conducting the study, the

researchers spent six months before the new school year preparing for the challenges noted

above and implemented strategies to make the transition more comfortable at the start of the


6school year. Given the support put into place prior to the study, the majority of the teachers'

overall attitude shifted away from needing external motivation of technology integration to a

more intrinsic motivation seeing the impact it had on students, becoming comfortable in learning

from the students in some cases, and becoming more reflective educators. The findings indicated

that the transition for some teachers will be met with more challenges and resistance and may

take longer; however, with proper technological support in facilitating the implementation, many

more teachers are open to making the necessary changes and the commitment in this digital age

(Levin & Wadmany, 2008).

O'Hanlon (2009) found that teachers are reluctant to incorporate new technology for

various reasons, primarily the feeling like something new is being forced or must be

accomplished by a deadline. Many experienced teachers felt more comfortable doing what has

worked for them for years. In addition, teachers also felt more comfortable if they were allowed

to learn the technology gradually. This seemed to ease their feelings of inadequacy in front of

their technology-savvy students. Also, some teachers revealed that they would learn one

technology strategy well and become content in that one area only. Findings indicated that

teachers need to see the value that technology integration has on the students and observe that

impact in other classrooms noting that this could be a motivator for teachers. Also, vendors

and/or school districts could conduct initial and follow-up trainings to make the transition to

technology integration easier. O'Hanlon discovered one school district in Redmond, WA, that

uses stipends and curriculum pay-rates to entice teachers to attend after-school trainings and

share best practices with each other to help less motivated teachers buy-in to the increasing

demand for technology integration. The research insisted that the demand for teaching digital-


7native students is becoming ever increasing, and even though the challenge for teachers to

integrate technology is more demanding, they must realize Resistance is Futile (O'Hanlon,

2009).

Park and Ertmer (2008) also sought to determine what barriers teachers face when

implementing a specific new teaching practice, problem-based learning (PBL), through the

integration of technology. Their study included 21 middle school teachers in a small rural

community. The results of the data (interviews, observations, and surveys) indicated teachers

felt like schools acquire new tools to be implemented without providing sufficient training (i.e.

longer than a half day) or purpose. In addition, they felt adequate feedback or expectations were

often lacking, and tangible rewards or incentives were not present. The results suggested that

administrators should share their vision with the faculty to establish purpose while providing

teachers the adequate training and collaboration to make the transition smoother to a more expert

level of implementation of the given tools and strategies (Park & Ertmer, 2008).

Schoepp (2004) performed an in-depth study of levels of technology integration by

teachers. He found the Technology Integration Standards Configuration Matrix (TISCM) useful

in measuring levels of technology integration into curriculum design that was developed by Mills

and Tincher (in Schoepp, 2004) in conjunction with other instruments. However, findings

indicated that there could be a problem in the alignment of established standards with the design

of the matrix instrument if used alone and recommended that further studies be done to validate

the reliability of TISCM. Further indications revealed the most common barriers to be lack of

planning time in addition to lack of support (Schoepp, 2004).

To discover to what extent teachers in South Dakota were fully utilizing the technology


8tools provided by their districts, Gorder (2008) conducted a study. Also, the definitions of

technology use and technology integration had to be distinguished noting that integration was a

process unique to each teacher. To reveal any correlations, variables included teacher's years or

experience, age, gender, content area, grade level of instruction, and educational level. Data was

organized and analyzed using a Technology Integration [Configuration] Matrix (TICM)

redesigned by S. C. Mills (in Gorder, 2008) claiming to be more user-friendly. Teachers

indicated the use of technology for administrative purposes and to support the delivery of their

instruction, yet integration in the curriculum seemed more prominent in grades 9-12 above all

other grade levels. A positive relationship was shown between administrative support and

technology support staff in aiding teachers in the design of their curriculum. One strategy

suggested offering incentives for those teachers maximizing technology integration. Another,

more practical, strategy offered was for teachers to share what worked best for them in

formal/informal collaboration settings (Gorder, 2008).

To better understand why there seems to be such a discrepancy between full integration

of technology into the curriculum versus a limited integration Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross,

and Specht (2008) conducted a study to determine the correlations between the barriers teachers

face and the level of technology integration within the classroom. The current attitudes, skill

levels, and beliefs seem to be the most prevalent of barriers due to an ever changing digital age.

Teachers face the constant need to keep up with the latest in technology, some never mastering

beyond the level of novice with an existing technological tool. Teachers pointed out that they are

not always sure of how to appropriately place the technology within the curriculum. In addition,

while a teacher may see the value of incorporating the technology, it ultimately boiled down to


9the individual teacher's own confidence in the integration of that technological tool. This study

asked questions on computer use, training, attitudes towards technology, experiences, efficacy,

philosophy, and attitudes toward work ranking them on a 5-point scale. Results were compiled

into a correlation matrix where the data supported previous research. A significant positive

correlation between positive experiences with technology yielded more frequent use in the

classroom as confidence grew. In addition, more hands-on practice offered more confidence in

the classroom. However, the data indicated no correlation between the number of years

experience and the use of technology in the classroom suggesting that both novice and

experienced teachers not only see the value of technology integration but also implement it

(Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross, & Specht, 2008).

In highlighting training support, teacher participants of an online professional

development system were interviewed by Herrington, Herrington, Hoban, and Reid (2009) in an

effort to see if this form of non-traditional support was effective in technology integration. Key

questions addressed were how effective was the online technology training in making the transfer

of that technology into their curriculum, and what conditions were necessary to maintain and

grow in the design of technology enhanced curriculum. While some teachers thought the online

modules were helpful, even enjoyable for a few, some teachers argued that the modules did not

help them in any way, the training modules were difficult to access, the implementation was

challenging with overbooked computer labs or lack of appropriate software on all computers, the

planning time was limited at best. However, the interviews revealed an overall deeper insight to

the implications and benefits to integrating technology into the curriculum despite all the

challenges. Some schools offered professional development days for teachers to plan for their


10technology enhanced lessons, and some teachers at schools found working on modules at the

same time opened the doors for interdisciplinary and collaboration opportunities (Herrington,

Herrington, Hoban, & Reid, 2009).

A group of ten teachers that participated in the Delaware Writing Project technology

initiative (DWPti) were chosen for training and research conducted by Scott and Mouza (2007).

The purpose of the training was to increase the teachers' knowledge and skills in various

technological strategies, such as Inspiration, wikis, and blogs in an effort to increase student

achievement through these tools. The data from the pre-tests and post-test suggests that teachers

gained significant confidence in virtually every area of technology tool presented with

spreadsheets, scanners, and digital videos being the exceptions. These exceptions were

explained through the interviews of three teachers stating that they had overestimated their own

skill levels in the pre-tests while the post-tests indicated a more accurate picture of confidence

giving the illusion of no gains in those areas. Several of the participants voiced new levels of

confidence and assured the researchers that they would definitely implement these tools into

their curriculum for writing. Findings suggested that teachers' attitudes and beliefs toward

technology integration were less resistant because of the support they had during the training

(Scott & Mouza, 2007).

In an effort to assist with collaboration, Swain (2008) created a configuration map that

uses words to define and create a visual picture of what integration within the context of

curriculum looks like. The purpose of the configuration map was to create conversation among

educators using a common language that would aid in their collaboration of integration ideas

(Swain, 2008).


11Recognizing the importance of collaboration, Hughes, Kerr, and Ooms (2005) developed

a content-focused technology inquiry group to better understand the processes teachers use in

planning for technology integration and the challenges they face during the processes. Five

middle school teachers of varying years of teaching experience participated in the study; the

participants teach in an urban area in Minnesota. The teachers would meet monthly to discuss

any difficulties, to share ideas that worked for them, and often to collaborate with each other

while building motivation. Some teachers required more extensive assistance from the lead

researcher's group of university students during the application phase, and other teachers were

faced with other challenges such as lack of adequate resources on campus. The findings

indicated that teachers felt more comfortable in incorporating a technology tool when there is

sufficient support in learning how to properly implement it into the lessons. In addition, the

researchers claimed that an ongoing professional development training is necessary to sustain

their commitment to the use of technology in the classroom while gaining confidence to use

more technology as it is offered (Hughes, Kerr, & Ooms, 2005).

In a more intimate collaboration effort, McNierney (2004) followed one secondary social

studies teacher from a Midwest community through a case study where the participant has over

25 years of teaching experience and is considered to be a model teacher; however, the teacher

has had unsuccessful attempts at incorporating the desired level of technology into her

classroom. One complaint was that the technology itself often would not work when she tried to

use it and did not know how to troubleshoot the problem(s). Another hurdle was the difficulty of

not having the control in class that she feels when she lectures to becoming more of a facilitator

in the classroom. Finally, she felt as if the traditional collaboration setting of colleagues has


12evolved to one where everyone is on the computer checking email or surfing the Internet losing

what she felt was once a cohesive and structured environment. Training and collaboration

spanned two days in the summer to help design some technology lessons that could be integrated

at the teacher's comfort level. This one-on-one collaboration served as mentor-mentee support

where McNierney would check her progress and offer encouragement. Recommendations

included not taking on too much to start the process of implementing desired technology and

possibly begin with small group instruction and build up to whole group lessons. On a final

note, McNierney stated that teachers must overcome their fears of incompetence and realize that

their students are of the digital age not having ever known life without some technologies, such

as an MP3 player or a computer, but rather embrace the change to help their students become

more successful with these technological tools (McNierney, 2004).

Vanatta and Fordham (2004) developed and used the Teacher Attribute Survey (TAS) to

determine factors that would predict use of technology by teachers in grades K-12. The variables

in the survey included, but were not limited to teachers’ attitudes, disposition, years of

experience, the amount of technology training, and openness to change. Six schools having

participated in an in-depth technology training through Bowling Green State University were

chosen for the survey; the population varied from a small rural school with minimal technology

resources to a suburban school that had many technology resources. The researchers found that a

teacher's willingness to take risks with the technology, commitment to work beyond the expected

work week (ie. training and planning), and technology training were the most likely factors in

predicting a teacher's likelihood of integrating technology (Vanatta & Fordham, 2004).

The problem is that there is little data that reveals possible processes and problems


13confronted when incorporating technology in classrooms as prescribed by a group of middle

school teachers in Central Texas. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effectiveness of

technology training in addition to collaboration between educators in Central Texas to overcome

the barriers they face when integrating technology into their curriculum.

Methodology

Research Questions

The key questions that guided this study were is there sufficient professional

development that adequately prepares teachers to design technology enhanced curriculum, and is

there sufficient collaboration among educators in sharing of best practices with technology

enhanced curriculum?

1. What data as collected in this study reveal possible challenges teachers confront when

incorporating technology in the classrooms?

2. What data as collected in this study indicates teachers' attitudes toward incorporating

technology in the classroom?

3. What data as collected in this study indicates a correlation between teacher

experience, teacher attitudes, collaboration, technology training, and state and district

mandates as processes to incorporate technology in middle school classrooms?

Operational Definitions

Collaboration: is a group of two or more people working together toward a common goal by

sharing ideas and strategies.

Technology enhanced curriculum: is a curriculum design where technology of varying tools have

been introduced for students to use during instruction to enhance learning and achievement.


14Technologies: can include a variety of tools such as graphing calculators, Geometer's Sketchpad,

Inspiration, PowerPoint, word processing software, spreadsheets, databases, streaming videos,

computer with projection system, digital cameras and camcorders, web quests, and teacher/class

websites to name a few.

Technology integration: is the use of technology within the curriculum that is used either by

teachers to enhance delivery of instruction or by students to enhance learning and achievement.

Technology use: is the basic use of technology to perform administrative tasks such as

attendance, grades, email that does not enhance the curriculum.

Population

The population consisted of middle school teachers from grades 6-8 in a large suburban

area in Central Texas during the 2009-2010 school year. Participants included 25 middle school

teachers across the district with varying levels of education, areas of instruction, years of

teaching experience, age, gender, and ethnicity. Of the participants 60% were female, 45%

Hispanic, and 45% Caucasian. In addition, 20% were new-to-profession, 40% had five to

nineteen years of experience, and 15% had twenty or more years teaching experience. The data

collected reflected teachers' attitudes toward technology integration over the course of the year

and the degree to which technology integration changed over the course of the year. The data

collected also reflected the impact of technology training and collaboration had on the design of

technology enhanced curriculum.

Procedures

Permission from middle school principals was requested to conduct non-experimental

research on their respective campuses in the form of surveys, interviews, and observations (see


15Addendum 1).

Data was collected by using a simple 15 question entry survey using the Teacher

Attribute Survey from Vanatta and Fordham (2004) and Gorder's (2008) version of Technology

Integration Matrix (TICM) from S. C. Mills (in Gorder, 2008) as a basis of design (see

Addendum 2). The survey also included demographic data such as gender, age, ethnicity,

teaching experience, grade level taught, content area taught, and level of educational experience.

The survey was completed at the beginning of the school year and at the end of the school year

to observe any relationships that may be revealed as the teachers attend various trainings over the

course of the school year. In addition, teachers' attitudes were measured and compared by both

surveys.

Observational data was collected by using anecdotal notes and a checklist (see Addendum

3). The researcher observed collaboration settings and instructional settings to collect data on the

processes teachers use in designing technology enhanced curriculum and to observe the

implementation of technology in the classrooms by teachers and students. Frequency of

observations was limited to a minimum of twice per six weeks allowing for a minimum of twelve

observations during the school year. The researcher was a non-participant observer.

Interview questions were used to collect data using an outline (see Addendum 4). The

researcher collected information regarding the barriers teachers face when designing a

technology enhanced curriculum by asking open-ended questions.

Materials used for the researcher's art-based project included mostly pre-cut wood pieces

and dowel rods, plastic knitting canvas, floral wire, wood glue, hot glue, and paint (see

Addendum 5). Assistance was used during the use of electronic cutting tools. Four pre-cut


16wooden blocks were used as the bases and platforms for the teacher and students desks. The

platforms were created using a half-inch dowel that was originally 36 inches long and cut into six

equal six-inch pieces. To establish placement of the holes, careful measurements were made one

and one half-inch from each edge making an intersection. Then measurements of one-quarter

inch were made on either side of the center of the holes to account for the diameter of the dowel

rods. A drill using a half-inch bit was used to create the six holes. Wood glue was then placed

inside the hole to secure and connect the tops and bottoms creating the two platforms. The color

chosen for the teacher's platform was brown; the color chosen for the students' platform was

white. Three pre-cut wooden cut-outs were used for the teacher and students, one male and two

female. The legs and arms of one male and one female were cut down about a half-inch to be

better proportioned in size for the students. The color white was chosen for the teacher; the

colors blue and red were chosen for the students. A pre-cut piece of a miniature hutch was cut in

half to be the desks for the teacher and students; the desks were painted brown. A one-inch strip

of wood was cut from a five-by-twelve inch piece of wood to create the plank that connects the

two platforms; the plank was painted black. The plastic knitting canvas was cut to fit between

the two platforms creating a net and painted silver. The words “training”, “collaboration”, and

“sharing” were painted across the plastic net. The net was hung from both platforms with floral

wire and secured using a staple gun. The platforms were secured to a larger base painted white

using the wood glue; the desks and people were glued to the platforms. Four small pre-cut

wooden rectangle pieces were glued together in pairs to form laptops. The laptops were first

painted silver then painted with black to make the screen and keys; they were glued to the

students' desk. A one-quarter inch wooden dowel rod was cut to ten inches to make the


17balancing bar for the teacher; the balancing bar was painted silver. The words “time” and

“student” were painted in black; “time” on the right end and “student” on the left. The bar was

glued to the teacher. The teacher and students were glued to the desks on their respective sides:

teacher on the brown platform on the left, students on the white platform on the right. The plank

was then glued to both platforms. Pieces of clear broken glass were arranged and attached using

hot glue along the top edge of the teacher’s platform; the word “barriers” was painted in black on

one of the pieces. More broken pieces of clear glass were glued along the base of the teacher’s

platform. The words “time”, “comfort zone”, “tradition”, and “no support” were painted in black

across some of the glass shards and added to the pile of broken glass.

Instrumentation of Design

Using the “critical incident technique” adapted by Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, and Allen

(1993), the instrument was developed for this qualitative study to determine truth value. This

was done by utilizing the components of credibility, transferability, dependability, and

confirmability. Techniques including persistent observations, triangulation, educator debriefing,

thick description, audit trails, and reflexive journals were initiated and maintained throughout the

study (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). Educator work, as reflection and

documentation of the study, were collected. A pilot study was conducted to refine the instrument

and process of study.

To complement the research, an arts-based educational research approach can be seen as

part of the qualitative research design (Barone & Eisner, 1998), and Elliot Eisner (1997),

encourages researchers to incorporate this form of representation to increase understanding

beyond the traditional qualitative research. In an effort to better understand the impact of


18training and collaboration, an arts-based component was included; the aesthetic representation of

educator experiences demonstrates that impact.

Analysis and Display of Data

The data was categorized by challenges teachers face when integrating technology, the

attitudes teachers have towards the implementation of technology, and relationships found

among the variables of gender, age, ethnicity, years of teaching experience, content area taught,

and level of education.

The survey data is displayed using bar graphs to compare the groups of teachers using

technology in their classrooms and to indicate correlational relationships among the variables.

The interview data is provided through excerpts from conversations the researcher had with the

participants during settings of collaboration and in one-on-one interviews. Observational data is

provided through coded anecdotal notes and displayed by critical events.

The researcher's arts-based portion of this study is illustrated through the seven aesthetic

research features as identified by Barone & Eisner (1998). These elements included (1) the

creation of a virtual reality, (2) the presence of ambiguity, (3) the use of expressive language and


19images, (4) the use of contextualized and vernacular language, (5) the promotion of empathy, (6)

the personal signature of the researcher, and (7) the presence of aesthetic form. These design

elements provided an outlet for a deeper understanding.

Significance of Study, Implications for Further Studies, and Conclusions

The evidence collected in this study suggests that constant support is necessary for

teachers to maintain gained momentum in technology integration. To answer question one,

whether teachers are confronted with challenges when incorporating technology in the

classroom, surveys were sent to teachers to evaluate their perceptions of the barriers they face.

The responses were tallied, categorized by barrier, and displayed in a bar graph to compare the

challenges they face with other variables: years of teaching experience, gender, age, ethnicity. In

addition, interviews were conducted with teachers expressing their concerns and categorized into

the three groups: amount of knowledge of the technology, amount of training or professional

development, and amount of collaboration including sharing ideas. Other research supports the

data as teachers are aware of the state mandated requirements, yet a remarkably small percentage

of teachers actually integrated the technology due to burnout, time constraints in planning, and

fear of not knowing the technology adequately (Coffland & Strickland, 2004; Levin &

Wadmany, 2008).

To answer question two, whether teachers' attitudes are indicative of the degree of

technology integration in the classroom, surveys, interviews, and observations were used to

support the data. Data already collected and categorized was used to evaluate this question.

Field notes from observations were also categorized into the three groups: amount of knowledge

of the technology, amount of training or professional development, and amount of collaboration


20including sharing ideas. Other research supports the data as teachers complained of technology

being forced and had to be completed by a deadline while some teachers became proficient in

only one technology tool making it easier to be complacent (O'Hanlon, 2009).

To answer question three, whether there is a correlation between teacher experience,

teacher attitudes, collaboration, technology training, and state and district mandates as processes

to incorporate technology in middle school class rooms, the data collected from the surveys,

interviews, and observations were evaluated from a quantitative perspective. Other research

supports the data indicating that teachers of all genders, ethnicity, and years of teaching

experience are striving to create technology enhanced curriculum (Gorder, 2008).

In the arts-based project, the vignette represents the perceptions teachers often have of

integrating technology into curriculum seen as a balancing act between their own personal

planning time and the needs of their digital native students and the risk they often feel they are

taking with technology. The drab colors of brown on the teacher's platform represent the lack of

desire and adequate training teachers claim to feel about technology integration. Because white

is the reflection of all colors, it was chosen for the teacher to represent the role they play as they

model effective instructional strategies and should be a reflection to other teachers. The silver

bar represents the perfect balance that all teachers must be aware of as they spend time planning

for technology enhanced lessons while focusing also on the needs of the students. The broken

glass pieces on the teacher’s platform represent the barriers that must be broken to realize the

needs of students must come first. Because black is the absence of color, it was chosen for the

plank to represent the potential dangers of complacency, resistance, and fear that teachers must

overcome knowing that the safety net of training, collaboration, and sharing of best practices


21with other educators will make the transition easier and less daunting. The white platform on

which the students are waiting with their laptops also represents the reflections of the digital

learner waiting for the teacher to bring them technology enhanced curriculum. The blue and red

students symbolize the vibrancy technology will have on their learning and achievement.

Professional development and/or other technological training opportunities must be made

available as often as possible to help teachers maintain the state expectations of technology

standards while creating safe environments to learn new technology. In addition, the sharing of

best practices provides motivation for novice or reluctant teachers to buy-in to the idea of

technology integration. Finally, collaboration is necessary to provide a safe environment to learn

and practice technology strategies while designing effective technology enhanced curriculum.

References


22Barone, T., & Eisner, E. (1998). Arts-based educational research. In R.M. Jaeger (Ed.),

Complimentary methods of research in education (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American

Educational Research Association.

Coffland, D., & Strickland, A. (2004). Factors related to teacher use of technology in secondary

geometry instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(4),

347-365. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ724756) Retrieved July 16,

2009, from ERIC database.

Eisner, E. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational

Researcher, 26, 4-9.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry.

A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Gorder, L. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the

classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63-76. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. EJ826493) Retrieved July 20, 2009, from ERIC database.

Hardy, M. (2008). It's TIME for technology: The technology in mathematics education project.

Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(2), 221-237. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. EJ797522) Retrieved July 24, 2009, from ERIC

database.

Herrington, A., Herrington, J., Hoban, G., & Reid, D. (2009). Transfer of online professional

learning to teachers' classroom practice. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(2),

189-213. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ836014) Retrieved July 25,



23Hughes, J., Kerr, S., & Ooms, A. (2005). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: Cases of

teacher learning and technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 32(4), 367-379. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ722457)

Retrieved July 22, 2009, from ERIC database.

Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers' views on factors affecting effective integration of

information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology

and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-263. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

EJ784010) Retrieved July 25, 2009, from ERIC database.

McNierney, D. (2004). One teacher's odyssey through resistance and fear. TechTrends: Linking

Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 48(5), 66-71,. (ERIC Document Reproduction


Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating

variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited

integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523-1537. (ERIC Document Reproduction


O'Hanlon, C. (2009). Resistance is futile. T.H.E. Journal, 36(3), 32-36. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. EJ842178) Retrieved July 15, 2009, from ERIC database.

Park, S., & Ertmer, P. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced Problem-Based

Learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 39(4), 631-643. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ801805)

Retrieved July 24, 2009, from ERIC database.


24Schoepp, K. (2004). Technology integration barriers in a technology-rich environment: A CBAM

perspective. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490211) Retrieved August 4,


Scott, P., & Mouza, C. (2007). The impact of professional development on teacher learning,

practice and leadership skills: A study on the integration of technology in the teaching of

writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(3), 229-266. (ERIC Document


Swain, C. (2008). Are we there yet?: The power of creating an innovation configuration map on

the integration of technology into your teacher program. Journal of Computing in

Teacher Education, 24(4), 143-147. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

EJ834883) Retrieved July 21, 2009, from ERIC database.

Vannatta, R., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology

use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253-271. (ERIC Document



25

Addendum

Addendum 1

Shannon MintonRunning Brushy Middle School2303 N. Lakeline Blvd.Cedar Park, TX 78613512-435-4700, Ext. 52781


26Date __________________________

Principal,

I am a middle school math teacher in the district and am conducting research investigating the challenges teachers face when creating technology enhanced curriculum. The key questions that are guiding my research are the following:

1. Is there sufficient professional development that adequately prepares teachers to design technology enhanced curriculum?

2. Is there sufficient collaboration among educators in sharing of best practices with technology enhanced curriculum?

I am requesting permission to perform my research in the form of surveys (for beginning of year and end of year data), interviews, and observations over the course of the 2009-2010 school year. I am including a copy of the survey I would like to send out to your teachers as soon as possible.

I may be reached at the above address and phone number or at my school email address [email protected]. Your assistance in this research will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Shannon Minton

Enclosure: Teacher Survey

Addendum 2

Survey

Please indicate time of survey: _____ Start of Year _____ End of Year

Gender: _____ Male _____ Female


mailto:[email protected]

27Grade Level(s) Taught: _____ 6th Grade _____ 7th Grade _____ 8th Grade

Ethnicity: _____ African-American _____ White/Caucasian _____ Hispanic

_____ Asian/Pacific Islander _____ Native American _____ Other

Content/Elective Area(s) Taught:

_____ Business/Home (BCIS, Family & Consumer Science)

_____ Fine Arts Elective (Art, Band, Choir, Theater)

_____ Language Arts

_____ Mathematics

_____ Physical Education/Health

_____ Science

_____ Social Studies

_____ Other; Please specify _____________________

Educational Level:

_____ Bachelors Degree _____ Masters Degree _____ Doctorate Degree

Years of Teaching Experience:

_____ New-to-Profession/0 years _____ 1-4 years _____ 5-9 years

_____10-19 years _____ 20+ years

Age Group:

_____ 22-29 years _____30-39 years _____ 40-49 years _____ 50+ years

1. How many computers do you have available per student? __________

2. How often do your students use technology based on technology enhanced curriculum


28design?

_____ Less than four times a semester

_____ Less than once a month

_____ Once a week _____ Twice a week _____ Three times a week

_____ Four times a week _____ Daily

3. How often per week do you collaborate with a grade level, department, or instructional facilitator? __________ per week

4. Please rank in order the challenges (1=most difficult) you face implementing technology into the curriculum.

_____ Professional Development/Training of software/hardware

_____ Knowledge of software/hardware available on campus

_____ Time to plan

_____ Trouble shooting problems as they occur before/during instruction

_____ Access to computer cart/lab

_____ Response of Instructional Technology support

_____ Support of Administrators

_____ Other; Please specify _________________________________________

Indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements using the following scale: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree.

5. I feel that a technology enhanced curriculum is important for my students?1 2 3 4 5

6. I feel that technology is too difficult to use in the classroom and fear problems will occur.1 2 3 4 5

7. I am comfortable using the technology tools and do not want to master another tool yet.1 2 3 4 5


29

8. I welcome new instructional strategies into the classroom.1 2 3 4 5

9. I am proficient in the campus technology tools, and I can teach others.1 2 3 4 5

10. My technology support staff is quick to meet any challenges I face when using technology.1 2 3 4 5

11. My school/district should provide more support in training of technology uses.1 2 3 4 5

12. My school/district provides sufficient support in training of technology uses.1 2 3 4 5

13. I am aware of the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills (TEKS) for Technology.1 2 3 4 5

14. Please rank in order of importance (1= most important).

_____ Collaboration time

_____ Time in the day to practice the technology

_____ Knowledge of technology available on campus

_____ Instructional Technology (IT) support with integration/trouble shooting

_____ Instructional Facilitator support with integration/trouble shooting

_____ Other; Please specify ________________________________________

15. What other technology services would you like to see offered by your campus or district in the way of training, collaboration, or technology support?Addendum 3

Observation

Topic: _____________________________________________ Date: ___________________

Class: ________________ Group: _______________ Teacher: ______________________


30Directions:

1. Select a technology skill/use to observe for one activity, one day, or one week.2. Put a check every time technology skill/use is observed in the setting.3. Fill in the comments section below.4. Share observations and comments with teacher(s).

Technology Tool(s)

IntegratedMon Tues Wed Thur Fri Total

Comments:

Addendum 4

Interview Questions

1. Are you familiar with the Technology TEKS? How? Why not?

2. How important is technology integration to you? How important is technology integration to

your students?Do not publish without the permission of the author.

313. How often do you use technology with your students in the classroom? What technology

tools do you use?

4. What processes do you use to design curriculum to integrate technology? How does

collaboration help in the process of developing a technology enhanced curriculum?

5. What do you feel are the greatest barriers to following through with technology integration?

Why? Are you willing to commit to time beyond the school day to learn new technology? Why

or why not?

6. If you feel you are successful in integrating technology on a regular basis, what do you feel

helps you to be successful?

7. How often do you have to contact your instructional technology facilitator? What type of

trouble shooting calls do you have to make? Were your questions answered adequately?

8. How often do you attend professional development or other training to learn about new or

current technology uses? Does this training help in designing technology enhanced curriculum?

Why or why not?

9. Do you feel as if you are proficient enough in your technology expertise to teach it to others?

Why or why not?

Addendum 5


32


smintoneportfolio.pbworks.comsmintoneportfolio.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/42298968/ci… · web...

Documents