Journal Review: Getting to the Heart of Technology: Virginia's Instructional Technology Resource Teacher

Coffman, T. (2009). Getting to the Heart of Technology Integration: Virginia's Instructional Technology Resource Teacher Program. Learning & Leading With Technology, 36(7), 20-23.

Summary:

This article describes how the state of Virginia tackled instructional technology integration. After NCLB, the state devoted millions of dollars to ensuring that every school has two types of technology positions; Instructional Technology Resource Teacher (ITRT) and Technology Support Staff. The Technology Support Staff are just in charge of infrastructure for the district/building. The ITRT position is in charge of providing support for teachers as they integrate technology into their classrooms. The state mandated that districts must have at least one ITRT per one thousand students. This article was published in 2009 and at the time of the publication the state started to see data that suggested this initiative has already increased scores on the Virginia Standard of Learning tests.

I think this is a great start in technology integration for the state. This initiative ensured that all districts began technology integration close to 10 years ago. I also like that the state set a minimum number of ITRT staff that a district can have. Right now, West High has one Instructional Technology Specialist for a building of 4000 students. She also works in the library, so isn't even a devoted ITRT. The district has tried to make up for that by providing small stipends to four teachers to help, but those four teachers don't get extra time in order to be resource to the staff. 

Journal Review: "I Tolerate Technology - I Don't Embrace It": Instructor Surprise and Sensemaking in a Technology-Rich Learning Environment

Fairchild, J. L., Meiners, E. B., & Violette, J. L. (2016). "I Tolerate Technology--I Don't Embrace It": Instructor Surprise and Sensemaking in a Technology-Rich Learning Environment. Journal Of The Scholarship Of Teaching And Learning, 16(4), 92-108.

PARTICIPANTS

The study looked at 7 teachers in a tech-enriched classroom that had flexible seating, tablets for every student, an interactive whiteboard, and a document camera. 

METHOD

The study wanted to answer two questions;

1. What tensions will be revealed for instructors teaching in a technology-rich classroom?
2. What sensemaking strategies will instructors report in response to these tensions?

In order to answer these questions, the researchers interviewed the instructors weekly for 30-90 minutes. 

RESULTS

The researchers identified 3 tensions. Below I will summarize each tension.

• Freedom V Confinement - Although technology allowed for freedom to try new things, it takes a lot of time to try and implement new things.
• Contentedness V Fragmentation - Technology allows for greater collaboration, but at times it becomes easier to seclude self.
• Change V Stability - Here it was decided by most teachers that the teaching has to change with the introduction of technology. Teachers can't continue doing the same thing after getting technology. "There is more to technology integration than electronics."

The researchers identified 2 sensemaking strategies. Below I will summarize each tension.

• Adaptation - Teachers quickly realized that they had to "roll with the glitches" instead of getting caught up in technology glitches. 
• Reframing - Most teachers realized they had to change the way they taught and their role in the classroom.

REFLECTION

This article seemed to solidify what has been said in class lately. The article did a great job in providing the insight of teachers that were struggling with technology integration and getting at what are their struggles. I have two big take-aways. 

1. Teachers have to learn how to adapt to technology glitches and this can be scary. However, adapting to these challenges in front of students in a calm, positive manner is good modeling for when they come across glitches. Instead of giving up in front of the students or getting angry, teachers need to show good problem-solving skills. The issue for technology coaches and administration is; how do you get teachers comfortable at "rolling with the glitches"?
2. Technology is a change agent. Teachers will only get frustrated with technology if they try to jam technology in their old lesson plans. Successful integration involves making changes to how you teach and what you teach. 

Journal Review: The Pedagogy of Technology Integration

Okojie, M. C., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. C. (2006). The Pedagogy of Technology Integration. Journal Of Technology Studies, 32(2), 66-71.

SUMMARY

The article starts by identifying 3 reasons why teachers are reluctant to incorporate technology. Shortage of computers, lack of computer skills, and computer intimidation were listed. Then the authors defined educational technology as any technology (video, media, devices) that is used to enhance and facilitate learning. Authors did a study (without identifying methodology or participants) and found that many in-service and pre-service teachers do not understand what it means to integrate technology and when asked, they focus their responses on the different devices, not the learning itself. Too often teachers focus on the tool and not the task. 

Also, the authors suggest a few fixes to the current integration of technology. Technology integration needs to focus on the task (not the tool), involve students in the design stages, and create an implementation plan before buying technology. 

REFLECTION

First, the article itself was lack-luster. It claims to have data from a quick study without mentioning any details of the study. 

Having said that, I agree that too often teachers, technology coaches, students, and administration focus on the tool and not the task. I have sat through too many professional development sessions that taught me how to use apps (garage band, iMovie, etc) without showing me how to incorporate it into my classroom beyond a superficial level. 

It is an interesting idea to have students involved in designing technology-based tasks to learn set learning objectives. I often have prescribed ways for students to learn, practice, or demonstrate understanding, but I have never talked to students about what they need to learn, and how they want to tackle that learning objective. I see that as a way to help teachers get new ideas, take the stress off of teachers to create these grand projects, and as a great way to engage students. However, teachers that struggle to give-up control, will find this even more terrifying. It would require teachers to be flexible and would require a great group of students that want to learn. 

Journal Review: Are Schools Getting a Big Enough Bang for Their Education Technology Buck?

Boser, U., & Center for American, P. (2013). Are Schools Getting a Big Enough Bang for Their Education Technology Buck?.

Summary

"Schools are not using technology to do things differently."

The Center for American Progress wanted to see if states and schools are getting "enough bang for their..buck" with educational technology funding. It was found that no state has completed a return of investment analysis. Studies have been conducted with what are students doing with technology. For the most part, students are using technology to complete basic tasks, not tasks that require higher-order thinking. 

The Center for American Progress identified the following potential aspects of technology;

• Boosts the reach of highly effective teachers
• Creates greater personalization and differentiation
• Improves testing by making it less expensive and more adaptive.

They continue by saying that schools need to allow technology to be the transformative tool that it can be and not resist change. 

Finally, the Center for American Progress concludes by requesting the states and schools to complete return on investment study to decide if the spending on technology is necessary. If it is found that technology is not providing enough of a difference given the cost, then schools and states need to find a different way to spend money.

Reflection

The quote above is my big take away. I have heard this before, but here is research that shows it. I agree that too often schools take technology and continue to do what they have always done, with technology. Technology is transformative, but schools are resistant to change. I look at what my department is doing right now and see that, despite having 32 chromebooks in each room, we are developing new curriculum without developing transformative curriculum. The curriculum could have easily been created and implemented without computers. I can't help but question, why do we have the technology?

Having said that, I disagree with some of their conclusion. If a return on investment study is done and it finds that the technology is not providing enough of a difference given the cost, we should not abandon technology. Instead, we need to mandate changing how we are using the technology. Don't take away technology, change the way we are using technology. 

Journal Review: Promoting Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation among Chemistry Students Using Computer-Assisted Instruction

Gambari, I. A., Gbodi, B. E., Olakanmi, E. U., & Abalaka, E. N. (2016). Promoting Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation among Chemistry Students Using Computer-Assisted Instruction. Contemporary Educational Technology, 7(1), 25-46.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to determine which method of teaching increased student achievement and motivation among high school students learning chemistry;

1. Computer Simulation Instructional Package (CSIP) - Students learn one concept at a time in a prescribed order, but at their own pace. Once they have been taught a concept, they are asked questions, if they answer enough correct, they move on to the next concept. If not, they try again.
2. Computer Tutorial Instructional Package (CTIP) - Similar to the simulation package, except once students are quizzed, if they don't receive at least a 70%, the computer will provide support specific to the questions the student missed.
3. Traditional Teaching Method (TTM)

The researchers also wanted to see if there was any difference between male and female students.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 90 high school students. Half were male and half were female. 

METHODOLOGY

The students took the Chemistry Achievement Test twice (pre-test and post-test) to test for content knowledge. Then students filled out a survey twice (pre and post-test) and were interviewed to understand motivation.

FINDINGS

It was found that students who were exposed to the CSIP achieved significantly higher on the Chemistry Achievement Test than those exposed to the CTIP and TTM instructional methods. Subsequently, it was found that students exposed to the CTIP achieved significantly higher on the test than those exposed to the TTM. Similar trends were also found when looking at intrinsic and extrinsic motivation while learning chemistry. The researchers found no difference between the male and female students in terms of motivation or achievement.

REFLECTION/APPLICATION

It doesn't surprise me that students achieved more when using technology because it is hard to visualize a lot of chemistry concepts. Also, the programs allowed the students to move at their own pace, which should allow for higher achievement since students learn at different paces and TTM isn't conducive to that. 

In the past I have tried creating my own CSIP within schoology and had varying success. Many students resisted the drastic change thinking that I was trying to be lazy even though I created every video, every quiz, and every practice worksheet that students did. This perception caused some students to not try. I would like to go back to that, but provide different ways for students to practice and demonstrate understanding, hoping that will increase motivation and willingness. 

Journal Review: Connecting Instructional Technology Professional Development to Teacher and Student Outcomes

Martin, W., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T., & Culp, K. M. (2010). Connecting Instructional Technology Professional Development to Teacher and Student Outcomes. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 43(1), 53-74

PURPOSE

A study was conducted in the state of Missouri to see how various professional development techniques (all focusing on the use of technology) impact student achievement in the classroom. The techniques looked at were modeling, classroom visits, community building, technology utilization, connection to practice, and inquiry-based learning. Other PD focused primarily on the technology tool itself.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included about 270 teachers and about 3000 students. The study focused on grades 3-5. 

METHODOLOGY

The researchers looked at the lesson plans the teachers had to submit, classroom observations, and results of a standardized assessments.

FINDINGS

It was found that modeling was the best form of PD for teachers based on lesson plan quality. However, this did not extend to quality of classroom visits. Modeling was not the best form of PD for teachers, instead time spend planning with the instructional specialist and reflection proved to be the best indication of a quality classroom visit. Technology Utilization proved the best form of PD across the grades when looking at the impact on student achievement. It was finally concluded that the best PD focuses on lesson planning and reflection instead of technical assistance and modeling. 

REFLECTION

During the study, all participating teachers were exposed to all forms of professional development. Therefore, it is hard to say whether the increased success was due to one specific form of PD or if it was due to the whole experience. Having said that, it makes sense that better PD focuses on the task, not the tool. When teachers focus on what they want students to do with the content and not on a new app or website, students learn more. 

OPINION: Open Education Resources

Audio recording >>

Journal Review: Professional Development and the Master Technology Teacher: the Evolution of One Partnership

Wright, V. H. (2010). Professional Development and the Master Technology Teacher: The Evolution of One Partnership. Education, 131(1), 139-146.

In this journal article, Dr. Wright chronicles the development and the implementation of the professional development of in-service and pre-service teachers in the use of technology. The program described is the Master Technology Teacher (MTT) through the University of Alabama.

The program consists of the following components;

1. A small group of teachers meet periodically to learn new tools and pedagogical methods.
2. This group of teachers then implements the new tools and methods in their classrooms. This can include observations by those who are facilitating the MTT program.
3. The teachers then reflect and present their implementation/reflection to the others in the MTT program. 
4. The teachers involved in the MTT program become technology leaders and innovators in their departments/buildings/districts and mentor other teachers in the use of technology to enhance their craft.  

Dr. Wright also details five additional characteristics of technology professional development:

1. For teachers, learning basic skills and developing confidence in using technology is the first step.
2. Once one teacher becomes comfortable in using technology, they become technology leaders and the "go to" person for questions and ideas regarding technology integration.
3. New technology in teaching and learning is only integrated when professional development (such as the MTT program) and ongoing collaboration with others is continuous.
4. Teachers need time to learn new technologies, but also to "make and take" or time to work the new technologies into their lessons
5. Professional development should also include the ethical issues related to using technology in the classroom. 

The MTT program included teachers of all content areas as well as initial comfort level with technology. 

Google Cast for Education

Google Cast for Education

Google Cast for Education allows students to cast their desktop/tap to their teacher's computer. This will allow for students to present from their chromebooks/computers/tablets without using cables. Below is a quick video tutorial on how to set-up and provide access for your first student.

Journal Review: Effect of Simulation Techniques and Lecture Method on Students' Academic Performance in Mafoni Day Secondary School Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria

Bello, S., Ibi, M. B., & Bukar, I. B. (2016). Effect of Simulation Techniques and Lecture Method on Students' Academic Performance in Mafoni Day Secondary School Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(23), 113-117.

PURPOSE

The researchers out of the University of Maiduguri, Nigeria aimed to see the difference in student achievement in understanding science when taught through lecture or an online simulation. 

PARTICIPANTS

To study the difference in instructional methods, the researchers used 90 juniors from the Mafoni Day Secondary School. Half of the students were taught using direct instruction and the other half was taught using an online simulation. 

METHODOLOGY

All students were given the same pre-test and post-test in order to measure the growth of students. The test used is called the Basic Science Achievement Test (BASAT). The researchers found the mean scores and standard deviation and used the t-test to determine if their results were significantly different. 

FINDINGS

The researchers only provided the mean scores of the post-test. The students that were taught with direct instruction had a mean score of 46.60 while the students that were taught with the simulation had a mean score of 66.23. Using the t-test, the researchers found the difference to be of significance.

REFLECTION/APPLICATION

The results of the research is promising for those teachers needing reasons to move away from direct instruction. However, more research is still needed. The researchers should have looked at growth and not just final scores. Also, more participants would be ideal. Finally, although readers can tell the researchers used a science simulation, at no point is exact simulation listed, described, or shown. As other researchers have noted, success and failure can often depend on the simulation itself. Having said that, I do believe this begins to prove the validity to using online simulations in the classroom on a regular basis.   

Time Saving Tech-nique

I am going to share my 2 favorite "Time Saving Tech-nique".

• Ctrl+Y  

This works in Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint (and probably the rest). There have been times that I want to reformat a document and it can be very tiresome to repeat the same task over and over and over again. For example, wanting to bold portions of text, but not all. Bold one thing you want as you normally would. Then for the rest, highlight and then ctrl+y and it will repeat your actions on the newly highlighted text.

• Screen Clipping

                   Again, this works in Microsoft products. There are times when I portion of worksheets, pictures/diagrams, or snippets of webpages that I want in a PowerPoint or Word document. You could use the screen clipping tool that comes with the Windows OS or you could click insert --> screenshot --> screen clipping. It will minimize the Word window and show the front most page underneath for you to clip into your document.

Both of these have saved me time and I hope they will save you time as well.

Future Ready - Personalized Professional Learning

This blog is a reflection focused on one "gear" of the Future Ready Framework. I will focus on Personalized Professional Learning.

WHY?

This gear is the most important gear of the Framework because student-centered learning starts with the teacher. Teachers need to be trained how to implement technology, trained on 21st century skills, and should be part of a district's implementation plan. Also, the district and the administrators need to model the kind of learning they expect to see in the classroom.

The world in rapidly evolving into a technology based society in which people are always connected to the internet and they have access to resources to learn almost everything. We as educators need to teach our students how to learn in such a society and that starts with modeling what is to be expected of them as they leave our classrooms. No more can we expect students to sit and take notes all day and do worksheets at night. That style of learning no longer reflects the world.

WHERE IS MY DISTRICT?

My current district is just starting its journey towards providing Personalized Professional Learning for teachers. Individual teachers are going out of their comfort zones, learning about new ways of teaching with technology and bringing those ideas to other teachers. The district is developing a 1:1 initiative with the hopes of providing more student-centered learning to all students. However, some administrators still preach about the importance of test taking skills, direct instruction, and consistent homework. PLCs are focused on frequent assessments consisting of multiple choice and free response questions without considering more authentic forms of assessment. So right now, there are competing directives from administrators.

Journal Review: Enhancing Instruction through Constructivism, Cooperative Learning and Cloud Computing

Denton, D. (2012). Enhancing instruction through constructivism, cooperative learning, and cloud computing. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 56(4), 34-41. doi:10.1007/s11528-012-0585-1

Dr. David W. Denton starts by connecting how Constructivism and Cooperative Learning are enhanced and made possible with cloud computing software (GAFE and Microsoft Onedrive). His article focuses on the undergraduate/graduate level, however, it is not hard to see the connection to secondary learning environments. 

Constructivism

     Constructivism is defined through the following characteristics;

• accessing prior knowledge and integrate with unfamiliar information to create new learning
• facilitation of group dialogue
• reference to formal domain knowledge
• opportunities for students to select challenge level
• practice of metacognitive skills.

Dr. Denton outlines how cloud computing software enables these characteristics because of the ability to share and simultaneously edit documents.

Cooperative Learning

     Cooperative learning is also greatly enhanced through cloud computing because of the ability to share and simultaneously edit documents. It becomes easy for students work together on a lab report, research paper, wikis, and blogs.

Strategies for Integrating Cloud Computing

Dr. Denton then outlines 10 ways to integrate cloud computing. Below is a brief outline of each strategy.

1. Group Projects
1. Have students work together on a Google Doc which then allows for teachers to provide structure and emphasizes process through the revision history capability.
2. Peer Assessment
1. Because Google Docs can be shared and edited, students can share their work with peers who then provide feedback.
3. Student Constructed Presentations
1. Google Slides can be used by students in small groups or the whole class to teach subject matter. 
4. Simultaneous Class Discussions
1. Teachers can use Google Sites, Google Docs, or Google Slides to post a question and have the students respond. This allows students to see their peer's thinking without taking a lot of time.
5. Collaborative Reflection
6. Assisted Writings
1. The ability of students to share documents with instructors then allows instructors to see student work in real-time and provide immediate feedback. 
7. Learning Illustrated
1. Google Drawings can be used by students to synthesize learning by creating a visual representation of content just learned.
8. Class Invetory
1. Google Forms can be used to instantly gather information about student learning. The data is gathered and displayed in Google Sheets which provides an easy format for teachers to understand the results. 
9. Collaborative Rubric Construction
1. Multiple students and teachers can work on the same document to decide the criteria and point value for rubrics.
10. Website Publishing
1. Students interest and engagement can be increased by having them create a Google Site or Blogger.

Final Thoughts

     I already use a lot of these strategies in my classroom using GAFE (Google Apps for Education) or Schoology (my LMS). However, I would like to integrate strategies 7 and 10 in my classroom. I could see having students create Infographics or other visual summaries of their learning and then publish the content to a class website.

Journal Review: What Levels of Guidance Promote Engaged Exploration with Interactive Simulations?

Adams, W. K., Paulson, A., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). What levels of guidance promote engaged exploration with interactive simulations?. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1064(1), 59-62. doi:10.1063/1.3021273

Adams, et al. reviewed four ways to use PhET (Physics Education Technology) interactive simulations in the classroom. The four ways varied by the level of inquiry during the use of the interactive simulation. The four levels are as follows;

Type A - No Instruction (full inquiry)

Type B - Driving Questions

Type C - Gently Guided (no inquiry)

Type D - Strongly Guided (step-by-step)

According to their research, which included hour long interviews with students as they were going through a simulation under one of the levels of inquiry, students were the most engaged when provided no instruction.

Type A guidance provided no instruction and the most engagement, but Adams, et al. cited inconsistencies in what the students learned.

In Type B guidance, students were given an investigation question, predicted answers, and then used the simulation to answer the question. Here the researchers found the questions restricted student exploration, but all students were able to answer the investigation questions.

In Type C and D levels of guidance, students were given instructions on how to use the simulation and more specific questions. The main difference between the two were that Type D guidance had questions that students could answer without the simulation. Both levels of guidance resulted in less engagement and students were unable to summarize any learning that occurred.

The authors suggest that Type A and B guidance are best for student learning. However, from my own experience with using the PhET simulations in my classroom would suggest Type A and B guidance will not work for all students. Some need to have the guidance while others demand it. Next time I use a PhET simulation, I would like to differentiate my instruction with the various types of guidance.