Technology and Teacher’s Beliefs

Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Technology-based Classrooms:A Developmental View

excerpt from abstract:”The findings reveal that following multi-year experiences in technology-based classrooms, teachers’ educational beliefs had changed quite substantively, demonstrating multiple views rather than pure beliefs. The study argues that teachers’ beliefs form a mosaic of complementary visions, even conflicting ones. It also shows that it is easier to change classroom practices than educational beliefs.”

Teachers normally use linear methods to teach and disregard computers, and hold on to teacher centered teaching rather than student centered learning. According to the authors a major cause of this “disappointment” is because of teacher personal beliefs and theories about education. As teacher’s beliefs determine how and why teacher’s adopt new methods, the authors postulate that it is important to investigate teacher’s beliefs. Makes sense.

The authors go on to say that it is worthwhile “to explore the implicit link between teachers’ views on learning and teaching and their actual classroom practices. Without teachers’ skilled pedagogical application of educational technology, technology in and of itself cannot provide innovative school practice and educational change.”

With that in mind, at the beginning of the course, should I find out what teacher’s beliefs regarding technology are? Should I assume because they are taking the course that they see the value of the classroom? I do I be sure? Readings? Discussions? PBL activities? Debate? The authors note that teachers who teach using constructivism are more likely to have student centered classrooms. It is the student centered classrooms where technology becomes the powerful tool. So student-educators knowing constructivism should not be assumed in my course. And the ability to effectively use constructivism should be a learning goal.

I thought it was interesting that the article also noted that it is often difficult for teachers to implement the changes that is required to infuse technologies in the classroom. That is where I am hoping my course will help. It’s a beginning, already set up by the time the course is finished. So hopefully, its maintenance after the teacher goes to or back to the classroom.

Levin, T. (2006). Teachers ’ beliefs and practices in technology-based classrooms : A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 157-181.

Teacher’s Beliefs = Add constructivism to learning goal

As I reflect on my proposed course, I am reading this article, Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Technology-based Classrooms: A Developmental View . It states that teachers normally use linear methods to teach and disregard computers, and hold on to teacher centered teaching rather than student centered learning. According to the authors a major cause of this “disappointment” is because of teacher personal beliefs and theories about education. As teacher’s beliefs determine how and why teacher’s adopt new methods, the authors postulate that it is important to investigate teacher’s beliefs. Makes sense.

Levin, T. (2006). Teachers ’ beliefs and practices in technology-based classrooms : A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 157-181.

February 16, 2012 0

Backward Design

As I thought over my course, I have tried to answer the three questions Fink asks from Grant Wiggins backward design. According to Fink, these three questions make up a triangle that must be integrated, reflect and support each other in order for the course to be successful.

What is it I hope that students will have learned, that will still be there and have value, several years after the course is over?

According to Fink, the answer to this question are the learning goals for my course. I would want my students to know how to use the computer to facilitate their students learning and enrich their student’s lives. I would want them to find the value technology has to offer to make our lives easier. I want the computer to be so ubiquitous that they naturally use it to do their work and play. I would want my students to know how to use the computer to enhance learning in the classroom and to know how to continually evolve with technology

What would the students have to do to convince me that they had achieved those learning goals?

According to Fink, the answer to this question is the Feedback and Assessment for my course. At the end of my course the students would be able to run a simple website, such as WordPress, to communicate with students and parents. The student would be able to incorporate a teacher’s blog as well as students’ blogs into the website. The student will know how to set up and use a wiki. The student will understand the pedagogy behind blogs and wikis.

I would also like the students to learn how to learn by using RSS feeds and social bookmarking. However I’m not sure if this can’t be left out of my course.

What would the students need to do during the course to be able to do well on these assessment activities?

According to Fink the answer to this question are the teaching and learning activities. I will come back to this question after I have done more research and reflecting.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses (Josse Bass Higher and Adult Education) (Kindle Locations 900-905). Kindle Edition.

February 1, 2012 0

Professional Development Article, 2

Professional development of novice teacher educators: professional self, interpersonal relations and teaching skills.

Shagrir, L. (2010). Professional development of novice teacher educators: professional self, interpersonal relations and teaching skills. Professional Development in Education, 36(1-2), 45-60. doi:10.1080/19415250903454809

This article notes that teachers that educate teachers should be experts in their field. The article contends that it is more important to note what teachers of teachers know than that of the teachers themselves. The reason given is because this knowledge is imparted to new teachers and so on. Therefore, the teacher educator must develop his professional identity with training and lifelong learning.

The author notes that although there are teacher educational institutions that provide development courses for teacher educators, these courses are brief and take place before the teacher educator begins teaching. (whew!) This article describes a research project on an one year model for the professional development of new teacher educators. It was found that teachers preferred to learn while they worked because it gave them opportunities to integrate what they learned in their jobs. Also they felt that their colleagues as a support group during this process. Lastly, they felt that being a part of the program help them find their identities as teacher educators.

January 27, 2012 0

Professional Development, Article 3

Evaluation Across Contexts: Evaluating the Impact of Technology Integration Professional Development Partnerships

Smolin, L., & Lawless, K. A. (2011). Evaluation across contexts: Evaluating the impact of technology integration professional development partnerships. Journal of Digital Learning in Digital Education, 27(3), 92-98.

In this article, the authors explore the “possibilities for collaborative evaluation of technology integration professional development (TIPD) to transform technology practices in schools” (Smolin & Lawless, 2011, p 92). The article evaluates three specific models of professional development—Developmental Evaluation, Responsive Evaluation, and Layered Research. The articles examines key issues associated with implementing the models and analyze how the models can , “strengthen and sustain professional development partnerships” (Smolin & Lawless, 2011, p 92).

The article briefly describes two current evaluation models. The first model is by Lawless and Pellegrino who propose a three phase evaluation model, evaluated in sequence: the 1) professional development program, 2) teacher outcomes, 3) teacher change and student achievement. The second model is from Desimone who’s model is similar to Lawless and Pellegrino except Desimone proposes a model where the evaluations are repeated indefinitely.

The authors believe both of the above models are incomplete because they don’t take into consideration all the stakeholders involved and the relationships between the stakeholders. Smolin and Lawless feel that these models should include and foster long term partnerships between all of stakeholders. Stakeholders would include the group that funds the technology, the universities that teach the technology, and the teachers that ultimately teach the technology. If there isn’t a partnership between the stakeholders then the changes from any of the three stakeholders is short-term.

Teachers have difficulty sustaining the transformative practices they learn in professional development without ongoing support and mentorship. As such, their potential for affecting their students’ learning, as well as their mentorship of new teachers, is difficult to achieve. Higher education partners lose an important laboratory of innovation as well as placements for their students. When success cannot be sustained long-term, funders are hesitant to continue their support. As a result, teaching and learning may revert back to the status quo (p 93).

The partnership of the three stakeholders will facilitate questions such as how research should be gathered and who should evaluate the results, providing feedback that all the stakeholders can use. This will result in a shared vision and build long term relationships creating an impact on professional development.

The authors look at three models that are designed to approach professional development as a collaborative approach. The first model is the Developmental Evaluation. In this model goals and outcomes are not predetermined but are revealed through the learning process and the evaluator is part of the program design team. Stakeholders are co-designers in this model.

The second model is the Responsive Evaluation model and this model emphasizes collaboration. Recursive observations and interviews as well as document analysis are the focus of Responsive Evaluation. Stakeholders are co-designers of the professional development.

The third model is called Layered Research. Also a collaborative model, Layered Research focuses the relationship of the stakeholders on developing new knowledge. This is done by all the stakeholders being involved in the research.

All three models, Developmental Evaluation, Responsive Evaluation, and Layered Research shift the focus from traditional forms of professional development to an approach which calls for all the partners to include all stakeholders perspectives which fosters success. Because all partners work together, results are available during the course of the professional development rather than waiting for yearly testing.

As a test study the authors implemented a professional development program integrated with the group that funds the technology, the universities that teach the technology, and the teachers that ultimately teach the technology. Even though the authors learned that the teachers learned more and the lessons were improved, and although the PD was collaborative, the research itself wasn’t complete because they used “limited perspectives to guide the evaluation…and four years later the relationships weren’t sustained” (p.96) The authors attribute the missing research on insufficient funding.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating
technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.

January 26, 2012 0

Professional Development Article

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.

This article is about a program evaluation study, and not an academic research study. The Educational Development Center, Inc was contracted by the University of Missouri to conduct an external evaluation of a professional development program called eMints.

The focus of the study is on eMints (enhancing Missouri’s Instructional Networked Teaching Strategies.) eMints is a professional development program that was created by the UM (University of Missouri) to help “help educators, administrators, and technology specialists understand how to integrate technology into an instructional approach that employs inquiry based learning, alternative assessment, collaboration, and community building among teachers and students.” (p. 55)

eMints was developed using professional development features such as

a reform approach (being mentored or coached, participation in a teacher network, working in internships or immersion activities )
being sponsored by a university (resources from UM)
new technologies for teaching and learning (The program teaches how the technologies they are taught can support instruction.)
student achievement (lesson plans developed by participants must adhere to state standards and align closely with ITSE’s National Educational Technology Standards for Students)
active learning (Participants discuss technology implementation ideas, get hands-on practice of software and participate in peer reviews.)
integration between the program and teacher’s knowledge and beliefs (Teachers volunteer and select a program that aligns with their beliefs. They also participate with at least one other teacher from their school.)
sufficient duration (Depending on the program the participants have a 90 hour or 250 hour contact with an instructional specialists.)
collective participation in the department of the participants (Participants are from the same school, grade, and department.)

The purpose of this research was to study the impact of the eMints professional development program on student outcomes. The majority of the PD sessions are designed to link technology and new pedagogy directly to classroom applications. To accomplish this, time is given to participants to create and prepare lesson plans for classroom use.

To collect teacher and student outcomes, lesson plans were evaluated and student samples were submitted. The study found that the amount of time participants spent with the instructional specialists was directly related to the quality of the lesson plans. Also the study found that lesson plan quality was associated with better student achievement. And even though some studies show no that technologies do not necessarily improve learning, this study showed that lesson plans including technology had the most improvement in student achievement.

Some of the limitations of the study was that there wasn’t enough funding to observe the participants in classroom instruction, small sample size, and amount of data collected. However “despite those limitations” the study provided “evidence instructional technology professional development an have a positive impact on teachers and students.” (p.71).

Basically to have an impact on students, professional development needs to have an impact on teachers. But to do that takes a considerable amount of time, coaching, and a connection to application and practice of the materials, all aligned with the teacher’s belief system.

Beyond the date of the requirements on this paper was an article dated in 2008. These teachers did not have this much help and support. But the bottom line is in both cases teachers who spent the effort trying to improve their classes did.

January 25, 2012 0

Thinking About Needs, Week Two

I read this article that blew me away and it had some points that I need to consider for my course. Whether continuing development, or simply development, a course is meant to have a learning outcome that produces change in the participant.

Slepkov, H. (2008). Teacher professional growth in an authentic learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 85-111.

The article talks about how day-to-day events make it difficult for many teachers to seek professional development, yet some do. Why?

Rather than predetermining what the expected outcome of any individual professional development opportunity ought to be for every teacher, the topics of professional development opportunities must be sufficiently broad to enable the classroom teacher to construct knowledge and gather skills that are meaningful to him or her at that particular moment in their professional life (p.94).

That makes me think of my course because I think my course can be part of a curriculum, but also used as professional development. So is my outcome wrong? Since my course would more likely be an elective or taken for PD by choice, is it meaningful to the participant?

The article states that many teachers take PD classes that are predetermined by someone else, then they are expected to go back to their classrooms and implement the professional development seminar/class/program IN ISOLATION–no support, nothing.

So for the professional development to be transformed into something the teacher uses, it needs to linked specifically to the teacher and the classroom. Bingo. In my course, the teacher’s own classroom will be the focus of the new learning; his classroom will be the real life environment. Development will begin with learning reflection, collaboration, and constructivism and will involve into a website that the educator-student can use with his whole classroom.

The best part about the course I want to develop means that the need to use the technology within my course may inspire teachers to not only continue using the technology but to broaden the use of technology in their classrooms. My course is meant to be just the beginning, as a means to scaffold new and new to technology teachers to enhance learning in their classrooms.

January 24, 2012 0

Thought Process, Week Two

In designing a course there are two big questions. Last week I talked about big question number one which was “What is the goal of the project and how wil the project meet the goals of the organization? or What really matters and what about my course will accomplish what matters.” The goal of the course is to help educators utilize 21st Century skills and technologies in the classroom.

This post is about big question number two.

What is the learning objective and how does the learning objective change the learner?

In other words, what is the end result for the learner and what learning object do I design to accomplish that objective.

The end result is for the educator-student to build a website that will serve as a portal to their virtual classroom.

Within this website the educator-student will incorporate a teacher’s section for passing along information to parents. This section will include a blog and a class calendar.
The website will incorporate a student blog and the student will know the importance and advantages of using blogging for reflective learning.
The website will include an “about me” page. The educator-student will create a podcast for the about me page. The educator-student will learn about uploading photos to the website by uploading their photo to the about me page.
The educator-student will create and link a wiki to the website. The educator-student will learn about collective learning and uses for wikis in the classroom.
The student will know how to develop the website with accessible features.
The student will know how to use RSS feeds and linking to add content to the website.

I have thought about adding Social Bookmarking and Twitter. But this may go beyond the scope of the course, especially educator-students who teach K-12.

January 23, 2012 0

Essential technology skills for teachers

What are the essential technology skills for teachers? Teacher leaders? How important is it to be a true “expert” in technology? Should graduate programs in Education focus on developing experts or advancing the practice of classroom teachers?

“[T]he current federal No Child Left Behind legislation requires that every student be technology literate by the end of the eighth grade, and teachers must be knowledgeable enough to help students reach this goal. (Egbert, 2009, p. 14–15). That being the case, then teachers need to be at least proficient in information literacy, creating blogs and wikis and using them for enhanced student learning. Most of the teachers I personally know can barely open their e-mail and if I ask them what browser they are using, they don’t even know what I’m taking about. Pitiful. So if they understood the internet, how to research it, and the power behind blogging, wikis, RSS feeds and social bookmarking for student learning, I think that would be a huge beginning. And like Dr. Dalton said, they don’t need to know everything, but enough for the class to learn together.

Of course teacher leaders should know much more than the basics. They need to have patient coaching skills for those teachers who struggle with technology and struggle even more on how to integrate the technology in their classrooms. It is the Teacher leaders who will probably be the ones who show many of the teachers how to design opportunities for the students to create their own learning experiences. And the path for Teacher Leaders to becoming the experts is usually through a professional development program such as the masters program at Kent. I think by “advancing the practice of classroom teachers”, Kent IS developing experts. They go hand in hand. I don’t find that courses here teach technology at all. We are instructed to produce podcasts and other multimedia projects within the scope of almost every course, but we are not shown how to use these tools. This we have to figure out ourselves. So for that matter, any teacher can learn how to set up a wiki or produce a podcast, etc. What the experts from Kent learn, however, is how to “design and implement engaging and learning experiences” and do it well so we can help those who are not experts advance student learning with technology.

Egbert, J. (2009). Supporting learning with technology: Essentials of classroom practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

January 21, 2012 0

What is Multimedia?

Multimedia is a “smart” presentation that is not stagnant but adapts intelligently to the user. Multimedia is compelling and often incorporates social networking to connect users to each other. And we need to use it in the classroom because kids need to be producers rather than consumers. Technology and multimedia is the new norm; therefore, users should use their cognitive skills multimedia rather than static content, like research papers.

I really got an ahhh moment when Dr. Dalton discussed the research paper. He is so right. Why in the world do we make student’s write so many of them? It’s not (likely) they will be writing a lot of research papers and essays in their future. What they will have to do in their future is make multimedia in their careers and their social activities. To me, that is huge.

On a lesser note, I also found the remark that Sesame Street reduced the ability for kids to pay attention longer with less fun stimuli interesting. Our family hasn’t watched traditional television in about 15 years. My daughter never watched Sesame Street, Sponge Bob, Dora the Explorer, or any of the other entertainment on TV, but instead had movies on DVDs. At 17, she now has the ability to watch YouTube videos, internet TV, iTunes Movies, etc. basically at her discretion. However, it is interesting to me that she chooses not to (which of course, is why she can at her discretion). I always thought that was because she was never in the habit to watch television. I never thought that it might be the KIND of television and the “chunking of learning.” hummmm…… Perhaps she is able to be focused for longer periods of time on other things and so the TV isn’t calling her name so to speak.

January 18, 2012 0