Transcript Slide 1
Implementation of a technology-enhanced problem-based learning curriculum: A year-long study of three teachers Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) Conference Chicago, IL October 22, 2004 Time: 12:15-12:45 Location: 4B Sung Hee Park Purdue University Jeff Cramer Taylor University Peg Ertmer Purdue University Agenda • • • • • Theoretical framework Purpose of the study Methods Results Discussion and Implications Theoretical Framework • Technology in K-12 classroom – 99% of public school teachers have computers in their schools – Internet connectivity has increased • 65% (1996) 95% (1999) • 2/3 of teachers don’t feel well-prepared to use technology in teaching • Teachers’ preparation and training is a key factor (NCES, 2000) Theoretical Framework • Barriers to staff development – Opportunities to practice – Access to resources and expertise – Support from the community – Having on-site assistance and support (Lewis, 1998) • Importance of having instruction related to both technology skills and integration ideas instead of having just one (Trotter, 1999) Theoretical Framework • Problem-Based Learning (PBL) approach – An effective way to integrate technology – “Experiential learning, organized around the investigation and resolution of messy, real-world problems” (Sage, 2000) – Teacher technology development can use the same problem-centered method that is suggested for students in problem-based learning (Hill, 1999) – Technology is a critical tool • information searching • modeling task or content • decision making, and presenting solutions during PBL activities – Technology integration with PBL can be a meaningful learning experience for both teachers and students (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Marra, 2003). Purpose of the Study • What are teachers’ perceptions of, and pedagogical beliefs about, technology-enhanced PBL? • What kinds of barriers and support do teachers encounter while implementing technology-enhanced PBL? • What kinds of strategies are needed to provide effective staff development in using technologyenhanced PBL? Methodology • July, 2002 ~ June, 2003 • Quantitative data – Preliminary survey data • Qualitative data – Interview, journal, field notes, classroom observations • 3-stage data collection – 2 week summer institute: Survey, interview, journal – Fall semester, 2002: Interview, field notes, observation – Spring semester, 2003: Survey, interview, field notes Methodology • Case study • Participants – 3 teachers from the same middle school Name Subject Grade Experience Carrie Science & Social studies 6th 4 years Jake 6th & 7th 2 years 6th 3 years Social studies David Social studies & Reading Results 1st Stage : The Summer Institute • Improving technology skills & knowledge • Increasing confidence through hands-on activity • Gaining insights – the role of the teacher – connection with PBL and implementation in the classroom Suggestions for Improvement • More examples of PBL units that work in the classroom Results 2nd Stage (Fall semester) • Frequent use of technology • Increased comfort with various software applications • Barriers – losing the team preparation time – working around standardized tests required by the state: little time to introduce technology and to practice mini-PBL strategies Results 3rd Stage (Spring semester) • Implementing PBL unit – 6th grade – Topic: history of their community • Survey data – technology expertise: 0.4 increase – their beliefs about student centered learning: 0.3 increase • Qualitative data – teachers’ technology comfort level increased – teachers’ role as a facilitator and students’ role as a researcher and instructor to other students – time and resource barriers Result • Change in teachers’ pedagogical beliefs – More comfort in using technology – Realization that students were more engaged in learning • Ideal staff development for tech integration – Beginner: other teachers with different levels of technology and PBL experience – Intermediate • some practical guidelines that could refresh their knowledge, new technology skills, • more hands-on activities with their own units to modify • feedback from other teachers outside of their own groups. Discussion and Implications • 1st stage • Feel “comfortable” with technology • Feel overwhelmed and isolated • 2nd stage • Team preparation time • Administrative support to impact implementation of new teaching method • 3rd stage • Shift in pedagogical beliefs in using technology enhanced PBL • Adopt mini-PBL activities before PBL unit • Collaboration among teachers Questions? More information • Tech-Know-Build Project website http://research.soe.purdue.edu/challenge/ • Related presentation – A Symposium of PBL-Using Teachers: Teacher Experiences and Student Impact – 1:15 ~ 2:00 – Conference 4-M - 4th Floor Contact Information • Sung Hee Park [email protected] • Jeff Cramer [email protected] • Peg Ertmer [email protected]