Professional development that increases technology integration by K-12 teachers: The influence of the TICKIT Program.

John B. Keller, [email protected]

Lee H. Ehman, [email protected]

Curtis J. Bonk, [email protected]

Indiana University April 21, 2003

AERA Chicago

TICKIT

T eacher I nstitute for C urriculum K nowledge about I ntegration of T echnology

http://www.iub.edu/~tickit

Overview of TICKIT

•

In-service teacher education program

•

Rural schools in central & southern Indiana

•

Supported by participating school systems, Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and Indiana University

•

Cohorts of 4-6 teachers from 4-6 school corporations

TICKIT Goals

•

Knowledge, skill, & confidence

•

Thoughtful integration of technology

•

Leadership cadres in schools

•

Link schools and university

•

Help schools capitalize on their technology investments

Program Structure

•

Teachers attend three workshops at I.U. for a total of 4 days

•

Curriculum-based, technology supported classroom unit or lesson each semester

•

In-school workshops to support teachers in their unit or lesson design

•

Final products are two action research reports

•

Reports to colleagues and school “giveback”

Program Structure

•

Various online activities using a course management tool (COW, Virtual University, Blackboard, Web CT, Oncourse)

–

Article critiques

–

Chats with technology experts (Bernie Dodge, Annette Lamb)

–

Free Tool Reviews

TICKIT Project Gallery

Example Projects

TICKIT Teachers

Research Question

Do teachers who have been through the TICKIT program differ from teachers who have not on dimensions of computer integration?

Structure of Paper

•

How the TICKIT program compares with the literature on effective professional development.

•

Results of the study.

•

Discussion of the relative impact of the TICKIT program.

•

Limitations, Future Directions, Conclusion

Professional Development Literature

• • •

New Vision: Darling-Hammond (‘97) Palincsar (1999)

–

Technical vs. Intellectual View of teaching Richardson & Placier (‘01)

–

Normative-Reeducative

• • •

Characteristics of: Little (1993) Loucks-Horsely et al. (1998) Hawley and Valli (1999)

Effective Professional Development

Components Form Duration Collective participation Content focus Active learning Coherence Description

Reform vs. traditional (Study groups or networks vs. workshops or conferences).

Number of hours and span of time.

Participation by established groups (same school, grade, department vs. educators from various schools).

Professional development aimed at increasing disciplinary knowledge.

Meaningful analysis of teaching and learning (examining student work, getting feedback on teaching).

Degree of consistency between professional development and teachers’ goals, standards and opportunities for continued professional communication.

Structure Core Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Suk-Yoon, 2001

Effective Professional Development

Garet et al.

Form Duration Collective participation Content focus Active learning Coherence

Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Suk-Yoon, 2001

TICKIT

    

??

Structure Core

Methodology 1/3

•

Study Design TICKIT Completers

–

Teachers from the first four years of TICKIT

– –

The survey is a post measurement Dropouts. . .

•

TICKIT Applicants

– –

Teachers who applied for the fifth year of TICKIT The survey is a pre measurement

Methodology 2/3

• •

Participants Schools

– – –

Rural Central and southern Indiana Better than average technology infrastructure Teachers

– –

Cohorts of 4-6 teachers from each school Average teaching experience 11.5 years

Methodology 3/3

Instrumentation Two Part Survey

–

Demographics and TICKIT-Related Questions

–

Levels of Technology Implementation Survey (LOTI) Moersch (1994, 1995, 2001).

Results 1/3

Survey Returns= 79 % Cohort 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Applicants Total Surveys Sent 25 Surveys Returned 16 Return Percentage 64% 29 30 21 22 72% 73% 22 27 20 26 91% 96% 133 105 79%

Factors Technology Integration Technology Limitations Technology Resistance Computer Proficiency Learner centered Instruction

Results 2/3

Description

Frequent/regular use; learn with and about; variety of learning tasks; often thematic or project-based instruction Perceived access to technology Technology use that supports only traditional pedagogy, reticence about computer use based on skill level or time constraints, and lack of perceived pedagogical value Computer proficiency is an index of one’s general comfort level and confidence in using computers Personal needs of students, lessons and curricula that are in some measure responsive to student interests, and assessment strategies that are performance oriented

Reliability

.93

.78

.66

.80

.79

Results 3/3

Means TICKIT Completers



TICKIT Applicants



Factors

1. Technology Integration 74.05

38.25

t

Possible High Score

Sig.



Effect Size 7.663

1.81

11.60



2. Technology Limitations 15.79

-3.281

.63

3. Technology Resistance 4.37



7.91

-3.143

4. Computer Proficiency 25.51

18.84

4.614

5. Learner-centered Instruction 18.29

12.40

5.120

**p< .01 ; ***p< .001

 All effect sizes favor TICKIT group  Lower scores on factors two and three indicate more positive responses  The ‘n’ for each comparison varies due to incomplete data. We used list-wise deletion of missing data (Completers n=66-77; Applicants n=18-20)

.80

1.20

1.22

Relative Impact 1/2

Source of Influence 1 st choice 2 nd choice 3 rd choice

Peer Teacher Support Grant Money Administrative support Undergraduate Training Stipends Curriculum technology integration expectations Graduate courses outside TICKIT

Personal ambition and interest in technology

Parental and community expectations

TICKIT professional development

In-school professional development other than TICKIT Conferences, institutes, and other external Other

15

4 5 5 1 3 2 3 0 4 0

34

1

23

6 9 2 1 5 4 5 2 3 1

16

2

16

15 8 1 0 5 4 4 2 4 3

12

3

% Ranking this 1,2 or 3

15% 5% 14% 5% 3% 18% 13%

78%

8%

68%

32% 28% 10%

Relative Impact 2/2

Source of Help % Choosing as one of their choices Business Partner Classroom Teacher District Coordinator University Professor Site Principal Student Technology Coordinator Other (Internet, friends, family, other school personnel) 1.9% 62.9% 10.5% 14.3% 8.6% 14.3% 76.2% 21.9% Multiple Sources

From which individuals do you seek primary guidance, information, and/or direction relating to the integration of technology into your curriculum?

Internal Motivation Influences



I want to be able to help provide the most challenging, interesting lessons for students. As a result of this I need to keep current.



I’m not required to use the technology but do so to learn for myself and help the students.



Even before the TICKIT experience, I was looking for ways to integrate technology into my classroom. I am enthusiastic and committed to this.

TICKIT Teacher Voices



“This class was very helpful. I gained a lot of confidence as a technology user from this class.”



“The door is now open. I will continue to try to find technological ways to teach them.”



“This was the best program I have ever been involved with as a teacher.”

Limitations

• • • • •

Non-random sample Participants not representative

–

Above average infrastructure

–

Above average interest in technology Self-reported data No correlation to corroborate the constructs identified by factor analysis Ex post facto analysis limits ability to infer change due to the TICKIT program

Impact

•

Researchers and Teacher Educators

•

K-12 Teaching and Administrators

•

Government Officials and Politicians

Future Directions

•

Additional Research Growth of current cohort over the course of this year

•

Correlation of other data sources with current findings (i.e. observation, document analysis)

•

Impact of technology integration on student learning

Discussion/Questions

References 1/2

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.

American Educational Research Journal, 38

(4), 915-945. Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.),

Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice

(pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.

Loucks-Horsely, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998).

Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics

. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

References 2/2

Moersch, C. (1994).

Levels of Technology Implementation

. Retrieved February 13, 2002, from http://www.learning-quest.com/LoTi/lotihome.html

Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology Implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use.

Learning and Leading with Technology

, 40-42.

Moersch, C. (2001). Next steps: using LoTi as a research tool.

Learning and Leading with Technology, 29

(3), 22-27. Palincsar, A. (1999). Response: A community of practice.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 22

(4), 272-274.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching

(4th ed., pp. 905-950). Washington D. C.: American Educational Research Association.