The Impact of Job-Embedded Professional Development on Teacher Efficacy for Technology Integration

1. The Impact of Job-Embedded Professional Development on Teacher Efficacy for Technology Integration Yvonne Skoretz and Ronald Childress National Technology & Social Science Conference Las Vegas, Nevada March 25, 2013

2. Review of the Literature • Increased use of technology in classrooms • Technology use remains “low level” • Best practices in professional development • Support needed to sustain professional development efforts

3. Rationale • Technology Integration (TPACK Framework) • Efficacy – The judgment of one’s capability to organize and execute actions to meet goals Technology Content Pedagogy

4. Research Questions 1. What is the difference, if any, in efficacy levels for technology integration for teachers who have participated in a two year, two phase job-embedded professional development program using a traditional mentoring model?

5. Research Questions 2. What is the difference, if any, in efficacy levels for technology integration for teachers who have participated in the second year of a two phase job-embedded professional development program using both traditional and peer mentoring models?

6. Research Questions 3. What is the difference in efficacy levels for technology integration between teachers after participating in a two year, two phase job-embedded professional development program using traditional and peer mentoring models?

7. Research Question 4 examined differences in efficacy based on a selected list of attribute variables: • Teaching Experience • Grade Level • Subject Area

8. Methods • Computer Technology Integration Survey (Wang, 2004) • Alignment of ISTE NET-T Standards, Infusing Technology Professional Development, and survey • T-test for independent samples • T-test for matched paired samples • Two-way ANOVA

9. Study Design

10. Participant Characteristics Experimental Group (n=37) Comparison Group (n=28) Teaching Experience (M=11.5 years) 32.2% (0-6 years) 35.7% (7-12 years) 17.9% (13-23 years) 14.4% (24-35 years) Grade Level 42.86% elementary 57.14% middle Subject Area 32.14% multi-subjects 67.86% single subject Teaching Experience (M=16.1 years) • 21.6% (0-6 years) • 21.6% (7-12 years) • 27% (13-23 years) • 24.3% (24-35 years) Grade Level • 54.05% elementary • 45.95% middle Subject Area • 51.35% multi-subjects • 48.65% single subject

11. Intervention Phase One (2009-2010) • Five days (40 hours) of formal professional development • Two days (16 hours) of follow-up training during school year • Professional learning community – wiki journals • Expert Mentor - monthly onsite visits/ bi-monthly online Phase Two (2010-2011) • Same training as in Phase One • Phase One participants serving as mentor for the newly recruited Phase Two participants

12. Mentoring Models Phase I Traditional Phase II Traditional and Peer PD Expert Mentor Teacher-Mentee Recruited Teacher-Mentee

13. Major Findings: RQ1 Experimental Group Phase One and Phase Two Differences

14. Major Findings: RQ2 Comparison Group Pre-Post Differences

15. Major Findings: RQ3 Phase Group Differences in Mean Scores for Efficacy for Technology Integration

16. Major Findings: RQ4 Phase I Group Differences Based on Attribute Variables Experimental Comparison Phase I (1 year) Phase I (0 years) Teaching Experience F(3,48)=3.190,p=.032* 0 – 6 years 91.50 90.44 7 – 12 years 90.50 85.00 13 – 23 years 87.70 80.00 24 – 35 years 89.63 60.50 Grade Level F(1,52)=7.548,p=.008* Elementary 87.05 87.33 Middle 92.82 78.62 Subjects Taught F(1,52)=10.002,p=.003* Multiple 86.47 88.00 Single 93.11 79.68

17. Major Findings: RQ4 Phase II Group Differences Based on Attribute Variables ExperimentalComparison Phase II Phase II Teaching Experience (2 years) (1 year) 0 – 6 years 93.37 95.00 7 – 12 years 94.85 90.33 13 – 23 years 91.44 93.60 24 – 35 years 90.44 87.40 Grade Level Elementary 89.16 90.54 Middle 96.20 93.00 Subjects Taught Multiple 88.23 92.46 Single 96.75 91.00

18. Conclusions: RQ1 Teachers scored at significantly higher levels of efficacy for technology integration after participating in two years of a job-embedded professional development program when receiving traditional mentoring in Phase I and providing peer mentoring in Phase II.

19. Conclusions: RQ2 Teachers scored at significantly higher levels of efficacy for technology integration after participating in a one year job-embedded professional development program when receiving both traditional and peer mentoring.

20. Conclusions: RQ3 There were significant differences in efficacy levels for technology integration between teachers who participated in a job-embedded professional development program receiving traditional mentoring compared to those who did not participate.

21. Conclusions: RQ3 There were no differences in efficacy levels for technology integration between teachers who participated in two years of the program using a traditional mentoring model compared to teachers who participated in one year of the program using both a traditional and peer mentoring model.

22. Conclusions: RQ4 There were significant differences in efficacy for technology integration between teachers who participated in a job-embedded professional development program receiving traditional mentoring compared to teachers who did not participate based on -teaching experience -grade level -subject area

23. Conclusions: RQ4 There were no differences in efficacy levels for technology integration between teachers who participated in two years of the program using a traditional mentoring model compared to teachers who participated in one year of the program using both a traditional and peer mentoring model based on: -teaching experience -grade level -subject area

24. Recommendations for Sustaining Technology Integration:Culture Create a school culture which values and encourages “risk-taking” in terms of utilizing technology Expand the concept of effective teaching to incorporate technology integration Articulate and commit to a clear model for change and support Provide support and incentives for peer mentoring

25. Recommendations for Sustaining Technology Integration Efforts:Professional Development Participate in PD within groups of same content, grade level, or school Develop strategies to facilitate sharing among teachers Encourage the development of mentoring relationships Provide opportunities for teachers to observe other teachers Acknowledge that different strategies may be needed in working with new and experienced teachers

26. Recommendations for Sustaining Technology Integration:Resources Ensure the availability of equipment and laboratories Provide “just-in-time” technical support when needed Support the development/procurement of applicable supporting instructional materials and resources

27. Future Research • Include high school teachers in the study population • Investigate how peer mentoring enhances efficacy for technology integration • Explore how administrative support enhances efficacy for technology integration • Explore whether there are differences in how teachers are using technology based on efficacy levels

28. Questions?

29. Contact Information Marshall University Graduate School of Education & Professional Development 1oo Angus E. Peyton Drive South Charleston, WV 25303 Yvonne M. Skoretz, Ed.D., Assistant Professor skoretz1@marshall.edu Ronald B. Childress, Ed.D., Professor rchildress@marshall.edu