Technology Integration

1. Technology Integration “Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be.” --John Wooden

2. Push for computer literate society: A Nation at Risk (1983) • Computer literate society • Additional literacy • No Child Left Behind Act, Title II, Part D, Section 2401 • Fully integrated by 2006 • Long-range Technology Plan (Texas) 2006-2020

3. “The only thing constant in life is change. . .”-- François de la Rochefoucauld. . .and the “American” education system--Butler

4. “University Class,” circa 1350–by Laurentius de Voltolina

6. ?

8. Positive teacher attitudes toward computers are considered a necessary condition for effective technology integration(Woodrow, 1992).

9. Beliefs and attitudes are more influential than knowledge in determining teacher behavior, i.e. technology integration (Grable, Osborne, Overbay, Seaton & Vasu, 2004; Griffin & Ohlsson, 2001; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992)

10. Ertmer (2005) suggests that the majority of teachers are not integrating technology because they have not changed their attitudes about the value of technology in teaching.

11. Stand-alone technology courses aren’t enough • TEA mandate - all teachers, in all subject areas, in all grade levels (Texas Education Agency, 2006).

12. Teachers are largely underutilizing technology in the classroom (Becker, 2000, 2001; Cuban, 2001; Hayes, 2007; U.S. Dept of Education, 2004; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010; Wells & Lewis, 2006).

13. Digital Divide Effective deployment and use of technology in schools can help compensate for unequal access to technologies in the home environment and thus help bridge educational and social gaps.

14. To prosper, America has to educate its young people up to and beyond the new levels of technology (Freidman & Mandelbaum, 2011). That used to be us: How America fell behind in the world it invented and how we can come back, 2011).

15. Clearly, the United States educational system must provide students with the technological skills as well as academic knowledge if they are to succeed in this time of rapidly increasing global competition (Okojie & Olinzock, 2006).

16. ?

17. School district in (the real) S. Texas • 14,280 students • 99.2% Hispanic • 96.9% Economically Disadvantaged • 51.6% Limited English Proficient (LEP) • 80.4% At-Risk • 995 teachers • 40.8% 1-5 Years Experience • MTTs mentors in place (3-5 per year)

18. Connections Grant • Approximately $ 850,000 • 74Master Technology Teachers (+10 MTT Mentors) • 1-to-1 Laptop initiative • Curriculum writing for technology integration • Mentoring and resources • Professional learning communities • Technology to students

19. What is the impact of the grant? • Need for well-validated scales (Corbell, Osborne, & Grable, 2008; Lawless & Pelegrino, 2007) • Asked by district to find or develop instrument to assess change in district

20. Teacher Attitudes Toward Computers (TAC) • Teacher Attitudes Toward Technology (TAT) • Outdated questions (The use of Email makes class more interesting, World Wide Web, Hyperstudio, I like to talk to others about computers) • Little reference to Web 2.0, social networking, Smart Phones • Little reference to student use of technology • More focus on teachers using computers (Shattuck, et al., 2011)

21. Survey Developed • Based on premises in Curriculum Addendum Series – Algebra in a Technological World • Modified for technology integration with intent to look at attitudes toward technology integration • 25 questions

22. Administered online via Survey Monkey • 949 teachers • Elementary • Middle School • High School • Exploratory Factor Analysis

29. Positive propensity • Negative propensity (personal concerns) • Professional concerns (expectations, outcomes, ???)

31. Our Questions • All teachers fairly high propensity • 5-year intervention • At least 1 MTT at every campus – Middle Schools have 6 each • Computers in every room (4 thin clients) • Smart Boards • Technology Fair each summer • Curriculum Support

32. No difference in positive/negative propensity and • Age, • years teaching, • hours of inservice on technology, • subject area, • type of teacher certification (Regular or ACP) • Other characteristics not yet explored • Middle schools with and without • number of MTTs at campus

33. Next Steps • Modified instrument • eliminated some questions, • added some questions, • reworded some that were confusing • Tried to make stronger questions for each component

34. Same school district; another district with similar demographics and no intervention • Focus on technology integration and student access • Survey usability – how to increase propensity • Staff development • Other interventions

36. References Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the Teaching, Learning and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Revision of a paper written for the January, 2000 School Technology Leadership Conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D.C. Retrieved July 19, 2006, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/ccsso.pdf Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the 2001 Meetings of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved September 5, 2006, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/FINDINGS/special3/page1.htm Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Researchand Development (53)4, 25-39. Freidman, T., & Mandelbaum, (2011). That used to be us: How America fell behind in the world it invented and how we can come back.

37. Grable, L. L., Overbay, A., Osborne, J., Vasu, E., & Shattuck, D. (2004, March). Assessing teachers’ technology skills and attitudes: Initial findings from the North Carolina IMPACT evaluation. In R. Ferdig et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004, 926–930. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/14530. Griffin, T. D., & Ohlsson, S. (2001). Beliefs vs. knowledge: A necessary distinction for predicting, explaining, and assessing conceptual change. Retrieved from http://tigger.uic.edu/ tgriffin Hayes, D. N. A. (2007). ICT and learning: Lessons from Australian classrooms. Computers and Education, 49, 385-395. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies (19)4, 317-328. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 2670. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. A Nation at Risk. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/ cntareas/science/sc3risk.htm Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research. Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research (62)3, 307-332.

38. Shattuck, D., Corbell, K. A.; Osbourne, J. W.; Knezek, G.; Christensen, R.; Grable, L.L. (2011) Measuring teacher attitudes toward instructional technology: A confirmatory factor analysis of the TAC and TAT. Computers in the Schools, 28 (4), 291-315 . Warschauer, M. & Matuchnia, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education 34(179). Retrieved from http://gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/equity.pdf#warschauer_equity Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in US public schools and classrooms: 1994-2005 (NCES 2007-020). US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Woodrow, J. (1992). The influence of programming training on the computer literacy and attitudes of preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 200-218.