Ben Smith Towson University Friday, September 12, 2014

1. Differences among Students, Teachers, and Administrators on the Quality and Effectiveness of Technology Integration Ben Smith Towson University Friday, September 12, 2014

2. Physics Teacher / Science Chair, Pennsylvania Doctoral Student at Towson University Keystone Technology Integrator STAR Discovery Educator Educational Technology Consultant - EdTechInnovators ISTE Board ofDirectors - PK-12 Representative ISTE Faculty - Professional Development Background Information

4. BackgroundOne School’s Technology • Classrooms for the Future (CFF) • 17 Mobile Labs • Interactive Whiteboards • Student Response System • Projectors • Probes

5. PATI Survey

6. PATI Survey

7. PATI Survey

10. Problem • Teachers and Administrators agree that 21st century skills are important to integrate • Teachers and Administrators disagree on the definition (level and quality) of technology integration

11. Research Questions • How do different groups differ in their definition of technology integration? • Do administrators, teachers, and students agree on the amount of use of technology tools for curricular activities? • How do administrators, teachers, and students differ in their perception of technology integration? • Significance: Investigate why there is a gap between teachers and administrators

12. Methodology • Mixed Method • Quantitative • Survey Questions to Students, Teachers, and Administrators • Qualitative • Interviews with Students, Teachers, and Administrators

13. Instruments • Surveys • Interview Protocol • Survey Questions • Florida Innovates

14. Importance of Technology Essential Very Important Somewhat Important Not at All No Basis for Answer Frequency of Use Every Day Several Times per Week Once per Week Once per Month Once per Marking Period Not at All Survey

15. Analysis & Results • Differences among groups • Scheffè’s Interval • Coding Interview results

16. Interview Responses • Lack of consistency in defining technology integration • Teacher Themes • Mention of students • Technology should engage students • No mention of thinking skills • Administrator Themes • No mention of students - focus on teacher actions • Technology should expand what is currently done in the classroom

17. Interview - Why are there differences? • Teachers • Technology Users get noticed • Administrators are not in classroom enough • Administrators • Teachers may lack training or knowledge

18. Frequency of Use

19. Differences Among Groups

20. How Important to Learning is this Technology?

21. Differences Among Groups

22. Next Steps • Further defining technology integration

23. Taxonomy Analysis • Taylor - Tutor, Tool, Tutee (1980) • US Dept of Education (Means, et. al, 1993) • Moeresch - LoTi (1995) • Russell - Stages in Learning New Technology (1995) • Bruce & Levin - Taxonomy for the Use of Comptuers (1997) • Vessels - Modified Levels of Use (1998) • Bailey - Taxonomy of Technology-Fostered Cognitive Objectives (2002) • Russell, Bebell et. al. - Categories of Teacher Technology Use (2003) • Tomei - Taxonomy for the Technology Domain (2003)

24. A New Taxonomy

25. Taxonomy Strengths • Designed from student perspective and aligned to student actions • Pragmatic for teachers and administrators • Aligned to cognitive processes • Associated with constructivist style of teaching and learning • Aligned to Levels of Use • Common Language

26. Expected Use of Learning Activities

27. Questions • Email: info@edtechinnovators.com • Website: www.edtechinnovators.com