1 / 30

Technology-Minded General Educators and Deaf Educators: A Comparison Study

Technology-Minded General Educators and Deaf Educators: A Comparison Study. E-Learn 2006 - Hawaii. By Dr. Becky Sue Parton bparton@twu.edu www.casadecritters.com/becky. Transparent technology = True integrated

yori
Download Presentation

Technology-Minded General Educators and Deaf Educators: A Comparison Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Technology-Minded General Educators and Deaf Educators: A Comparison Study E-Learn 2006 - Hawaii By Dr. Becky Sue Parton bparton@twu.edu www.casadecritters.com/becky

  2. Transparent technology = True integrated • National Education Technology Plan (2004) has a stated goal of encouraging students to use technology to think critically. • The National Agenda – Priorities for Deaf Education (2005) has a stated goal of using technology to evaluate, analyze, solve problems, make decisions, and increase creativity outlets. • The focus should change from hardware/software focus to an integration focus so that the curriculum is supported and higher-order thinking skills are developed. Introduction [Gene] Roddenberry’s future portrays a computer-driven space ship in a programmed environment, but the characters must be problem solvers of the highest level. The computer quickly calculates, organizes and contains the banks of knowledge but it is still just the tool for the people who must make knowledgeable decisions. This is the direction educational technology must take. – Richardson 1992

  3. There is a lack of empirical evidence regarding the similarities or differences in technology integration between Deaf educators and general educators. Additionally, there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding the similarities or differences in technology integration between deaf educators who are deaf and those who are hearing. The Problem Research Questions • Is there a difference between the levels of technology integration of K-12 technology-minded general educators and K-12 technology-minded Deaf educators? • Is there a difference between the levels of technology integration of K-12 Deaf educators who are Deaf and K-12 Deaf educators who are hearing? • Is there a difference between K-12 general educators and K-12 Deaf educators in terms of their personal computer us?

  4. No Child Left Behind • One of the goals of the historic NCLB law is to use technology in a way that produces evidence of improved academic achievement. • ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) • NETS*T – National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers • Deaf Education sub-group • By identifying sub-groups that are performing at deeperintegration levels, it may be possible to extrapolate ways that other groups might improve. Significance of the Study • National survey of 50,000 teachers during 2003-2004: • 23% not using technology at all • 52% using it below the target integration level • Deafness-related Dissertations (2002-2004) show: • 108 papers (10 technology-oriented but not for K-12 education)

  5. Honest answers provided for the Levels of Technology Integration (LoTi) survey. • Attendees at a technology conference or course are inclined to use technology in their classrooms to some degree. Basic Assumptions Limitations of the Study • Subjects all attended a technology-related conference or course so results will not be applicable to the community of educators at large. • Subjects were similar (K-12 educators from the United States); however no attempt was made to match up teachers based on teaching backgrounds or responsibilities Definitions Deaf persons “The Deaf community is a well-recognized minority population with its own language, culture, and beliefs” (Zazove et all, 2004). However, for the purposes of this study a deaf person will be anyone who has a hearing loss regardless of their affiliation with the hearing or Deaf community.

  6. Introduction - Including versus Integrating technologyStaples, Pugach & Himes (2005) – teachers say they believe in integration, but that doesn’t mean they are practicing it. • General Education Selected StudiesTraining Issues • Pope, Hare, & Howard – 2002Study with pre-service teachers who had technology courses, but not integration practice. • Willis & Cifuentes – 2001 (Used CBAM instrument)Teachers must be trained in the process of integrating technology rather than specific computer applications. • Leadership Issues Review of Related Literature • Hughes & Zachariah – 2001; Owen & Demb – 2004 Successful integration requires: support of leadership,shared vision, mentoring, staff development, & rewards. • Time IssuesNorris & Soloway – 2000; Earle – 2002; Wetzel, 2002The top barrier for technology integration is time for planning, collaborating, and implementing.

  7. Deaf Education There is a limited amount of data in the literature about classroom technology research in deaf education and even less on technology integration and the impact of technologies upon academic performance (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Comparison to General EducationRoberson – 2001Deaf educators have similar issues, i.e. need more than skills classes; need modeling; need more time. These are first-order barriers. Attitudes & beliefs are second-order. Integration Projects (Selections) Review of Related Literature Continued • PT3 Grants – ACE-D/HH (Association of College Educators)Virtual community formed at www.deafed.net (mentors) “During year three of the grant the focus evolved from encouraging faculty & pre-service teachers to learn & use technology, to now collaboratively developing new instructional settings in which instructional content, e.g., literacy, math and science, rather than instructional technology is the focus” (US Dept of Education, 2003, p.2)

  8. Technology in Education Can Empower Deaf Students (TecEds)Goals (technology skill; integration training)Two databases w/ lesson technology-rich lessons • Star Schools ProjectBenefits of technology in a Bi-Bi classroomDescriptive reports showed Deaf ed group as leaders Review of Related Literature Continued • Measurements of Cognitive Learning • Framework = Bloom’s TaxonomyCognitive level of complexity classification chart (1956)Higher-order thinking skills: Analysis, Synthesis, & Evaluation • Instruments to measure Technology Integration LevelProfiler, iAssessment, Mankata, LoTiLoTi questions focus on integration rather than skills • LoTi – Level of Technology ImplementationUsed on tens of thousands of classroom teachersHigher LoTi score = Higher Bloom’s Taxonomy levelAligns with the School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart.

  9. Null Hypotheses • There is no significant difference between the level of technology integration of K-12 technology-minded general educators and K-12 technology-minded Deaf educators. • There is no significant difference between the levels of technology integration of K-12 technology-minded Deaf educators who are Deaf and K-12 technology-minded Deaf educators who are hearing. • There is no significant difference between K-12 technology-minded general educators and K-12 technology-minded Deaf educators in terms of their personal computer usage. Methodology • Research Participants • Sought subjects who would not be in the 25% non-use category. Convenience Sample with self-selected volunteers. • General Educators Pool = Masters Across Technology (MAT) program participants. Deaf Educators = Symposium for Instructional Technology & Deaf Education • Both groups = K-12 teachers; variety of subjects; approximately 150-200 potential participants.

  10. Instrumentation • LoTi Technology use Profile; created in 1998 • Nationally-validated (Stoltzfus and Moersch, 2005) • Consists of 3 measures - 2 used for the study • The LoTi Scale • Level 0 = NonuseLevel 1 – AwarenessLevel 2 – ExplorationLevel 3 – InfusionLevel 4a – Integration (Mechanical)Level 4b – Integration (Routine)Level 5 – ExpansionLevel 6 - Refinement • The Personal Computer Use (PCU) 0-7 scale • The Current Instructional Practices (CPI) • On-line version of survey takes about 20 minutes to complete; users receive automatic feedback on their score. Methodology Cont.

  11. Procedures • Secured Permissions (IRB, LoTi, subject groups) • Emailed subjects the survey link and consent form • After the survey closing date, the LoTi office sent raw data. Methodology Cont. • Data Analysis • Demographic Data • Subject area • Grade level • Years of experience • Age group • Gender • Education level • Hours of technology-related training • Perceived obstacles to technology use • Descriptive Data • Statistics • Independent Samples t-test using a .05 alpha level for significance.

  12. Description of the Study Population • 94 surveys completed – 2 eliminated = 92 subjects for the study Analysis of Data

  13. Analysis of Data Cont. Gender

  14. Years of Teaching Experience Analysis of Data Cont.

  15. Age of Subjects Analysis of Data Cont.

  16. Teaching Grade Level Analysis of Data Cont.

  17. Education Level Chapter 4 – Analysis of Data Cont. 72.7% of Deaf educators held graduate degrees; 27.1% of general educators

  18. Hours of Technology Training Chapter 4 – Analysis of Data Cont. 77.1% of General Educators had >30 hrs of training; 25% of Deaf Educators did.

  19. Greatest Obstacles Analysis of Data Cont.

  20. LoTi Score and Type of Classroom Analysis of Data Cont. LoTi level 3 is Infusion = 33.7% (tot). Target Tech level is 4b or higher & 21.8% (tot) reached it.

  21. LoTi PCU Score and Type of Classroom Analysis of Data Cont. 47.9% of general educators scored a level 7; 36.4% of deaf educators did.

  22. Data Analysis for Hypothesis 1:There is no significant difference between the level of technology integration of K-12 technology-minded general educators and K-12 technology-minded Deaf educators. Analysis of Data Cont. Levene= .365, p>.05, so means similar enough to compare t-test = .021, p<.05 means statistical significance b/t the means. * Reject Null * Effect size (Cohen’s d = .488), medium

  23. Data Analysis for Hypothesis 2:There is no significant difference between the levels of technology integration of K-12 technology-minded Deaf educators who are Deaf and Deaf educators who are hearing. Analysis of Data Cont. Levene= .276, p>.05, so means similar enough to compare t-test = .045, p<.05 means statistical significance b/t the means. * Reject Null * Effect size (Cohen’s d = .775), large

  24. Data Analysis for Hypothesis 3:There is no significant difference between K-12 technology-minded general educators and K-12 technology-minded Deaf educators in terms of their personal computer usage. Analysis of Data Cont. Levene= .058, p>.05, so means similar enough to compare t-test = .000, p<.05 means statistical significance b/t the means. * Reject Null * Effect size (Cohen’s d = .887), large

  25. Introduction: • 92 subjects (48 general educators; 44 deaf educators) • Over half (52.2%) had more than 30 hours of technology training Summary of Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendations • Summary of Major Findings: • The mean scores of participants on the LoTi Profile survey were statistically significantly higher for general educators compared to deaf educators • The mean scores of participants on the LoTi Profile survey were statistically significantly higher for deaf educators who were deaf compared to deaf educators who were hearing. • The mean scores of participants on the LoTi-PCU intensity indicator were statistically significantly higher for general educators compared to deaf educators.

  26. Discussion of Findings: • Used t-tests because only two dependent variables of concern. • Calculated the Levene’s homogeneity of variance to see if the means of the groups were similar enough to perform a t-test. • Cohen’s d statistic used to calculate effect size. • Sample of deaf, deaf educators was small (N=10) • Statistical significance show in regards to all 3 hypotheses. • Over half of the general educators had a PCU intensity • level of 7 (the highest) so the data was not normally • distributed. Cont.

  27. Conclusions: • All three null hypotheses were rejected. • Technology-minded teachers, both general ed and deaf ed, appear to be more successful integrators than typical instructors. • Deaf educators who are deaf are perhaps better able to integrate technology than deaf educators who are hearing. • Findings on “time” as a barrier matched previously studies (52.2%) • Interesting that 10 subjects had LoTi=0, but 40% said >30 hrs training. Cont.

  28. Implications • “I tell you and you forget. I show you and you remember. I involve you and you understand.” – Eric Butterworth • Need to identify teachers who are leveraging technology to guide students to more complex levels of understanding. • Teachers willing to participate in some type of technology training tended to out-perform typical teachers from the 2004 national LoTi study. • Deaf educators may not be a standout group with unique attributes in this regard, but deaf educators who are deaf may be. • Study helps build a picture of the current state of technology implementation among deaf educators. • There were limitations in terms of technology training variety, subject area and age differences, and survey presentation language. Cont.

  29. Recommendations for Future Research • Conduct a LoTi survey with a population of typical deaf educators, both deaf and hearing. Compare the results to the national profile. • Conduct a study that groups deaf educators by additional variables such as type of instructional setting. • Replicate this study with technology-minded educators who have participated in more uniformed technology training sessions • Explore the reasons that deaf educators who were deaf appeared to integrate technology at a higher level than hearing deaf educators. • Administer the LoTi survey in ASL for deaf educators who are deaf and request it. Cont.

  30. If the unique attributes of deaf educators who are deaf can be captured, then perhaps they can serve as models for other sub-groups. It is the responsibility and opportunity of current researchers to move the field of educational technology beyond the mere appearance of technology to true integration; deaf education may hold a key to that process. Closing Remarks Thank You

More Related