Professional%20development%20that%20increases%20technology%20integration%20by%20K-12%20teachers:%20The%20influence%20of%20the%20TICKIT%20Program.

1
Professional development that increases
technology integration by K-12 teachersThe
influence of the TICKIT Program.

• John B. Keller, jbkeller_at_indiana.edu
• Lee H. Ehman, ehman_at_indiana.edu
• Curtis J. Bonk, cjbonk_at_indiana.edu
• Indiana University

April 21, 2003
AERA
Chicago
2
TICKIT

• Teacher Institute for Curriculum Knowledge about
  Integration of Technology

http//www.iub.edu/tickit
3
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

4
TICKIT Goals

• Knowledge, skill, confidence

• Thoughtful integration of technology

• Leadership cadres in schools

• Link schools and university

• Help schools capitalize on their technology
  investments

5
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

6
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

7
TICKIT Project Gallery
8
Example Projects
9
TICKIT Teachers
10
Research Question

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

11
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

12
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)

13
Effective Professional Development
Components Description
Form Reform vs. traditional (Study groups or networks vs. workshops or conferences).
Duration Number of hours and span of time.
Collective participation Participation by established groups (same school, grade, department vs. educators from various schools).
Content focus Professional development aimed at increasing disciplinary knowledge.
Active learning Meaningful analysis of teaching and learning (examining student work, getting feedback on teaching).
Coherence 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
14
Effective Professional Development
Garet et al. TICKIT
Form
Duration
Collective participation
Content focus
Active learning
Coherence
Structure
?
?
?
Core
?
?
??
Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, Suk-Yoon,
2001
15
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

16
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

17
Methodology 3/3

• Instrumentation
• Two Part Survey
• Demographics and TICKIT-Related Questions
• Levels of Technology Implementation Survey (LOTI)
  Moersch (1994, 1995, 2001).

18
Results 1/3

• Survey Returns 79

Cohort Surveys Sent Surveys Returned Return Percentage
1998-99 25 16 64
1999-00 29 21 72
2000-01 30 22 73
2001-02 22 20 91
2002-03 Applicants 27 26 96
Total 133 105 79
19
Results 2/3
Factors Description Reliability
Technology Integration Frequent/regular use learn with and about variety of learning tasks often thematic or project-based instruction .93
Technology Limitations Perceived access to technology .78
Technology Resistance Technology use that supports only traditional pedagogy, reticence about computer use based on skill level or time constraints, and lack of perceived pedagogical value .66
Computer Proficiency Computer proficiency is an index of ones general comfort level and confidence in using computers .80
Learner-centered Instruction Personal needs of students, lessons and curricula that are in some measure responsive to student interests, and assessment strategies that are performance oriented .79
20
Results 3/3
Factors Means Means
Factors TICKIT Completers??? TICKIT Applicants??? t Sig. ? Effect Size
Technology Integration 74.05 38.25 7.663 .000 1.81
Technology Limitations 11.60?? 15.79 -3.281 .002 .63
Technology Resistance 4.37?? 7.91 -3.143 .003 .80
Computer Proficiency 25.51 18.84 4.614 .000 1.20
Learner-centered Instruction 18.29 12.40 5.120 .000 1.22
Possible High Score
126
28
56
35
28
plt .01 plt .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 n66-77 Applicants n18-20)
21
Relative Impact 1/2
Source of Influence 1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice Ranking this 1,2 or 3
Peer Teacher Support 3 5 4 15
Grant Money 0 2 2 5
Administrative support 4 3 4 14
Undergraduate Training 0 1 3 5
Stipends 1 1 0 3
Curriculum technology integration expectations 3 5 5 18
Graduate courses outside TICKIT 2 4 4 13
Personal ambition and interest in technology 34 16 12 78
Parental and community expectations 1 2 3 8
TICKIT professional development 15 23 16 68
In-school professional development other than TICKIT 4 6 15 32
Conferences, institutes, and other external 5 9 8 28
Other 5 2 1 10
22
Relative Impact 2/2
Source of Help Source of Help Choosing as one of their choices
Business Partner 1.9 1.9
Classroom Teacher 62.9 62.9
District Coordinator 10.5 10.5
University Professor 14.3 14.3
Site Principal 8.6 8.6
Student 14.3 14.3
Technology Coordinator 76.2 76.2
Other (Internet, friends, family, other school personnel) 21.9 21.9
From which individuals do you seek primary
guidance, information, and/or direction relating
to the integration of technology into your
curriculum?
23
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.
• Im 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.

24
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.

25
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

26
Impact

• Researchers and Teacher Educators
• K-12 Teaching and Administrators
• Government Officials and Politicians

27
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

28
Discussion/Questions
29
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.
30
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.