A small minority become 21st century teachers with learner-centered classrooms. This study examines 7 of those teachers and their perceptions of development, coming from 4 ubiquitous computing schools with SES differences. Using findings, participants better understand innovative teacher needs and envisage further work on teacher development.
21st Century Innovative Teacher’s Development - PETE&C2014
1. 21st Century Innovative Teacher’s
Development
Beth Rajan Sockman
PH.D
& Regina Sayles
East Stroudsburg
University of
Pennsylvania
2. Most teachers do NOT reach an
“inventive stage” of teacher
development, even with
ubiquitous computing, the stage
needed for teaching for the
knowledge age.
4. Industrial Age Vs. Knowledge Age
Industrial Age
Knowledge Age
Standardization
Customization
Top-down organization
Team-based organization
Compliance
Initiative
Conformity
Diversity
CEO as King
Customer as King
Adapted from Duffy, 2010
6. Learning – Meta-Analysis
Learner-Centered Teacher-Student Relationships
(Cornelius-White, 2007)
examined 119 studies showing that learner-centered
strategies positively correlated to student
affective, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes by reducing
drop-out rates, resistant behavior, & increased student
participation
Problem Based Learning (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009)
Reviewed 10 Meta-analysis students and teachers are
motivated in problem-based learning environments, and
that long-term retention increases
8. Technology in Classrooms
What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of
Technology on Learning: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis
and Validation Study (Tamin, Borokhovski, Abrami, &
Schmidv, 2011)
25 meta-analyses with minimal overlap in primary literature,
encompassing 1,055 primary studies
Greater student achievement with technology
Greater difference when students created rather than
merely viewed.
11. It is all about being fair…
Picture from http://weknowmemes.com/tag/please-climb-that-tree/
12. What would it look like if teachers were teaching for the
21st Century?
13. Take Aways!
Describe 2 major developmental change models
Identify Internal & External forces that influence change
Evaluate the way this research extends what we know
Reflect on your own learning environment to describe
the possible internal/external forces and/or where
teachers are in developmental stages
14. How do we get there?
Nation
School – One to one? Doesn’t always work!
Teachers – The focus of this study
19. Stages of Technology Integration 10 Year
Study 1 to 1
(Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997)
Invention
Appropriation
Adaptation
Adoption
Entry
Focus
20. Entry and Adoption
DISPOSITION
Learn Computer Basics
Teachers gain confidence
Most common - Testing
software.
Teachers have a positive attitude
Skill and Drill
Test score increase
Off load
Internet resources - play
21. Stage 3 Adaptation
Disposition
Teacher excited
Student
Initiation
In Daily lesson plans (word
processing, spreadsheets, intera
ctive white board, internet)
Increase Student productivity
Engagement increase
Teacher
threatened
Students initiate learning
Teachers react differently to
student initiation!
More entertainment
22. Stage 4 Appropriation
Milestone!
Interdisciplinary
Interdependent Groups
begin
Disposition
More learner centered
May over compensate
23. Stage 5 - Invention
Classroom BUZZES. Teacher sees the students and themselves as learning together!
Students may challenge the teacher.
Project Based
Interdisciplinary
Team Taught
Customization
Learner Centered
24. Roger – Adoption Innovation
Confirmation
with Invention
Implementation
Persuasion
Knowledge
State –
awareness
Knowledge &
How To
knowledge
25. What are the things that affect
the teacher moving through the
stages?
30. Both External & Internal – Culture!
Collaborative culture & Situated learning (Caskey &
Carpenter, 2012; Davis et al., 2009, Glazer, 2009)
Class size Inverse relationship (Ritzhaupt, Dawson &
Cavanaugh,2012)
31. Question
1. From an innovative teachers’ perspective and
observations of the environment, what are the valuable
experiences including the salient internal and external
forces in the process of becoming an innovative teacher
within a contemporary learning environment?
2. How do the experiences support, challenge or add
perspective to what we know about teacher change
especially, when looking at the need to develop
teachers for the knowledge age?
33. Instrumental Case Study
(Yin, 2003 & Stake,2000)
Interview
7 cases Teachers
– 2.5 hours
Observations
Classroom & School
35 Hours of Interview and
Observation Time
Document Analysis
Lesson Plans
NCLB school statistics
Websites
Newspaper
34. Participants
Boarding
School
37
Traditional
Public City
School
28
Traditional
Public Rural
School
46
35
Public Charter
School
25
Years with oneto-one
Total Years
Experience
Participant Age
Case/School
Standardized test
performance of students
Grade 9
Earth
Science
Grade 8
Reading
9
3
Not Available
50% Caucasian 50%
Minority Low income
4
3
Reading 55% Proficient
Math 70% Proficient
570 Pupils
460 Free/reduced
lunch
Latino 65%;
Caucasian 25%
African 10%
Grade 12
Grade 10
English
Grade 12
Grade 10
History
Grade 5 &
6
All major
content
areas
13
4
9
4
5
2
Grade
Taught &
Subject
Reading 80% Proficient
Math 78% Proficient
Reading 60% Proficient
Math 60% Proficient
Student
Demographics
1015 Pupils
160 Free/reduced
lunch
Caucasian 98%;
African 4%; Latino 5%
100 Pupils
18 Free/ reduced
lunch
Latino 6%; Caucasian
87%; African 3%;
Asian 3%
35. Interviews
Questions
1.
Please tell me about yourself, anything that
might shed some light on your decision to
become a teacher.
2.
Could you go back in time for me? Do you
remember when you and the students made
the move to one-to-one computers? What was
the story behind this for you?
3.
Now that you have had ubiquitous
computing, can you tell me what your
classroom looks like now? How did you get
there? If you were to compare your transition to
something, some picture or analogy – what was
it like for you?
4.
What is your job now – as a teacher? What do
you hope to do this year? Please tell me what
this one-to-one computing meant for you and
your students.
Rationale
1.
Rationale: Ascertain belief system and
influencing internal/external forces
(Kuhn, 1999; Palmer, 1997).
2.
Rationale: Unearth the attitude and
emotions in the transition to ubiquitous
computing (Fullan, 1993; Sandholtz &
Reilly, 2004; Saunders, 2012).
3.
Rationale: Understand the current
teacher role and then, uncover how
he/she developed (Brookfield, 1990;
Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1992; Tondeur et
al., 2012).
4.
Rationale: Gain a sense of evolving
philosophy – the paradigm that the
teacher holds (Covey, 1989; F. M.
Duffy, 2010; Senge, 2000).
39. Forces: Beliefs about Teaching and
Learning & Teaching and Learning
Skills Shaped with Technology
Beliefs: all teachers
held a belief that
there can be multiple
representations of
reality or identified
within constructivism –
research never said…
Praxis: Influence by
undergraduate and
graduate college, teacher
workshops, formal
colleague
feedback, personal
colleague feedback, and
observation of students
influenced the category.
40. Forces: Joy & Fear
Fear: when students
did not comprehend
the content or waste
time
JOY: when observing students
who deeply understood
information, displayed
creativity, or self initiated
extended learning
43. Stage 1 Entry – Awareness Knowledge.
Theme 1: Dissatisfaction with the status quo influenced teachers’
perception of classroom needs to include authentic learning using
technology.
“awareness-knowledge” (Rogers, 1995) - an awareness
of societal needs
Boring past teachers
44. Stage 2 Adoption – Persuasion.
Theme 2: Change evoked strong emotions that
evolved over time with awareness of the
technology needed
45. Stage 3 Adaption - Implementation.
Theme 3: Small trials with computers
opened doors to create options for
pedagogical change.
One of the kids just flipped up his laptop, went
on to Google and typed it in (the question) and
he raised his hand.” The student yelled out, “I
know the answer!” Wyatt was bewildered by
the student’s responses and declared, “You
know you cheated,” since the student used the
Internet to find the answer. But, the student
retorted, “I didn’t cheat!” Wyatt then realized
that searching the Internet for an answer was
what he did, and reflected, “I think that’s what
we do now.”
48. Theme 5: Technology aided in
project-based learning while
illuminating new challenges
Planning projects
was more
complex than
traditional lesson
planning.
“I could see the
logic” of
projects, but they
were “more a
spider
web, intertwining
and connecting
in so many ways.”
49. Theme 6: Observations of engaged
creative students reinforced various
instructional methods in technology
rich environments.
Direct instruction, project based learning, creativity
50. Theme 7: Experience with
technology-integrated project based
learning raised concerns for learning
and traditional scheduling
53. Discussion
In the study, the beginning
developmental stage was
motivated by individual
dissatisfaction which is more
completely described with
awareness knowledge based
on Innovation-Decision
Process (E. Rogers, 1995)
54. Collaborative Culture (stages 2,3,4)
Fears – wasting time, colleague disappointment
Joy – student creativity
Administrative support
Colleague Sharing
Teacher experimentation
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” Albert Eistein
Kids in rows & modern image - AddSwitch to Wordhttp://focus.mnsun.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ch_fr04SCnorthpark-ORIG.jpg
Take notes in word
There are stages that people move through & there are things that help people move through the Stages – Forces (need a metaphor – Football? Karate? Playing an instrument? Learning to sew?
Roger’s Innovation-Decision Process. An innovation can be a thing, practice or both (Straub, 2009). Rogers (1995) postulates the innovation-decision process consists of five stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. The knowledge stage is parsed into awareness-knowledge and how-to knowledge where the individual plays a passive role by observing the changes. The persuasion stage is mainly affective, where the person is dominated by the feelings associated with the innovation and actively seeks information about the innovation so it can be evaluated. How the person is persuaded will lead to the adoption or the rejection of the innovation, but if favorable, the person decides to accept the innovation leading to the decision stage after which the individual implements. Implementation of the innovation requires full action where the person actually changes as a result of the innovation even though a degree of uncertainty may remain. In the last stage, confirmation, the person engages in re-invention. In summary, invention is the process of idea discovery; adoption is implementing the innovation that was invented by someone else; reinvention is when the invention becomes the users and takes on the nuances on of the particular context.
Switch to Word to List – Regina will help
Ertmer and Ottenbreitt (2010) identified internal variables that affect teacher’s ability to change: Knowledge, self-efficacy, and pedagogical beliefs which is supported by other theoretical writing and scientific studies(Achinstien, Ogawa, & Speiglman, 2004; Palmer, 1990).
Learning – Constructivist & Belief in the Value of Tech & Belief in Selves All teachers aim to develop thoughtful citizens (Anthony, 2012b; Bennett, Finn, & Cribb, 1999; Dewey, 1938; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004) albeit with differing praxis which is often attributed to teachers’ beliefs that can be a catalyst or obstacle to creating knowledge age learning environments. Constructivist beliefs tend to be learner-centered, (An & Reigeluth, 2011-2012; Cornelius-White, 2007; Howard, McGee, Schwartz, & Purcell, 2000; Pajares, 1992), and therefore, conducive to technology integration while encouraging student knowledge construction (Etmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Levin & Wadmany, 2007).However, studies show that belief and attitude alone does not change praxis (Brinkerhoff, 2006; Buehl & Fives, 2009; Hattingh & de Kock, 2008; Levin & Rivka, 2006-2007; Sockman & Sharma, 2008). In-service teachers, who aspire to conduct learner-centered teaching, fall short of student centered praxis (Li & Ni, 2010) even in technology rich schools (Palak & Walls, 2009). There is a correlation between teacher’s positive attitudes, time with technology and teacher enjoyment of technology with student use (Abbitt, 2011; Park & Ertmer, 2007-2008; Valli & Buese, 2007). With pre-service teachers, Rogers & Wallace (2011) found that even with low technology anxiety, only a small correlation exists between innovativeness and technology integration. The lack of needed innovativeness is often attributed to the much-needed teacher modeling of technology integration (Abbitt, 2011; Cuban, 2002; R. K. Rogers & Wallace, 2011).http://d6673sr63mbv7.cloudfront.net/archive/x373696974/g258000000000000000bfc97515145894272df34175607a22ddff0ab227.jpghttp://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmyweb.usf.edu%2F~aheindel%2FPBSsection2.html&h=0&w=0&sz=1&tbnid=uwKBVTYKejB3bM&tbnh=184&tbnw=275&zoom=1&docid=Pcx0bo2_-Co9NM&ei=uOf4UtuiM8b4yAGWs4DYCw&ved=0CAIQsCUoAA
Levin & Nevo (2009) studied ten teachers who implemented a learner-centered constructivist curriculum in 3-6 grades. All teachers developed more constructivists belief systems over three years. This study demonstrated the following: 1.) teachers’ beliefs can evolve, including their role as greater facilitators to help the students through self-regulated knowledge construction. 2.) teachers can hold multiple conflicting beliefs at the same time, and 3.) curriculum can impact beliefs. Other studies show similar results indicating that it is easier to change practice than belief (Inan & Lowther , 2010; Levin & Wadmany, 2007).Shiner et al. (2009) found that teachers’ attitudes changed during teacher technology training workshops focused on creativity and problem solving. Pre/post survey findings revealed that teachers felt more confident afterward, specifically in terms of creative problem solving learning and believing that they could teach problem solving skills rather than relying on students innate abilities. The study shows that teachers’ beliefs about students learning can evolve. http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/205/f/8/Politico__Chicken_and_Egg_by_babylon_sticks.jpg
The external forces of curriculum, organizational and societal structure either support or hamper teacher development (R. K. Rogers & Wallace, 2011) showing administrative and colleague support as imperative (Bonifaz & Zucker, 2004; Hanson & Carlson, 2005; Overbay, Mollette, & Vasu, 2011). Anthony (2012) conducted a qualitative study finding three system components necessary to support teacher development: supportive school policy for technology integration; distributed leadership among teachers; and customized professional development.
Inan & Lowther (2010) and Ritzhaupt, Dawson & Cavanaugh (2012) conducted large survey studies examining the direct and indirect effects of teacher characteristics and school-level factors on teacher’s technology integration. Studies found that teacher readiness, teacher beliefs, professional development, education level, computer availability, number of years with technology had a positive significant direct effect on technology integration. Teacher age had no significant relationship, but class size had an inverse effect. The findings demonstrate the importance of the school culture. Situated learning- Teachers learn best in situated learning environments whether that situated learning environment uses a model of collaborative apprenticeship, professional development in undergraduate or graduate education face-to-face or distance education (Caskey & Carpenter, 2012; Davis et al., 2009; E. Glazer, Hannafin, & Song, 2005; E. M. Glazer, Hannafin, Polly, & Rich, 2009; Ping, Wong, Choy, & Jing, 2010).In a study of teacher leaders, Glazer et al. (2009) found that peer teachers who interacted more, were also more likely to advance in their development, and teachers who focused on student learning were more likely to overcome obstacles. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2842/8803690296_ea997d4b34.jpg
“My fear of technology… putting everything in files, on the web, sort of went down when I saw the quick reaction of their confidence. When I saw their confidence, I had confidence in me.” Colleague confidence in Jessica built her confidence. http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6034/6263687602_57133509bd_o.jpg
Wyatt shared a belief-changing anecdote: “One of the kids just flipped up his laptop, went on to Google and typed it in (the question) and he raised his hand.” The student yelled out, “I know the answer!” Wyatt was bewildered by the student’s responses and declared, “You know you cheated,” since the student used the Internet to find the answer. But, the student retorted, “I didn’t cheat!” Wyatt then realized that searching the Internet for an answer was what he did, and reflected, “I think that’s what we do now.” His pedagogy was evolving. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Teacher.jpg
Anne believed that the computer made “education more accessible, and they (students) don't have to rely on just me.” Anne described what this meant in her classroom:We could put so much more responsibility, honestly, on the kids. That really elated me because kids don't learn when you give them information and say, “Here's what you need to know.” You don't learn that way...nobody learns that way. Kids learn when you say...look here's this really cool thing...see what you can find out.http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5549/12079947126_3d9c423e38.jpg
In order to effectively plan, six of the seven teachers found that they needed to plan for a month or more at one time. Some teachers were overwhelmed with the resources for making projectsThis gave her anxiety since she considered herself more linear. Consequently, Samantha developed a project making process that was more linear, while not “losing the big picture and get lost in the details.”
Teachers valued student interest, six of the seven teachers looked specifically for student “disinterest” as a sign for an instructional change.For example, Anne thrived on student creativity with new projects. She noted, “They come up with so many wildly inventive wonderful things,” and she made new rubrics to accommodate their projects.
“The difficult thing is, if a student doesn't do a good job or doesn't do a job at all, then you've completely skipped an important piece of information which you were responsible for.” Taylor explained that he did not have the time to engage 30 students in projects in just 45 minutes, but could with the block of 90 minutes. From the classroom structure to praxis, teachers had to self-justify the means of technology in order to continue with implementation.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Andrew_Classroom_De_La_Salle_University.jpeg
Switch to Word to List – Regina will help
Watch video Based on this study, it is suggested that researchers examine teachers’ reflection on societal changes, and teacher’s reflection on negative teaching practices. It is clearly known that reflection can induced significant change when supported (Perry, 2004). In order to educate for the knowledge age, researchers (F. M. Duffy, 2010; Reigeluth & Karnopp, 2013; Robinson, 2011; Watson, Watson, & Reigeluth, 2012; Y. Zhao, 2012) espouse educators’ need to understand the school’s initial purpose in relation to societal needs, so that in reflection teachers challenge the original structures, which are steeped in traditions, but do not fully incorporate what is known about learning today (Banathy, 1996; Cuban, 2002; Etmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Watch video Based on this study, it is suggested that researchers examine teachers’ reflection on societal changes, and teacher’s reflection on negative teaching practices. It is clearly known that reflection can induced significant change when supported (Perry, 2004). In order to educate for the knowledge age, researchers (F. M. Duffy, 2010; Reigeluth & Karnopp, 2013; Robinson, 2011; Watson, Watson, & Reigeluth, 2012; Y. Zhao, 2012) espouse educators’ need to understand the school’s initial purpose in relation to societal needs, so that in reflection teachers challenge the original structures, which are steeped in traditions, but do not fully incorporate what is known about learning today (Banathy, 1996; Cuban, 2002; Etmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Feeling of vulnerability - “I think that most of my colleagues want to be content experts, and I'm talking probably throughout the nation, in the world and in the profession of teaching. The more you are the master of the content, the more the kids will respect you, the more your colleagues will respect you. The easier it is for you: as the people struggle, you stand there and laugh saying “I know all of this.” Johansson and Kroksmark (2004) studied the intuition of teachers and found that they rely on the past instincts in a teaching scenario. “When the teaching situation no longer stays within the teacher's frame, a pedagogical breakdown of the teacher's preparation happens” (p.370). Sometimes, teachers revert to old habits that reflect the old beliefs, therefore the process of change can take – Transitional Mumbo“two steps forward, and one step back” (Brookfield, 1990 p.52). Eventually, when people discard their old assumptions, and become entrenched in uncertainty of ways to act, a pedagogical void exists with the emotion of the loss and grieving (Aubusson, Steele, Dinham, & Brady, 2007; Brookfield, 1995; Nolan & Meister, 2000)
The term workflow can be defined as, “The set of relationships between all the activities in a project, from start to finish”(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/workflow?s=t). There is research on project based learning (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009; Tamim & Grant, 2013; Vega & Brown, 2013), but little research on creating projects (Nolan & Meister, 2000)
Teachers need to go beyond cognitively understanding how to use technology but need to acquire a disposition that requires courage to change instruction. http://bepositivemom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/courage.jpg