Pedagogical Practices and Technology Integration Thesis Defense March 11, 2015

Thesis Defense

Ashley Mayor

School of Teaching and Learning

Illinois State University

May 2015

• Quantitative Study

• Measuring Practitioner’s Concerns and Perceptions

• Area of Focus: Technology Integration

• Pedagogical Practice Considered: Inquiry-based Learning

• Comparison: Inquiry-based Learning vs. Traditional Pedagogical Practices

Introduction

2

Statement of the Problem

1) Practitioner’s Challenge: Teachers are expected to integrate

technology into their learning environment with little training, support, or implementation phase-in process

- Sanchez (2011)

- New Media Consortium (2013)

- ISTE (2009)

- Ottenbriet-Leftwich, et al. (2010)

3

Statement of the Problem

2) Enriching Integration: The focus should not be on mere use of

technology, but rather, integration of technology into the classroom in authentic and enriching ways

- Clark & Kozma Debate (What enhances learning?)

- SAMR (Puentedura, 2013)

- TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

4

Statement of the Problem

3) Obstacles of Concern: Teachers’ level and types of concerns effect

their decision making over technology use

- Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Holden & Rada,2011)

- Inner Drive and Personal Beliefs (Ertmer et al., 2007)

- Attitudes and Beliefs (Tondeur, Kershaw, Vanderlinde, & van Braak, 2013)

5

Statement of the Problem

4) Teacher’s Role Shift: Pedagogical practice changes as technology is

integrated effectively

- Redesigning the role: Orchestration (Scanlon, Anastopolou, Kerawalla, 2012)

- Teaching students a process of learning, not merely content to be mastered (21st Century Skills)

- NTeQ (Morrison & Lowther, 2010) Best Practice = student-centered learning

- ISTE Standards •T (ISTE, 2008)

- Technology = wrong driver, Pedagogy = right driver (Fullan, 2011)

6

Statement of the Problem

Review

7

1) Practitioner’s Challenge: Teachers are expected to integrate technology

into their learning environment with little training, support, or implementation phase-in process

2) Enriching Integration: How to truly integrate technology

3) Obstacles of Concern: Teachers’ concerns effect their technology use

4) Teacher’s Role Shift: Pedagogical practice must change to integrate

technology effectively

8

Inquiry-based Learning Integration of Technology

Form Instructional Method Instructional Practice

Benefits - Interdisciplinary use - Learning as a cycle/process- Student-centered- Authentic- Developing deeper understandings,

questioning, and reasoning

- Enhances learning experience- Individualizes learning - Interest and motivation heightened- Opportunity for world-wide collaboration- Production of new knowledge not just

consumption- Organizational management

Concerns - Without scaffolding, “un-assisted discovery”

- Teacher improvisation- Lead to misconceptions/incomplete

knowledge

- Teachers unprepared to integrate- The tool on it’s own can’t effect change- Technology is the focus

Projection Inquiry-based learning can benefit from the structure, resources, production tools, and collaboration that technology can provide.

The integration of technology will facilitate and enhance pedagogical practices to the benefit of the learning experience.

Goal Teacher’s Goal: Provide the best quality learning experience possible for students. Empowering learners to use 21st century skills engaged in enriching learning experiences.

Integration of Technology within Inquiry-based Learning

• Progressive Inquiry (Villo, Seitamaa0-Hakkarainen, & Hakkarainen, 2012)

• Personal Inquiry Project (Scanlon, Anastopoulou, & Kerawalla, 2012)

• SMILE (Buckner & Kim, 2013)

• eMINTS (AIR, 2013)

• NTeQ (Morris & Lowther, 2010)

9

Literature

Objectives

10

• Describe concerns and perceptions practitioners have towards technology integration.

• Compare the concerns and perceptions of practitioners using inquiry-based pedagogical practices with practitioner perceptions using traditional practices.

• Assess similarities and differences between practitioner perceptions using varied pedagogical approaches.

• Recognize variations of technology integration practices.

Research Questions

1) Do differences occur between the beliefs/concerns of inquiry-based teachers and traditional teachers about integrating technology to enhance student learning?

2) Do differences occur between the perceived use of technology of inquiry-based teachers and traditional teachers?

3) Do differences occur between the perceived technology integration practices of inquiry-based teachers and traditional teachers?

11

Participant Recruitment

12

International School Public School

Participants Certified Teacher Practitioners Certified Teacher Practitioners

School Mission StatementInstructional Practice

Inquiry-based learning Unspecified

Curriculum or Academic Program International Baccalaureate Program

Common Core State Standards

Student Population K-12 Environment K-12 Environment

School Type International School Public School

Location European Union United States of America

Teachers Employed 27 teachers 41 teachers

Participant Response Rate

• 33 participants recruited (collectively)

• 93.94% valid response rate (31 of 33)

• International school response rate : 11 of 27 staff (40.74%)

• Public school response rate: 20 of 41 staff (48.78%)

13

Participant Demographics

• 1-5 years = 29%

• 6-10 years = 19%

• 11-15 years = 11%

• 16-20 years = 13%

• 21-25 years = 26%

• 26-30 years = 3%

• 31 + years = 0%

Years of Experience

• Elementary School = 39%

• Middle School = 16%

• High School = 29%

• Multiple Levels = 16%

Level of Current Teaching Position

• Self-contained = 42%

• Not Self-contained = 58%

Type of Classroom

14

Methodology

15

• Comparison Study

• Groups comprised of teacher practitioners according to pedagogical practice

• Quantitative Data Collection

• Patterns of concerns

• Patterns of perceived technology use

• Patterns of perceived integration application

• Dependent Variables

• K-12 settings

• Teacher practitioners

• Technology integration

• Independent Variables

• Pedagogical practices: Inquiry-based and traditional

Instrument

16

Stages of Concern Questionnaire

Measuring the intensity of the different stages of concern over an

innovation

Survey of 35 - Likert style rating items

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL)

(2013)

Evaluating the Use of Technology within

Pedagogy

Measuring the use of technology and application of integration

practices

Survey of demographics and practitioner perception, Likert style

rating and multiple choice items

Mayor (2014)

Instrument Scoring

Stages of Concern

• Concern profile data summated

• Composite Score identified as relative intensity level of concern determined for individual

• Scores are applied to designated group totals

• Interpreted as inferential data –central tendency (mean) is identified for each group

17

Evaluating the Use of Technology within Pedagogy

• Demographics itemized

• Grouping identifier #5

• Use of technology #6 & 7

• Application of integration practices #13 – 16

• Summation of individual scores

• Composite Scores are applied to designated group total

• Interpreted as inferential data- central tendency (mean) is identified for each group over each application

Grouping Procedure

• Results of Questionnaire Item #5 - Measuring the frequency of use of inquiry-based teaching practices

• Categorical scale assigned numeric values, increasing with frequency

• Standard of measure determined (range 9-36 points)

18

Traditional Teachers Group

(ranged 9-27 points)

Inquiry-based Teachers Group (ranged 28-36

points)

Subgroup Profiles

19

Traditional Teaching Group

Inquiry-based Teaching Group

Number of participants

17 14

Setting of participants

6 international11 public school

5 international9 public school

Levels taught Elementary: 5Middle school: 4

High school: 6Multiple Levels: 2

Elementary: 7Middle school: 1

High school: 3Multiple Levels: 3

Median years experience integrating technology

3 years 4.5 years

Percentage of group reporting formal training

59% 64%

Results

Research Question 1

20

Descriptive Analysis Comparing Stages of Concern

Groups n X SD Skewness

Traditional Teachers 17 129.65 29.41 -.32

Inquiry-based Teachers 14 139.43 34.18 -.23

Inferential Analysis Comparing Stages of Concern

Description of t-test t df P

Comparison of Level of Concern Towards

Technology Integration for Traditional and

Inquiry-based Teachers

-.86 29 .40

Do differences occur between the beliefs/concerns of inquiry-based teachers and traditional teachers about integrating technology to enhance student learning?

Results

Research Question 2

21

Descriptive Analysis Comparing Frequency of Use

Groups n X SD Skewness

Traditional Teachers 17 20.94 8.44 .30

Inquiry-based Teachers 14 26.14 4.74 .02

Inferential Analysis Comparing Frequency of Use

Description of t-test t df p

Comparison of Frequency of Use of

Technology for Traditional and

Inquiry-based Teachers

-2.16 25.92 .04

Do differences occur between the perceived use of technology of inquiry-based teachers and traditional teachers?

Results

Research Question 3

22

Descriptive Analysis Comparing Technology Integration Application

Groups N X SD Skewness

Traditional Teachers 10 9.00 3.89 1.08

Inquiry-based Teachers 12 7.75 2.09 0.90

Inferential Analysis Comparing Technology Integration Application

Description of t-test t df P

Comparison of Technology Integration

Application for Traditional and Inquiry-

based Teachers

.96 20 .35

Do differences occur between the perceived technology integration practices of inquiry-based teachers and traditional teachers?

Accepted Hypotheses

23

(1) The relationship between inquiry-based teachers and traditional teachers was not significant regarding their level of concern over technology integration.

(2) A significant difference occurred over the perceived use of technology for inquiry-based teachers, in relation to traditional teachers.

(3) The relationship between inquiry-based teachers and traditional teachers was not significant regarding their perceived ability to integrate technology.

No statistically significant difference was found between pedagogical practice groups over the concern of

technology integration.

THIS STUDY: The concerns of teachers using inquiry-based practices are similar to the concerns of teachers using traditional practices.

24

Discussion

Barriers Plausible Causes

- Inner drive and personal beliefs (Ertmer, 2007)

- Attitude greatest predictor (Holden & Rada, 2011)

- Teachers resist integrating - Concern over integration is not the

only concern

- Professional development lacking (NMC Horizon Report, 2013)- Inexperience teaching (Clark, 2002; Benton-Borghi, 2013) - Pedagogical practice does not impact integration concerns- eMINTS difference in results (AIR, 2013)

Frequent use of technology does not indicate integration

THIS STUDY: Significant differences between pedagogies over use, but with no significant difference between the two methods and their perceived integration practices.

Problem: Concern over using technology in authentic and enriching ways.

• Transformation of Learning (Puentedura, 2013)

• “Student technology use does not guarantee students will be engaged in active learning promoted by constructivist educators” (Niederhauser & Lindstrom, 2006, p. 98).

• Observations and interviews design – similar findings (Tondeur et al., 2013)

25

Discussion

Plausible Cause

Subgroups not different enough

True integration is yet to be achieved by the majority of teachers

Orchestrating Learning (Integration with Inquiry)THIS STUDY: The relationship between inquiry-based teachers and traditional teachers was not significant regarding their perceived ability to integrate technology.

Conclusion: Inquiry alone, and technology alone, are not independently substantial in improving the quality of learning.

A need/expectation to integrate technology, focus on how

26

Designer

Coach

Learner manager(Sharples & Anastopoulou, 2012)

Moderator

TEACHER IS

Enhances the pedagogy

Is the infrastructure for inquiry(Crippen & Archambault, 2012)

Platform on which scaffolding takes place (Alfieri et al., 2011)

TECHNOLOGY

Discussion

• Convergence of technology, pedagogy and content –TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

• Leveraging technology

• Reconsider the “innovation”

Implications

For Practitioners

• All practitioners have some concerns over integrating technology

• Teacher’s concerns over integrating technology cannot be described by their preferred practice

• Practitioners are not pure-bred pedagogists

• Use ≠ integration: Pedagogy comes first, technology enhances/transforms learning

• Embrace the “role shift” that can occur when technology is integrated effectively

For Educational Leaders

• Teacher’s concerns over integrating technology is real

• Even after years of reported practice, still concerns exist

• Ongoing professional learning and supported integration is a must

• Importance of the impact of the affective domain (values, concerns, beliefs) on teacher decision making 27

Limitations

28

Design • Survey Research: Self-reporting

Methodology

• Medium of Distribution

• Subgrouping Procedure

• Validity and Reliability of the Instrument (Part 2)

Analysis • Amended SoC Questionnaire Data Analysis

Implications • Unable to Generalize to Population

Recommendations

FURTHER STUDY

• Observation studies of integration practices in relation to pedagogical practice

• Depth of inquiry-based pedagogical analysis (Crippen & Archambault, 2012)

• Include items in instrument about available technology

• Consider years of teaching experience, as a variable in relation to best-practices of technology integration

• Consider practitioners’ technology experience, as a variable to integrating technology

• How long does it take to master effective technology integration?

• Consider alternative pedagogical practices

29

Thank You Thesis Committee

• Dr. Steven Mertens

• Dr. Barbara Meyer

30

A Comparative Study of the Practitioner’s Role to Integrate Technology within an

Inquiry-Based Learning Environment

Ashley Mayor

School of Teaching and Learning

Illinois State University

May 201531