CFF Case Study 1

Running head: CFF CASE STUDY

Classrooms for the Future Case Study: Preliminary Results and Findings

Mark Hayden

Dr. Wesley Pitts

EDUC 636- Advanced Topics in the Teaching and Learning of Chemistry

Master of Chemistry Education Program

University of Pennsylvania

CFF Case Study 2

INTRODUCTION

Review of Related Literature

An extraordinary amount of resources have been allocated to the implementation

of educational technology. State boards and local administrators encourage the use of

related tools and strategies through state standards and district-level initiatives. They aim

to align the goals of the education system with the needs of the rapidly changing,

technology-driven, global workplace that learners will enter upon graduation. (Peck et al.

2007) The total impact of these reform efforts is still unknown, as many are still in their

infancy. However, problems with and threats to the implementation of such plans have

been widely reported in educational research.

Budget constraints and other issues often prevent schools from providing teachers

with an appropriate number of devices or a reasonable amount of quality technical

support. Many districts aim to put computers in every classroom, leaving each individual

classroom with an insufficient number of machines, which severely limits student use

(Adelman et al. 2002). Teachers with sufficiently equipped rooms often encounter

technical difficulties as a result of inadequate hardware or software. Many educators

would rather avoid using technology instead of spending the unreasonable amount of

time needed to develop appropriate “backup plans” for every tech-rich lesson (Cuban et

al. 2001). Although support systems provide some relief, most IT coordinators and

professionals lack expertise in the use of technology for instructional purposes (Adelman

et al. 2002). This forces teachers to fend for themselves or to look to professional

development opportunities for guidance in incorporating technology into their lessons.

CFF Case Study 3

Richardson (2003) and numerous others have linked effective professional

development and training to meaningful change in education. This guidance is

particularly important for more experienced educators that often lack skills in an area that

Dun et al. (2000) refers to as “instructional technology pedagogical content knowledge.”

Unfortunately, these types of learning opportunities are often absent or ineffective, and

teachers have identified this as a primary concern (Peck et al. 2007). Becker (2001)

suggests that when deciding which instructional technologies to include in their teaching,

teachers generally consider their own knowledge, expertise, and experience instead of the

features of the technology or the expected educational outcomes. Girod and Cavanaugh

(2001) add that instead of modifying pedagogy to incorporate technology, many teachers

have simply used technology to improve existing strategies. In other words, the same old

techniques have just been delivered in a shiny package. The substance and experience

are still the same for learners. In these cases, students are no better prepared to enter the

21st Century workforce.

Research Context

Classrooms for the Future (CFF) is a three-year, $200 million initiative aimed at

increasing technology use in Pennsylvania’s high school classrooms and addressing some

of the roadblocks to success that were alluded to in the literature review. State funded

grants allow school districts to purchase technology and support its use with professional

development for teachers. The goal is to increase learning through technology-rich

lessons that provide students with skills needed to succeed after high school.

CFF Case Study 4

Districts receiving a CFF grant agree to participate in evaluation activities

including teacher/student surveys, classroom observations, and interviews. An evaluation

team lead by Dr. Kyle Peck and Mr. Robin Clausen of Penn State University has already

started the process of analyzing the data and reporting on the cumulative, statewide

results. They will help the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and the

legislature assess the initiative and make future funding decisions.

The purpose of this case study is to assess how technology and support from the

CFF initiative have impacted pedagogy, student engagement, and student and teacher

attitudes toward science and mathematics education. This is virtually the same as the

goal of the CFF evaluation team. However, the scope of my inquiry is much narrower,

ranging from one particular school district all the way down to one particular learner.

The results may help inform decision-making that occurs at the district, building, and

classroom level. The hope is that the results may also offer new insight into teaching and

learning with technology.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Petrosino (2004) suggests that case studies provide “rich descriptions, deep or

insider details, and highly focused data contextualized by situating it in the actual setting

of the phenomenon being investigated.” The case study approach was chosen because of

the multitude of research methods employed, the magnitude of data collected, and my

various roles in the process. It also provides for an appropriate mix of qualitative and

quantitative data.

CFF Case Study 5

The study also contains elements of primary action research. Reil (2007)

describes action research as a process in which cycles of experience and reflection lead to

“adaptive expertise.” A significant portion of my research occurred within my own

classroom through my own experiences with teaching and learning with technology. In

addition, my strategies were constantly changing as a result of my inquiry. One of the

ways in which I simultaneously gathered data and reflected on my teaching was with

what Tobin and Roth (2006) refer to as “praxeology,” or “talk about praxis.” This

occurred in a variety of ways including cogenerative dialogues with students (discussed

in METHODS) and collaboration with colleagues. Finally, some of the research

techniques were influenced by constructivism. The idea for co-teaching a technology-

rich lesson with a student came to me after reading about the “Critical Voice” and

“Shared Control” scales that are a part of the Constructivist Learning Environment

Survey (CLES) (Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L., 1997)

PARTICIPANTS

The Central Bucks School District is a large suburban school district outside of

Philadelphia. The district contains three high schools: West (W), South (S) and East(E).

The students come from primarily white, middle to upper income households. The

demographics of the faculty closely align with that of the students. Table 1.1 contains

information about the demographics of the student population at the start of the case

study:

CFF Case Study 6

Table 1.1- Student Demographics

HS

Ethnicity SES Totals

American

Indian or

Alaskan

Native

Asian

or

Pacific

Islander

Black,

not

Hispanic

Hispanic

White,

not

Hispanic

Reduced

Lunch

Free

Lunch Male Female Total

W 0 42 24 26 1332 24 45 740 684 1442

S 7 76 35 38 1589 26 35 911 834 1745

E 1 45 17 33 1413 16 13 758 751 1509

In general, students arrive at school with a willingness to learn and take part in

educational activities. Attendance and participation in extracurricular activities meets or

exceeds that of districts of comparable size and composition. Minor behavioral problems

exist, but do not contribute to significant disruptions in learning.

Nearly all of the students have the resources required to purchase traditional

school supplies such as notebooks, and many also purchase additional technology such as

calculators and flash drives. A majority access the internet from home and complete web-

related homework on a regular basis.

In 2007, the second year of the grant, the district received a $1.32 million CFF

grant for its high school science and mathematics classrooms. With these funds, the

district immediately purchased and implemented:

3 full-time technology coaches

80 Promethean interactive whiteboards

81 projectors

1430 laptop computers with educational software

52 digital cameras

CFF Case Study 7

51 web cameras

To remain in compliance with the CFF evaluation requirements, each district

appoints an individual to coordinate the collection of data. Often the individual is an

administrator or teacher within the district. Shortly after receiving word of the incoming

grant, I agreed to take on this role for the district. As a chemistry teacher and occasional

staff development workshop presenter, I had the unique opportunity to view the initiative

from many different perspectives.

During the 2007-2008 school year, I facilitated survey completion by 45 high

school science and mathematics teachers along with well over 1000 of their students. In

addition, I completed a total of 24 classroom observations which occurred at all three

high schools. I was assisted for the pre-window by a retired science teacher who

completed 12 additional classroom observations on my behalf.

For the 2008-2009 school year, the district received additional grant money for

the CFF initiative. It has used this money to extend the grant into its English and social

studies departments. I am currently collecting data to assess the impact of CFF in these

disciplines. At the end of this school year, I will have access to second-year data for

science and mathematics teachers and first year data from the English and social studies

teachers.

METHODS

This study employs a mixed methods approach containing both quantitative and

qualitative techniques. The teacher and student surveys, as well as the classroom

observations, were a requirement that came with accepting the CFF grant money. The

CFF Case Study 8

cogenerative dialogues, co-teaching, and informal interviews with colleagues were

completed independently of the grant. All methods used to collect data are discussed

below.

Teacher Surveys

The teacher survey used in this study was developed by CFF evaluation team lead

by Kyle Peck and Robin Clausen of Penn State University. The survey takes

approximately 15 minutes to complete. It contains 17 questions, many of which have

multiple parts. Most of the questions contain a Likert scale. The aim of the survey is to

provide feedback about the teacher’s philosophy and teaching style; classroom dynamic;

methods of assessment; attitudes about technology in general; attitudes about technology

as an educational tool; and attitudes and experiences with professional development in

technology.

Each of the 45 science and mathematics teachers completed a pre- and post-

survey containing the same questions. The pre-survey occurred in December of 2007,

before all of the classroom equipment was available for use. The post-survey occurred in

May of 2007, after teachers had started to integrate the technology into their lessons.

Once submitted by the teacher, the data was sent directly to a database maintained by the

evaluation team at PSU. Robin Clausen was then able to provide me with both the raw

data and graphical representations of the data for all three high schools.

Student Surveys

Once again, this survey was developed by the CFF evaluation team. The survey

takes approximately 25 minutes to complete. It was administered online, during school

CFF Case Study 9

hours. It contains 11 questions, each of which has multiple subsections. All of the

questions contain a Likert scale. Their aim is to provide feedback about the student’s

view of education in general; perception of the learning environment; attitudes about

learning; and use of technology in the classroom.

All 45 science and mathematics teachers administered this survey to one of their

classes at two separate times. The submission times for these surveys coincided with

window for the pre- and post- teacher surveys (December 2007 and May 2007). As with

the teacher surveys, responses were sent directly to the CFF database and were sent to me

in raw and graphical form at a later date by Robin Clausen.

Classroom Observations

Two digital software tools were utilized to collect quantitative and qualitative

classroom observation data. In both cases, laptop computers ran the software and

submitted the observations electronically to the CFF database:

1. Teaching Performance Record (TPR)

TPR is a research-based observation system developed at the University of

Virginia. The observer uses a laptop computer to collect data and reflect on

lessons. The system aims to decrease observer bias, while increasing validity

and reliability. This is accomplished by giving the user the option to easily

choose from over 100 pre-listed components that have been identified through

research as staples of good teaching. With this method, the results become more

quantitative and less subjective. To increase reliability, observers must

CFF Case Study 10

complete an online training course that includes videos and testing prior to data

collection.

The software divides the observation process into four sections titled

Planning, Interactive, Reflective, and Student Involvement and Behavior. In the

Planning section, which occurs at some point before the class of interest, the

observer meets with the teacher to discuss the planned objectives, activities, and

assessment strategies. This allows for the exchange of important lesson

materials such as worksheets, activities, etc. A second section, the Interactive

portion, occurs in three 4-minute cycles during the class.

The observer documents classroom management techniques, teacher-student

interaction, and feedback provided to students. In the Reflective section, the

observer takes a break from the events of the lesson to engage in personal

Figure 1- TPR software, Interactive section

section

CFF Case Study 11

reflection. Organization and presentation of information, as well as strategies for

monitoring behavior and assessment are the focus of this portion of the

observation. Finally, four students are selected for the Student Involvement and

Behavior section. The observer monitors each student for three, 15-second

periods and rates their involvement and behavior on a predetermined scale.

After collecting the electronic data, detailed printouts highlight various

components of each lesson. The focus of the TPR is on how teacher behavior

and practice impact student behavior and involvement. Although the software is

not geared specifically toward technology-rich learning environments or the CFF

grant, it will help identify changes in pedagogy and student participation as a

result of the initiative.

2. CFF Observation Tool

The CFF Observation Tool was also developed at the University of

Virginia. However, educational researchers created this software specifically for

CFF grant evaluation. The program allows the investigator to quantify changes

in instructional activity, classroom organization, and student engagement. It also

allows the user to document specific technology used by both teachers and

students.

In this system, each observed lesson is broken into 3 parts. The observer

monitors a variety of items including student and teacher activity, along with the

level of engagement exhibited by learners.

CFF Case Study 12

After the conclusion of the lesson, the observer is prompted to complete two

“wrap-up” sections. These sections focus on the use of the technology to teach

21st century skills.

Cogenerative Dialogues

Kenneth George Tobin and Wolff-Michael Roth are credited with developing this

technique in which a teacher meets with students to engage in a conversation about a

shared experience. The process allows teachers to reflect on teaching and learning by

“hearing from others about their teaching- what works and what does not, and especially

identifying practices about which the teacher is not aware” (Tobin & Roth, 2006). It is

important that teachers establish an environment in which learners feel comfortable being

open and honest. This is accomplished by leveling with students as much as possible,

maintaining participant anonymity, insisting that conversations are held in confidence,

and assuring participants that their comments will not impact their grade in the course. In

addition to providing new perspectives on teaching and learning, Tobin and Roth (2006)

CFF Case Study 13

suggest that teachers who are able to listen intently and respond appropriately are able to

establish an environment of mutual respect in which stakeholders take joint-ownership of

the learning process.

A total of six students were selected from two sections of my Honors Chemistry

courses. Three males and three females participated, and an effort was made to select a

group that was representative of both classes as a whole in terms of ability and

achievement. The dialogues occurred over two 30-minute lunch periods and were audio-

recorded.

I started the first session by asking students what they liked and disliked about the

way technology was used in the course. I tried to give the students the freedom to take

the conversation in whatever direction they wanted, but I did provide some focus on a

couple occasions by asking about specific assignments or strategies. By the end of the

first cogenerative dialogue, students were comparing their experiences with technology in

my course with those from their other classes. This was also the primary focus of the

second session.

Co-Teaching

Taylor, Fraser, and Fisher (1997) have written about the importance of

establishing “critical voice” and “shared control” in constructivist classrooms. The first

refers to the willingness of students to verbalize their educational needs by questioning

the teacher’s pedagogical techniques and making him or her aware of any obstacles to

learning. The latter involves students in the process of planning, enacting, and assessing

CFF Case Study 14

lessons. Both are ways in which learners take responsibility for their learning and take

ownership of the learning experience and environment.

I decided to invite a student to co-teach a lesson on periodicity as a method for

collecting qualitative data related to the impact of the CFF initiative. The student, a

learner in one of my Honors Chemistry sections, is highly-motivated, regularly

participates in class, and is enrolled in our district’s gifted program. To protect his

identity, he will be referred to by the pseudonym “John.” John was a perfect choice for

the job, because he is comfortable in front of the class, respected by his peers, and

interested in learning for its own sake.

A week before the lesson, I proposed the idea to John and referred him to the

appropriate section of the textbook. I also introduced him to an online applet that I had

used in the past. The applet, created by Constantinos Efstathiou, allows students to graph

periodic trends.

I asked him to decide if he was interested and to generate some lesson ideas if he thought

he wanted to participate. Soon after, John and I met after school to co-plan for the lesson.

I provided significant direction on the objectives of the lesson, and left John with free-

reign over how the lesson would play out. John had become familiar with the online

CFF Case Study 15

applet, and it was decided that the students would engage in an inquiry-based activity

centered on the applet. John would introduce the minimum amount of conceptual

knowledge needed to understand the applet, and the class would figure out the rest. For

the remainder of the time, he would cycle around the room to answer questions about the

applet and/or concepts. I would play a supporting role by filling in gaps during John’s

introduction and helping to answer questions during the inquiry.

John also agreed to participate in a follow-up to the inquiry-based applet activity

that was to occur during the next class period. I gave John the freedom to plan and

develop this portion of the lesson. However, we still met briefly beforehand to review

what he had come up with and to discuss my involvement. Immediately afterward, John

and I sat down for an informal conversation/interview which was audio recorded.

Informal Interviews with Colleagues

I made a conscious effort to remain in frequent contact with teachers from all

three high schools. I did this primary by visiting classrooms whenever possible.

However, a significant amount of useful information was collected via email. Early on in

the initiative, I asked teachers to inform me about positive and negative experiences

related to the new technology. I received responses to this request on a regular basis.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND FINDINGS

The sheer magnitude of data, along with severe time constraints, made full

analysis impossible for this particular research paper. Following the advice of my

instructor, I decided to focus only on the data collected at West HS, the school where I

teach. The following is a mere glimpse at a small portion of the qualitative and

CFF Case Study 16

quantitative data that resulted from the case study. It is important to consider this section

a work in progress. The hope is that it will catalyze meaningful discussion and additional

questions. It is important to note that statistical testing is absent at this time. I look

forward to scrutinizing the data in the future using these and other techniques.

This section is organized into groups, based on the original goals of the case

study. Charts and graphs that depict survey results were accessed from the CFF

Evaluation Dashboard, which is linked to the database that holds all data that is submitted

from CFF surveys and observations. At the time this paper was written, electronic data

from classroom observations was not yet available on the dashboard.

Pedagogy

Together, several pieces of data seem to indicate that the CFF technology may

have resulted in a slight shift from more didactic forms of teaching to those that are more

constructivist in nature. First, teachers gave less value to more didactic forms of

instruction such as lectures and teacher-led discussions in the post-surveys.

Data from student surveys seems to confirm that this shift in teacher values has been

enacted in the classroom. Significant pre- to post-survey decreases occurred in students

reporting that their teacher spent “All or almost all” and “More than half” of class relying

on lecturing.

CFF Case Study 17

Responses were similar for teacher-led discussions. In both cases, the “Less than half”

and “Rarely” responses showed notable increases.

In addition, a larger percentage of teachers reported spending more time

“walking, observing, and interacting with students” in the post-survey.

This change in teacher activity may be connected to the use of CFF student laptops.

Teachers indicated that they are using these computers more often, with a drop in

CFF Case Study 18

responses in the “0% to 20%” range and notable increases in both the “21% to 40%” and

“61% to 80%” ranges.

During classroom observations, I frequently made note of the fact that students seem to

be far more self-sufficient when learning on the laptops in comparison to traditional,

paper-based assignments. A statement that came out of my conversation with John

comes to mind as a possible explanation for this difference. John commented, “The

younger generation learns how to use the technology differently than a sit-down course…

it’s more about discovery. If you just fiddle around with it enough, it will work.” It

appears as though some learners may be extending this discovery strategy to the way in

which they approach learning in math and science. This is particularly evident with

software such as online applets in science and Geometer’s Sketchpad in math. When

using the laptops, many students prefer to learn in these inquiry-based settings. Once

again, John summed it up when he said, “If you give step-by-step directions, you’re

handing it to students on a silver platter, and they do not have to do any work. This

shouldn’t be allowed. You want to make sure that people know what they are supposed

to do and that they can learn something new.”

CFF Case Study 19

The CFF laptops have also led to an apparent increase in differentiated

instruction. While learning, students are able to move at their own pace, processing

information in ways that work best for them. Individualized feedback is often provided

during computer-based learning activities. One of the cogenerative dialogue participants

mentioned this while commenting on his math class: “Technology tells you if you are

right or wrong right then so that you can work at your own pace and you don’t have to

wait for others that do not get it.” As advanced learners move ahead on their own,

teachers are able to direct their attention toward students that need more support.

Technology also allows students to view concepts through multiple lenses. Another

member of the dialogue added, “Using technology helps me learn better, because if I’m

on the internet trying to figure something out, there’s not just one place to find it. In the

book, there is only one place to find it, and on the internet, there are millions of sites. It’s

just easier to find information.”

Engagement

Teachers have indicated that student engagement has increased as a result of the

CFF initiative. This has been communicated to me in multiple conversations and emails.

This is also supported by a somewhat large increase in the post-survey in teachers that

labeled their students as “actively engaged” for 60% to 80% of the time.

CFF Case Study 20

This change was in line with what I observed in the classrooms. During the pre-

observation window, I witnessed most teachers achieving around 60%-70% engagement.

This increased to around 70%-80% during the post-observation window.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to tell if this engagement has contributed to

increases in learning. Sometimes, students are engaged in off-task behavior, especially

while using the laptops. One student in a cogenerative dialogue estimated that off-task

behavior may account for as much as 60% of instructional time on the laptops in some

classes. Although I think this was an exaggeration, it clearly indicates that he strongly

believes that misuse is occurring regularly. Several of the students that took part in the

recorded conversations linked misuse to excessive amounts of time that are assigned for

technology. One participant commented, “Some teachers don’t assign enough work or

they overestimate the time needed to complete a task.” She also added that she was

likely to check her grades using the district’s online grade portal if she knew that she had

time to spare. Other students have indicated that they believe that student engagement

has increased slightly or has remained the same.

My impression is that the students are more engaged as a result of the CFF

technology. I can say this with a reasonable amount of certainty after visiting multiple

CFF Case Study 21

classrooms and monitoring students in my own classroom. It is more likely that off-task

behavior is more related to poor classroom management than to the technology itself.

Although it’s impossible to monitor all students simultaneously, I doubt that the number

of students that occasionally stray to unrelated websites is any greater than the number of

students that normally daydream, doodle, or talk about unrelated topics during traditional

lessons.

Teacher attitudes

Early on in the initiative, teachers were very concerned about an insufficient

amount of professional development opportunities related to the CFF technology. Some

were worried about having the time to experiment with the promethean board and

laptops, tools that are not accessible from home. Others felt that they lacked the basic

skills to use the technology effectively or feared that they would not be able to respond to

failures that occurred midway through a lesson. The district’s educational leadership was

responsive to these attitudes, scheduling several mini-workshops on staff development

days. These sessions, organized by CFF grant-funded technology coaches, were well-

received by teachers. As both a presenter and an attendee at these mini-workshops, I can

say that teachers valued the ability to choose between multiple sessions of interest. They

also appreciated larger percentages of time to work under the guidance of an expert. The

mini-workshops may have contributed to the dramatic increase in teachers that identified

a lack of professional development as “No Problem” and a remarkable decrease in those

that responded “Significant Problem” and “Huge Problem” in the post-survey.

CFF Case Study 22

Technology-based lessons can be a tough sell for experienced teachers, even

when they have participated in an adequate amount of professional development. Some

of these teachers rely heavily on more didactic forms of instruction, where the teacher is

viewed as an expert that is responsible for disseminating information. They were

initially apprehensive about attempting to play the role of expert in front of a group of

students that they perceived as more skilled in the technology. Ultimately, many of the

teachers were willing to relinquish control and responsibility for learning to the students.

Positive outcomes resulted and were reported. One of the most common things that

teachers noted was that the tech-rich lessons provide increased opportunities for student

success. Students that struggled with course content were seen in a new light when they

were able to discover Promethean board functionalities in front of the class or help peers

complete tasks and resolve problems on the laptops.

Technical difficulties have remained a major concern for teachers. It seems as if a

small percentage of the teachers even view the technology as unnecessary and potentially

damaging to learning. This attitude is particularly relevant to veteran teachers with little

prior experience with technology. These teachers, who have spent years perfecting their

craft, have little patience for technology issues. As one teacher wrote in an email after

CFF Case Study 23

experiencing technical difficulties in class, “(The problems are) Very frustrating for all of

us. In the final analysis I wonder if it is worth all this angst that my students experience.

In the past I have successfully taught these concepts without computers.” Concerns about

educational interference from technology problems is evident in the teacher survey

results as well, where computer failures were identified more frequently as a “Problem”

and “Significant Problem” in the post-surveys.

Even more dramatic negative changes in attitude occurred when teachers were asked

about problems with the promethean boards.

Student attitudes

Student data indicates that attitudes about the CFF initiative are generally

positive. Without prompting, several of the students involved in the study mentioned

CFF Case Study 24

their appreciation for the initiative’s focus on 21st Century skills. As John mentioned

after co-teaching, “It’s the way the world is going. It would be silly to not take advantage

of the technology grant.” In the second cogenerative dialogue, a student said, “More jobs

are looking for people that know how to use Excel and PowerPoint and different

programs like that… we could show up at a company where people have been working

for years that need needs to ask us how to do things.” However, this view was not

represented strongly in the study surveys. A slight increase did occur in the number of

students who selected “Strongly Agree” when asked if they felt prepared to enter the

modern workforce. A decrease occurred in the “Strongly Disagree” response for the

same statement, but was accompanied by a slight increase in the “Disagree” response.

Traditional curricula are often segmented, with students “covering” concepts at

very specific times in their academic career. Students recognize that the nature of

technology is different and that in order to truly become proficient in its use, one must

continue to become familiar with new hardware and software by interacting with it on a

regular basis. Several learners acknowledged the schools’ role as facilitator of these

experiences. A good example of this was the comments made by a student in the second

cogenerative dialogue. She said, “The technology is always changing. The programs we

CFF Case Study 25

used in elementary school have completely changed, multiple times. Since I don’t have

some of these programs on my home computer, I was totally confused at first. You have

to continue working with technology, because if you don’t, it’s going to move so far

away from where it used to be.” The CFF initiative provides more students with the

opportunity to use technology on a regular basis, which may be responsible for the

sizable increase in students that answered “Agree” when asked about how confident they

were about life after high school on the post-surveys.

Although students seem to have generally positive overall attitudes about the CFF

initiative, opinions about experiences in specific classrooms with individual teachers vary

greatly. All students mentioned technology as a potential waste of class time. Network

connection problems and computer speeds were mentioned as the most frequent cause of

wasted instructional time. However, I was surprised when students identified lack of

planning and preparation as the root cause of negative experiences with technology. John

commented, “Sometimes teachers don’t have things prepared and take time out of class to

fiddle with technology.” One of the participants in the cogenerative dialogue said, “Class

time should not be used to play with new technology to figure it out. This can take away

from the learning and even detract from concepts that we are trying to learn.”

CFF Case Study 26

Learners also suggested that technology should be selectively distributed to

teachers based on interest and ability. One student said, “I feel that teachers that get them

(promethean board) should go through some sort of training or should have to present

how they are going to use them. Some teachers should be able to have them, but other

teachers do not want to use them, and that’s a waste of money.” Several students also

cited examples of teachers using promethean boards as a traditional projection screen,

without utilizing the electronic functionalities.

In spite of their isolated frustrations, most of the students involved in this study

remain positive. As John commented, “Once people know how to use the technology in

the classroom, it will definitely be better than it was without the technology.”

CONCLUSIONS

All educational reforms come with at least a minimal amount of turbulence and

resistance. The Classrooms for the Future initiative is no exception. However, the

implementation process has gone relatively smoothly in the Central Bucks School

District, which is remarkable considering the scope of the project. The number of

problems reported has been far out-weighed by the positive feedback from teachers and

students.

Data suggests that the initiative is having an impact on how pedagogy is enacted

in science and mathematics classrooms. The results related to engagement are

inconclusive. However, many teachers and students believe that learners are more

engaged as a result of the grant. Finally, teacher and student attitudes seem to be

CFF Case Study 27

primarily positive, but some concerns have been raised related to problems with the

technology and use (and lack of use) by certain teachers.

Further analysis, both qualitative and quantitative, is needed to fully appreciate

the data collected in this case study. I am especially interested in which changes in the

surveys and observations were statistically significant. In addition, it may be valuable to

compare the data from West HS to the other two high schools and to the statewide totals.

After speaking with many teachers and dealing with technology issues personally, it

seems as if further research should be done on the impact of IT department policy on

learning.

CFF Case Study 28

REFERENCES

Adelman, N., Donnelly, M. B., Dove, T., Tiffany-Morales, J., Wayne, A., &

Zucker, A. (2002, March). The integrated studies of educational technology;

professional development and teachers’ use of technology (SRI Project No.

P10474). Arlington, VA: SRI International.

Becker, H.J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association. Seattle, WA.

Cuban, L., Kirpatrick, H., Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of

technologies in high school classrooms; explaining an apparent paradox.

American Education Research Journal. 38(4): 813-834.

Dun, A., Feldman, A., Rearick, M. (2000). Teaching and learning with computers

in schools: the development of instructional technology pedagogical

content knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Girod, M., and Cavanaugh, S. (2001). Technology as an agent of change in

teacher practice. T.H.E. Journal. 28: 40-45.

Peck, K., Clausen, R., Byers, C., Fidishun, D., Murray, O., & Stoicescu, C. (2007,

August 31). Is Classrooms for the Future changing teaching and learning

in Pennsylvania schools? An executive summary on CFF’s first few

months. Retrieved from http://cff.psu.edu/public/Home_files/

CFF_Y1_Eval_Exec_Summary.pdf

CFF Case Study 29

Peck, K., Clausen, R., Vilberg, J., Meidl, C., & Murray, O. (2008, September 16).

Classrooms for the Future year 2 evaluation. Retrieved from

http://cff.psu.edu/public/Home_files/CFF%20Y2%20Final%209-

16%20V2%20ExecSumm.pdf

Petrosino, A. J. (2004). Integrating curriculum, instruction, and assessment in

project-based instruction: A case study of an experienced teacher. Journal

of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 447-460.

Riel, M. (2007). Understanding action research. Center for Collaborative Action

Research. Pepperdine University. Retrieved from

http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html

Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta

Kappan, pp. 401-406

Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist

classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational

Research, 27(4), 293-302.

Tobin, K. G., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Teaching to learn. A view from the field.

New directions in mathematics and science education. Sense Publishers.