| Home | Process | Abstract | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Introduction Purpose of the Research The purpose of this study was to determine if participation in a week-long, hands-on technology integration “camp”, followed by requirements to develop and share a portfolio and create standards-based, technology-infused lessons would result in improved instructional technology practices by classroom teachers who completed the program. Research Questions • How successful is Tech Camp in helping teachers to integrate technology? • Will “Tech Camp” graduates use instructional technology more frequently and in more powerful ways than non-graduates? • What factors cause teachers to transfer what they learn in professional development sessions to their professional practice? • What factors inhibit teachers from transferring what they learn in professional development sessions to their professional practice?
Link to Review of Literature http://imet.csus.edu/imet2/nicher/review_of_literature.htm
Setting The participants were 228 K-8 teachers from a medium-sized suburban school district. They varied widely in years of teaching experience, but were all highly motivated to learn as evidenced by their willingness to give up a week of vacation time to attend the training and to commit to completing a portfolio of work over the course of the ensuing year. A pre-camp survey showed that very few had experience with using computers beyond basic word processing. Virtually none had used computers in meaningful ways with students before.
Description Teachers in this multi-track, year-round district were invited to attend a 5 day (40 hour) “technology camp” during their off-track time. Camp size was limited to twelve teachers. Teachers were offered incentives for completing the program: a computer package or a cash stipend. Immediately, applications exceeded space available. There was a waiting list for each session offered. The Facility The district provided an ideal facility for this project. Fifteen business-grade Hewlett Packard workstations with T-1 Internet access were set up in a large classroom. Twelve workstations were placed into computer tables with recessed wells for the monitors, giving excellent sight lines for the students and the instructor. Each student had a well-padded, adjustable chair. A powerful LCD projector was mounted in the ceiling and attached to the instructor workstation. Two computers were set up as scanning stations. Digital cameras, a networked printer, and AlphaSmart keyboards were available. Adjacent to the computers was a large area with tables for discussing, teaming, and eating. Meeting the Needs of Adult Learners Tech Camp was designed to have an atmosphere of fun and collegiality in order to minimize anxiety for technophobes. A typical camp day started with food and discussion. Each night, teachers had homework: articles about technology integration they must read and reflect upon in their camp journal. The following morning, campers and the instructor would meet at the tables to discuss, debate, and share our thoughts. The articles (listed in the syllabus in appendix A) introduced teachers to constructivist pedagogy via David Thornburg, Jamie McKenzie, Howard Garner, Spencer Kagan, and others. This part of the camp was intended to start planting and fertilizing a constructivist mindset in the teachers in order to help the seeds of technology integration sprout. As shown in the review of literature, teachers who embrace constructivist pedagogy are far more likely to use technology in powerful ways in their classrooms. Each day, a new skill set was introduced (see syllabus, appendix A). No skill was taught in isolation. Every example and practice task was first connected to a way that skill would be useful as a teacher tool and then, how it could be applied to enhance student thinking and learning. For example, the first PowerPoint we made together was one that could be used at a parent open house or back-to-school night. Teachers brought classroom materials so they could make it real and useful. The next PowerPoint we made together put the teachers in teams tasked with presenting information and conclusions about a question. I modeled how they might do this with students. They began on the floor with chart paper, storyboarding their projects, deciding on fonts, colors, and transitions, dividing up the work just as students would in the classroom. They used rubrics to self-evaluate their product and their process of working together. Lunch was provided by the district. The intent was two-fold. One, it helped add to the atmosphere of collegiality and fun. Two, it kept teachers from wasting time traveling out to town to eat. Lunches were an extension of the learning as teachers shared their experiences, traded ideas, and had interesting discussions about the art and science of teaching. Each camp day ended with a “wants, needs, and gots” debriefing and time to reflect on how that day’s new skills could be implemented with students. Teachers were asked to reflect on the benefits and challenges in doing so. On Thursday, teachers received their camp t-shirts to be worn the following day. At the end of camp, teachers received their incentives and had a short “graduation ceremony” where the superintendent handed out certificates and a class photograph was taken. A drawing for prizes was held. Teachers received a ticket each time they reported that they had completed their homework. The tickets went into a jar for the drawing. Some of the prizes included speakers, headphones, microphones, mouse pads, food, t-shirts, and books. Many of them were donated by local businesses. Follow-Up Support and Expectations Teacher learning was extended and supported during the follow-on year with “Alumni Days”. This was release time for teachers to share their progress, update their knowledge, and work on curriculum development. Teachers attended Alumni Days with their grade-level counterparts. They were introduced to the Wiggins and McTighe’s Understanding by Design framework for constructing units of study. Together they planned and created technology-infused, standards-based units which correlated with state standards and the National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS). The district Technology Resource Teacher also frequently met with individual teachers and coached them as they applied their new knowledge in their classrooms. More support was given via the Tech Camp Yahoo group. During the year camp graduates shared ideas, successes, and frustrations. The Technology Resource teacher offered up additional articles for discussion and debate. Camp graduates received a monthly newsletter and had access to the camp web page with links, lessons, and ideas. During the follow-on year, each teacher was required to develop a portfolio of work showing examples of how each skill set from camp was used for professional purposes and with students. The technology resource teacher met with teachers individually to review their portfolios before the presentation and offered suggestions for improvement where necessary. Teachers reunited with their cohort for a portfolio presentation ceremony. Most teachers presented work digitally and in print binders. Some brought videotape of students in action. Portfolios were viewed by the Technology Resource teacher and scored on a rubric. Teachers also turned in reflection journals kept during their year post-camp. As time went on, teachers who had passed the portfolio review began attending the portfolio celebrations to help review their peers. The portfolio review process was collegial and mostly a celebration of the growth of each teacher over the course of the year. It was mostly a “carrot” type of incentive. There was a “stick” component to it however; teachers who did not present adequate evidence of achievement could be required to return their incentives. This never did happen.
Limitations of the Study This study is limited by several factors:
Time Line
Presentation of Data The following data were collected:
Pre and Post Camp Self-Assessment Teachers were asked to rate themselves on a scale of 1 to 5 with one being “I have little or no knowledge/skill in this area” and five being “I can teach this skill/concept to others”. Prior to Technology Camp, teachers rated themselves an average of 1.68 out of five overall in the four basic areas. After camp, they rated themselves an average of 4.7 out of five (figure 1). The questions in each of the four areas (basics, professional productivity, with students, and lesson design) were based on the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for teachers and delivered via Profiler, an online survey tool. The basic NETS for teachers question template was used with minor modifications.
Teacher Portfolio Evaluations At the portfolio presentation ceremony, each teacher was evaluated by means of a rubric (table 1). Eighty-seven percent of teachers scored exemplary (table 2). Only one scored unacceptable. This was a teacher who did not complete a portfolio since she was not returning to the district. Two teachers scored "needs improvement". They worked with the technology resource teacher to improve their portfolios and subsequently scored proficient. Better than 98 percent of teachers scored proficient or exemplary. In addition, anecdotal comment from principals who observed the portfolio process supported the evidence that Tech Camp was leading teachers to use technology more often and in more powerful (constructivist) ways.
Anecdotal Evidence
Reflection Journals Teacher kept a reflection journal during camp and the follow-up year. They were asked to give their opinions about what aspects of technology-related professional development had previously inhibited them from transferring new learning into professional practice. In addition, this was a topic of comment on the Tech Camp Yahoo Groups discussion board. Table 3 shows the most common factors cited in order.
References
Most of the complaints had to do with lack of follow up support once teachers left a training and returned to their classrooms. Previous technology training typically had been a "one-shot" deal during a staff meeting, a planning period, or after school. Teachers were adamant that this almost never helped. One of the things they liked best about Tech camp was the chance to think and plan, not only during the training week but during the alumni days during the year. Still, teachers were concerned about lack of time to design their lessons and implement their ideas. That's a problem for anyone teaching in the NCLB era, one that is not easily solved. Teachers reported feeling stressed about having enough time to develop a satisfactory portfolio. They also felt in some cases that their constructivist approach to lesson design was in conflict with their campus emphasis on covering material prior to the high-stakes end of the year test. Again, no training can solve this problem for teachers. Another complaint was that previously they couldn't implement new practices because of a lack of equipment. There weren't enough computers in their classrooms to accomplish their goals or the computers could not be relied on to work. One important benefit of technology camp for the district was the district-mandated commitment by campus principals to make sure that their Tech Camp graduates were well-supported with the technology tools they needed. They had priority over teachers who had not attended camp. In addition, the school board felt confident that the training provided by Tech Camp would make a large investment in equipment pay off. They allocated significant amounts of money for computers, software, and support personnel, including technicians and stipends for campus-based mentors. Before Tech camp they had been unwilling to make that investment. Teachers were very clear about what factors encouraged them to transfer new knowledge to their classroom practice (Table 4). Time was number one on their list, closely followed by relevancy. Follow-up factors were very important. First, the requirement to produce a portfolio and a detailed curriculum piece motivated many to apply what they'd learned. Second, ongoing, readily available support allowed them to work through roadblocks and frustration Tech Camp was rated highly for its collegial, non-threatening, playful, plain language environment. The Technology Resource Teacher who led instruction was a working classroom teacher who told the teachers up front that she cared much more for curriculum and kids than machines and wires. This reduced the stress factor for many, particularly those with little prior experience with computers. Many teachers credited these factors as important to making the training "stick". Campus environment played a arge role in whether or not the training was generative according to teachers. If the campus was led by a principal who encouraged constructivist pedagogy, teachers reported that they were more likely to be able to apply what they'd learned. If the campus principal emphasized coverage of curriculum and teaching to the test, teachers had a much more difficult time.
Principal Interviews Principals were almost universally enthusiastic about Tech Camp graduates and their accomplishments. They reported that graduates were not only much more likely to use technology with students in powerful ways but that the experience of camp and post-camp activities made these teachers instructional leaders on their campuses. Tech camps graduates earned the highest ratings on the technology component of teacher evaluations. Some principals wanted to see the connection between Tech Camp and student achievement before they deemed the program a success. This was a valid concern, especially given the amount of money being spent and the resources being applied.
Reflections and Recommendations Did Tech Camp Help Teachers Integrate Technology? The evidence is strong that Tech camp had a generative effect on teachers' ability and willingness to integrate technology. The portfolio process in particular was a very concrete way to see that camp resulted in much more technology use across the district. The lessons teachers created followed the Understanding by Design model and were of much higher quality than anything that had been done before. It was enough evidence that the district decided to Fund Tech Camp II: The Integration Academy. This was an opportunity for teachers to attend a second week of training (see syllabus in appendix 3). Camp II modeled the way teachers were being taught to teach. Cooperative learning structures were used extensively. Teachers learned new skills as part of a team in centers. Understanding by Design was read and discussed in detail and teachers had another opportunity to create curriculum pieces which would become standard across the district. Teachers experienced how database activities were the perfect complement to concept attainment strategies. They created advanced multimedia products, web pages, and videos. Laptops were offered as incentives and teachers were again required to complete a portfolio and develop curriculum. In addition, they assumed responsibility for mentoring others and doing staff development at their campuses. What Should be Done Differently? 1. Include the principals and assistant principals in the training I was surprised at how much campus climate affected teachers. Principals were often were not as up to date about best practices for technology as they should be. They need the training as much if not more than teachers. Ideally, they would attend camp side by side with their teachers. 2. Develop a way to measure the effect of the training on student achievement. Have all students take a survey based on the NETS where they self-report their skill level and the frequency they use technology for different tasks. It would be ideal to look at the correlation between having a tech camp grad for a teacher, the student self-report, and the student performance on a norm-referenced test. 3. Have portfolio evaluation done by a panel of peers and administrators, not by the trainer This would not only be a less biased method, it would also allow for separation of the roles of mentor and evaluator. This evolved over time as Camp graduates attended the reviews, but it would have been better to remove the trainer from the process entirely. It would also be a means of involving and educating administrators.
Appendices A. Technology Camp for Teachers (Tech Camp I) Syllabus B. The Portfolio Requirements Letter C. Syllabus for Tech Camp II: The Integration Academy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||