Advancing Next-Generation Teacher Education through Digital Tools and Applications 9781522509653, 9781522509660, 1522509658

Citation preview

Advancing NextGeneration Teacher Education through Digital Tools and Applications Mary Grassetti Framingham State University, USA Silvy Brookby Framingham State University, USA

A volume in the Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series

Published in the United States of America by IGI Global Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2017 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Grassetti, Mary, 1956- editor. | Brookby, Silvy Ann, 1972- editor. Title: Advancing next-generation teacher education through digital tools and applications / Mary Grassetti and Silvy Brookby, editors. Description: Hershey PA : Information Science Reference, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016033548| ISBN 9781522509653 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781522509660 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Education, Elementary--United States. | Common Core State Standards (Education) | Elementary school teachers--Training of--United States. | Educational technology--United States. Classification: LCC LB1556.5 .A38 2016 | DDC 370.71/1--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016033548 This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) (ISSN: 2327-6983; eISSN: 2327-6991) British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series Jared Keengwe University of North Dakota, USA

ISSN:2327-6983 EISSN:2327-6991 Mission

As world economies continue to shift and change in response to global financial situations, job markets have begun to demand a more highly-skilled workforce. In many industries a college degree is the minimum requirement and further educational development is expected to advance. With these current trends in mind, the Advances in Higher Education & Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series provides an outlet for researchers and academics to publish their research in these areas and to distribute these works to practitioners and other researchers. AHEPD encompasses all research dealing with higher education pedagogy, development, and curriculum design, as well as all areas of professional development, regardless of focus.

Coverage

• Adult Education • Assessment in Higher Education • Career Training • Coaching and Mentoring • Continuing Professional Development • Governance in Higher Education • Higher Education Policy • Pedagogy of Teaching Higher Education • Vocational Education

IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts for publication within this series. To submit a proposal for a volume in this series, please contact our Acquisition Editors at [email protected] or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.

The Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series (ISSN 2327-6983) is published by IGI Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase individually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-higher-education-professional-development/73681. Postmaster: Send all address changes to above address. Copyright © 2017 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.

Titles in this Series

For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: www.igi-global.com

Teacher Education for Ethical Professional Practice in the 21st Century Oliver Dreon (Millersville University, USA) and Drew Polly (University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 430pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522516682) • US $190.00 (our price) Handbook of Research on Competency-Based Education in University Settings Karen Rasmussen (University of West Florida, USA) Pamela Northrup (University of West Florida, USA) and Robin Colson (University of West Florida, USA) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 454pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522509325) • US $275.00 (our price) Design Education for Fostering Creativity and Innovation in China Kin Wai Michael Siu (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong) and Giovanni J. Contreras (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 283pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522509110) • US $165.00 (our price) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education and Professional Development Christie Martin (University of South Carolina, USA) and Drew Polly (University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 740pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522510673) • US $425.00 (our price) Handbook of Research on Creative Problem-Solving Skill Development in Higher Education Chunfang Zhou (Aalborg University, Denmark) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 632pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522506430) • US $295.00 (our price) Integrating Video into Pre-Service and In-Service Teacher Training Pier Giuseppe Rossi (University of Macerata, Italy) and Laura Fedeli (University of Macerata, Italy) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 340pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522507116) • US $185.00 (our price) Collaboration and Student Engagement in Design Education Richard Tucker (Deakin University, Australia) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 411pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522507260) • US $195.00 (our price) Handbook of Research on Study Abroad Programs and Outbound Mobility Donna M. Velliaris (Eynesbury Institute of Business & Technology, Australia) and Deb Coleman-George (University of Adelaide, Australia) Information Science Reference • copyright 2016 • 898pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522501695) • US $335.00 (our price)

701 E. Chocolate Ave., Hershey, PA 17033 Order online at www.igi-global.com or call 717-533-8845 x100 To place a standing order for titles released in this series, contact: [email protected] Mon-Fri 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (est) or fax 24 hours a day 717-533-8661

Editorial Advisory Board Gary L. Ackerman, Rivendell Academy, USA Erold K. Bailey, Westfield State University, USA Ramadan Eyyam, Eastern Mediterranean University, Turkey May Hara, Framingham State University, USA Carolyn Haviland Obel-Omia, Rhode Island College, USA Tricia Kiefer, Holyoke Community College, USA Edward Lehner, Bronx Community College (CUNY), USA Sheila Sohn, Boston College, USA



Table of Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................... xv Preface................................................................................................................................................. xvii Acknowledgment.................................................................................................................................. xx Section 1 Acceptance, Access, and Inclusivity Chapter 1 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance........................................................................................ 1 Gary Lee Ackerman, Rivendell Academy, USA Chapter 2 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration.................................................... 19 Nicholas Wilson, Boston University, USA Chapter 3 Universal Design for Learning: Using UDL to Make Teacher Education More Accessible and Inclusive for All..................................................................................................................................... 38 James Cressey, Framingham State University, USA Section 2 Technology and Teacher Preparation Chapter 4 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction..................................... 61 Erold K. Bailey, Westfield State University, USA Chapter 5 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs: Research-based Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 82 Joan M. Giovannini, Holyoke Community College, USA

 



Chapter 6 Developing Digital Literacy: Preparing Next-Generation Elementary Education Literacy  Teachers............................................................................................................................................... 103 Carolyn Haviland Obel-Omia, Rhode Island College, USA Chapter 7 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education.................................. 119 Ramadan Eyyam, Eastern Mediterranean University, Turkey Chapter 8 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow.................................... 143 Oliver Dreon, Millersville University, USA Jennifer Shettel, Millersville University, USA Kevin M. Bower, Penn Manor School District, USA Section 3 The Changing Role of Digital Tools Chapter 9 From 2D Thinking to 3D Printing: Preservice and In-Service Teacher Teams Explore a New Technology........................................................................................................................................... 161 Torrey Trust, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, USA Robert W. Maloy, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, USA Suzan Kommers, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, USA Chapter 10 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter: The Role of Choice and Voice.................................................................................................................... 179 Anna Noble, Boston College, USA Patrick McQuillan, Boston College, USA Shaneé Wangia, Boston College, USA Kate Soules, Boston College, USA Chapter 11 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children......................................................... 200 Charlene Marie Jones, Wayne State University, USA Chapter 12 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs: Innovating and Researching Teacher Training................................ 218 Carlos Monge López, Universidad de Alcalá, Spain Patricia Gómez Hernández, Universidad de Alcalá, Spain



Section 4 Digital Literacy and the Changing Role of the Library Chapter 13 Let It Go: A Journey toward Elementary Student-Driven Media Production Aligned with the CCSS.................................................................................................................................................... 245 Yonty Friesem, Central Connecticut State University, USA Brien J. Jennings, Narragansett Elementary School, USA Carol Prest, Narragansett Elementary School, USA Chapter 14 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards.............................................................................................................................................. 262 Kelly Paynter, Jacksonville State University, USA Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 284 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 316 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 321

Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................... xv Preface................................................................................................................................................. xvii Acknowledgment.................................................................................................................................. xx Section 1 Acceptance, Access, and Inclusivity Chapter 1 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance........................................................................................ 1 Gary Lee Ackerman, Rivendell Academy, USA Despite efforts by school leaders, teachers, technologists, and researchers; much teaching is unchanged since the arrival of information and computer technology (ICT). The same devices that are deeply embedded in everyday life are still marginalized in many classrooms. Technology acceptance is a framework that has contributed to the development of ICT and ICT-based practices in many fields other than education. Three strategies for supporting ICT in schools that focus on increasing technology acceptance are described from the participants’ perspective. The experiences are discussed from several perspectives to both understand technology acceptance as a framework for planning in education and to identify some unanswered questions about technology acceptance that are relevant to education populations. Chapter 2 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration.................................................... 19 Nicholas Wilson, Boston University, USA This chapter explore barriers to technology integration in school-based learning environments. Recent research suggests that such barriers play a significant role in reproducing digital education inequities, otherwise known as the “Educational Digital Divide.” Indeed, barriers to integration significantly impact the frequency and purpose of technology use in the classroom, as well as students’ opportunities to develop critical 21st century skills that can be utilized for the betterment of their personal and academic lives. From a sociocultural perspective, many of these barriers implicate elements of institutional structures, as well as teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about technology and learning.





Chapter 3 Universal Design for Learning: Using UDL to Make Teacher Education More Accessible and Inclusive for All..................................................................................................................................... 38 James Cressey, Framingham State University, USA Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework for curriculum and instructional planning through which educators can maximize accessibility and minimize barriers that are often experienced by learners. Teacher educators are in a unique position to introduce UDL to future elementary teachers and support them in developing inclusive pedagogical methods early on in their careers. While Common Core State Standards can guide educators in what to teach, UDL provides a framework for how to teach. Education technology tools are used extensively within UDL to make curriculum materials more accessible and engaging. In this chapter, the UDL framework will be described along with many specific applications within elementary teacher education. Section 2 Technology and Teacher Preparation Chapter 4 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction..................................... 61 Erold K. Bailey, Westfield State University, USA The purpose of this paper is to share an approach articulating how learning theories can be used to inform computer technology in classroom instruction. This report is based on a course introducing student teachers to using cutting-edge computer technology in their future classrooms. An analysis of three exemplary responses to course assignments revealed that student teachers demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of how to apply the behaviorist, cognitivist, and constructivist theories of learning to computer technology for classroom instruction. This chapter also provides ideas about how students and educators can contribute to the development of educational apps that can support teaching and learning. Chapter 5 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs: Research-based Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 82 Joan M. Giovannini, Holyoke Community College, USA The integration of technology in K-12 education is highlighted in the ISTE Standards, Common Core State Standards Initiative, and Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Preservice teacher education must reevaluate how technology integration is approached, examining preservice teacher attitudes and competencies toward instructional design and technology use. Recent studies indicate that, while preservice teachers demonstrate a high level of understanding of technology tools, they do not integrate those tools naturally into classroom settings for lesson delivery, assessment and classroom management. In a world of rapidly changing technology tools, preservice teacher education must develop an instructional and philosophical approach that identifies challenges and opportunities for technology integration in teaching and learning. This chapter provides an overview of research that explores the integration of educational technology in preservice teacher education. It provides emerging recommendations for design and redesign of those programs.



Chapter 6 Developing Digital Literacy: Preparing Next-Generation Elementary Education Literacy  Teachers............................................................................................................................................... 103 Carolyn Haviland Obel-Omia, Rhode Island College, USA Teacher education programs are increasingly responsible for preparing teachers who use technology fluently across curricula. Future teachers must define literacy more broadly than they have in the past to include digital modes of reading and writing. Experience with digital tools in literacy methodology courses provides opportunities for teacher candidates to reflect critically on these tools, preparing teachers to use technology to its advantage in elementary school classrooms. This chapter describes four digital practices designed to engage teacher candidates in participating in and reflecting on authentic reading and writing to develop next-generation literacy teachers. These practices include examples of activities that can be adapted to both teacher preparation and elementary education classrooms. Chapter 7 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education.................................. 119 Ramadan Eyyam, Eastern Mediterranean University, Turkey This study examined whether technology-enhanced classrooms enhanced students’ learning despite their various dominant intelligences and learning styles. For this purpose, a comprehensive investigation was used to verify whether and in what ways students benefit from technology-enhanced classrooms. As the research design, a cross-implementation experimental method was developed for the study by the researcher. Lesson plans and materials were prepared for English and mathematics subjects considering Gagne’s nine events of instruction and Bloom’s taxonomy. The Technology-enhanced Classroom Perception Scale and a standardized open-ended interview were prepared to examine the perceptions of both students and teachers. In the end, some interesting differences were found between the treatment and control groups, although they were not significant. One of the most important reasons for this might be the positive attitudes of English teachers in general but negative attitudes of mathematics teachers towards technology-enhanced classroom. Chapter 8 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow.................................... 143 Oliver Dreon, Millersville University, USA Jennifer Shettel, Millersville University, USA Kevin M. Bower, Penn Manor School District, USA This chapter examines the results from ongoing research of an authentic, problem-based learning (PBL) project. Embedded in an instructional technology course, the project was designed to help preservice teachers develop technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) necessary to successfully incorporate digital tools and applications in elementary classrooms. The project partnered the preservice teachers with local elementary school classrooms where they served as instructional designers to develop digital media in support of a flipped classroom initiative. Results indicate that the semester-long PBLbased assignment significantly impacted the preservice teachers’ TPACK development in several critical areas and can serve as a model for advancing next generation teacher education. Overarching themes that emerged and recommendations for future research are offered as well.



Section 3 The Changing Role of Digital Tools Chapter 9 From 2D Thinking to 3D Printing: Preservice and In-Service Teacher Teams Explore a New Technology........................................................................................................................................... 161 Torrey Trust, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, USA Robert W. Maloy, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, USA Suzan Kommers, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, USA Riding the wave of increasing popularity and declining costs, many schools are buying 3D printers. However, while this technology has the potential to transform teaching and learning, it remains an open question how teachers and students will use this new technology. To date, 3D printing has no agreed upon set of best practices and there are no definitive set of research findings to guide the implementation of 3D printing in school settings. In this chapter, the authors present the results of an action research study exploring how teams of preservice and in-service teachers learned to integrate 3D printing into their lesson planning and instructional practices. The authors highlight two case studies that provide an in-depth look at how preservice and in-service teacher teams implemented a 3D printing lesson plan. Based on the findings, the authors provide recommendations for supporting teachers’ use of this innovative new technology to redesign teaching and learning. Chapter 10 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter: The Role of Choice and Voice.................................................................................................................... 179 Anna Noble, Boston College, USA Patrick McQuillan, Boston College, USA Shaneé Wangia, Boston College, USA Kate Soules, Boston College, USA Too many U.S. high schools are ineffective institutions—nurturing neither the growth and enrichment of students nor that of teachers. To understand these failings, at least in part, one needs to realize that many schools are anonymous, demeaning institutions for students and teachers alike. While there is no simple panacea for the challenges facing secondary school teachers and students, student-centered teaching holds considerable promise, offering a means to enrich learning while empowering both students and teachers. Despite this promise, in the current context teachers face formidable constraints to enacting such practices. Nonetheless, some teachers balance mandated curricular goals with student interests, creating learning environments where student choice and student voice figure prominently. The case studies in this chapter offer a sense for how this can occur, to the betterment of both teachers and students. And in these instances, teachers’ use of Twitter networks contributed notably to these outcomes. Chapter 11 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children......................................................... 200 Charlene Marie Jones, Wayne State University, USA This chapter contains information found in literature surrounding online education in K-12 settings. It offers a description of the terminology, a brief history and evolution of online education, issues with the use of online education, and influences supporting online tool usage. Despite support for online tools



in K-12 settings, empirical research shows discouraging results related to such usage. Considering this discrepancy, this chapter suggests that implementation of online tools be executed by an informed user. Thus, it is necessary to acquire a clear understanding of the terminology and characteristics of online tool delivery before implementation. Also, educators are to be aware of student’s and teacher’s learning and teaching experiences online to be able to offer an optimum educational setting. Being cognizant of participant’s exposure to online programs can provide helpful suggestions, like the importance of parental involvement, the relevance of socialization for learning, and the influence of literacy in promoting a stable foundation for successful implementation. Chapter 12 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs: Innovating and Researching Teacher Training................................ 218 Carlos Monge López, Universidad de Alcalá, Spain Patricia Gómez Hernández, Universidad de Alcalá, Spain The main aim of this research is to understand future teachers’ attitudes, knowledge and needs about Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). These courses are a supplementary resource in Higher Education that can fill fields of knowledge in which the curriculum could not encompass. In addition, these types of courses can contribute significantly to teachers, both in initial and in-service, training. For this reason, the students’ perspectives towards MOOCs are essential in these terms. In this way, fundamentally a questionnaire was administered to the students in the Degree in Teaching of Childhood Education, Degree in Teaching of Primary Education, and Masters Degree in Teacher Training of Secondary Education (n=145). The results indicated that a large part of the sample confirmed that they did not know anything about MOOCs. Therefore, Universities need to train competent future teachers in MOOCs culture. This chapter provides insights into the topic of advancing next generation elementary teacher education through digital tools and applications. Section 4 Digital Literacy and the Changing Role of the Library Chapter 13 Let It Go: A Journey toward Elementary Student-Driven Media Production Aligned with the CCSS.................................................................................................................................................... 245 Yonty Friesem, Central Connecticut State University, USA Brien J. Jennings, Narragansett Elementary School, USA Carol Prest, Narragansett Elementary School, USA This case study introduces a two-year process in which a fourth grade teacher working with a library media specialist experienced a successful integration of digital and media literacy practices. During that time the fourth grade teacher adopted a less protectionist approach by having her students explore different multimedia production projects to enhance their learning in social studies. This book chapter introduces the process of both the fourth grade teacher as she explored new instructional strategies to incorporate media production and the Common Core State Standards and the library media specialist as a support team member. The standards index and its media production application can help educators integrate media production into their classrooms. This case study can help promote media production activities as they foster 21st century skills in elementary students.



Chapter 14 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards.............................................................................................................................................. 262 Kelly Paynter, Jacksonville State University, USA This chapter addresses the benefits and synergies that the elementary classroom teacher and the school library media specialist (LMS) experience when collaborating in the planning, differentiation, and assessment of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), with an emphasis on the role of technology and information literacy. General reasons for teacher/LMS collaboration; specific reasons for collaboration on the CCSS; technology integration; and physical space and instructional flexibility form the key concepts of discussion. Tables present specific CCSS that the LMS is uniquely qualified to teach to students. The chapter concludes with practical recommendations for district personnel, school-based administrators, LMSs, classroom teachers, and preservice teachers. Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 284 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 316 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 321

xv

Foreword

With their book, Mary Grassetti and Silvy Bookby provide a valuable contribution to education, sharing a myriad of perspectives for how and why technology should and can be authentically integrated into classroom instruction. Why focus on such a methodology? Why should it be deemed valuable? Clearly many technologies have become part of our everyday lives. For example, recently, I was walking my dog on a Saturday afternoon and, Joe, a neighborhood kid came up to me and excitedly asked, “Hey, did you see me on Facebook for St. Baldricks? Did you see me?” I didn’t get a chance to answer before he said, while racing his hands across his reddish blond buzz-cut, “Feel my hair! Feel my hair!”. I complied, and he said, “Isn’t it cool? I donated my hair to help kids with cancer! I’m going to do this again next year!” He then raced off to play kickball with his friends. Joe’s story highlights that children have much to tell us, including what they value and can contribute to their world. Joe’s excitement was overflowing, and his act of kindness, and those of others, had been spread throughout the community on Facebook! Facebook, Twitter, texting, email…the list of recent communication technologies is endless. Yet, sadly, in today’s schools, students’ voices are quieted and their contributions are greatly limited, and their use of technology, which could empower student voices and increase their abilities, is often nonexistent. Walk into any public school classroom and you will most likely see students sitting quietly at desks in rows, listening to a teacher. Technology is not about computers and other instruments, but “about how we use them and what we find out when we do” (Fellows & Parberry, 1993). Along with communication, we can use technologies to compose ideas; record observations; make precise measures; design and construct structures and tools; create art; and gather information. Today, we are able to quickly acquire up-to-date information on the Internet, as we try to answer the questions that come to mind about current events, historical facts, places and locations. We can learn about the kinds of birds that we see and hear, the weather that is approaching—there’s an app for that! Technological tools allow for detailed and precise measurements (height, speed, light intensities, pH, etc.) and the creation of graphs and tables based on these measures. How might students use such technologies to better understand what they are investigating and communicate findings to others? From personal experiences, today’s teachers may be knowledgeable about how to use some technologies, however they may not know how use them to aid students in their learning. As a science teacher educator, I believe that it is important to model for teachers a way of teaching that they can bring to their classrooms. It is not enough to tell teachers about technology integration, educators need to experience how their own science learning is enhanced with technological tools and so, how it could be useful to their students. 

Foreword

At my first university position, a graduate student offered to support my learning of new technologies and the use of them in my science methods course. As a result, preservice teachers’ communication of their science investigations of plant growth included rich, detailed descriptions--including graphs, tables, photographs and drawings--that they easily shared with peers via presentation software. With funding, I was later able to add probes to the technological tools used by my students and to employ a support person to help me. My research and experience has shown that once teachers (like myself) are provided with professional development, see the effectiveness of an approach with their students, and are provided with ongoing support, they work feverishly to incorporate new methodologies in their classroom practices (Davis, 2003). The chapters Grassetti and Bookby have included in this book provide teacher educators and classroom teachers with a fertile field of ideas for what might work to strengthen their students’ learning. It is a timely contribution! As it is, new and evolving national and state standards call for continued use of technologies to foster children’s learning. Keeping educators abreast of what they may integrate effectively into their instruction to increase students’ learning is of vital importance. Kathleen S. Davis University of Massachusetts – Amherst, USA July 24, 2016

Kathleen S. Davis is now retired from her 17-year position at the University of Massachusetts Amherst where she was Associate Professor of Science Education. Her publications and research focus on issues of equity in science and science education, teacher education, technology and online education, and policy and reform. She has published manuscripts in various journals, including Science Education and the Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Kathleen’s funded projects include STEM Connections (GK12), Science Education Online, and S2TLC: Supporting STEM Teaching through Learning Communities--all sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Each project served to engage K12 science teachers in inquiry and reform-based practices. Before her work at the university level, Kathleen taught 5th-8th grade science for 18 years in Illinois.

REFERENCES Davis, K. S. (2003). “Change is hard”: What teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3–30. Fellows, M. R., & Parberry, I. (1993, January). SIGACT trying to get children excited about CS. Computing Research News.

xvi

xvii

Preface

As teacher educators, classroom teachers, and students continue to navigate the ever-changing technology landscape, it is critically important to examine how digital tools and applications will impact the next generation of teacher education and classroom teaching. Educational professionals at all levels must continue to learn about digital tools and applications and how each impacts the teaching and learning experience. Encompassed in that learning is the need for thoughtful and meaningful assessment of digital tools and applications readily available to classroom teachers and students. Sorting through the digital possibilities, choosing the correct tool or application, and successfully implementing its use in the classroom is a timely and in many cases costly endeavor. Teacher educators as well as classroom teachers must put forth much sustained effort into this process, as the ever changing technology landscape around them will continue to advance and become increasingly complicated. With this backdrop in mind, this book aims to highlight the experiences of teacher educators, classroom teachers, and students as each learns to navigate the ever changing educational technology landscape. The roles that teacher educators and classroom teachers play in the successful implementation of technology as well as the positive and negative consequences of various technologies are explored through several lenses and chapters in the book. The various chapters also aim to capture what has been learned up to this point in the digital explosion that has infiltrated classrooms. Educators at all levels wrestle with the balance between staying current with the newest digital tools and applications and using technology in a meaningful manner to enhance the learning experience for all students. This book will serve as a resource for educational professionals as they navigate this challenging and ever-changing technology landscape. Digital tools, applications, learning styles, and the role state and national standards play in the implementation of these technologies are explored in dedicated chapters. The goal of the book is to provide a wide range of information to most educational professionals interested in staying current with the issues and challenges associated with applying the latest technologies in the classroom.

SECTION 1 Section 1, “Acceptance, Access, and Inclusivity,” explores the impact of technology on classrooms through the lenses of technology acceptance; barriers to technology integration; and inclusive pedagogical practices. In Chapter 1, Ackerman examines information and computer technology (ICT) through a technology acceptance framework. Ackerman outlines three strategies that support ICT acceptance in schools. In Chapter 2, Wilson explores, through a sociocultural lens, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about technology and learning. Wilson then highlights the barriers to technology integration in school-based 

Preface

learning environments and how such barriers reproduce digital education inequities in US schools. In Chapter 3, Cressey outlines Universal Design for Learning (UDL), a framework for curriculum and instructional planning and how teacher educators can assist preservice teachers in using UDL to develop inclusive pedagogical methods. Cressey further examines how UDL and educational technology can be used to make curricular materials accessible to all students.

SECTION 2 Section 2, “Technology and Teacher Preparation,” focuses on the preparation of new teachers and examines ways to support their use of technology to enhance the learning environment for all students. In Chapter 4, Bailey presents an overview of three major learning theories: behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism and describes how these theories can inform preservice teachers about the use of digital tools and technologies to support instruction, aid in classroom management and assessment, and assist students with special needs. In Chapter 5, Giovannini, discusses preservice teacher licensing programs with pertinent recommendations for implementing educational technology into preservice teacher preparation programs. In Chapter 6, Obel-Omia advocates that future teachers define literacy more broadly to include digital literacy into their reading and writing schema. To assist preservice teachers in broadening their current conception of literacy, Obel-Omia offers four digital practices that foster preservice teachers’ ability to participate in and reflect upon digital technology as a means to enhance the teaching and learning experience for both teachers and students alike. In Chapter 7, Eyyam provides an international perspective with a study examining the relationship between learning styles and technology enhanced classrooms in North Cyprus. Lastly, in Chapter 8, researchers Dreon, Shuttle, and Bower examine how embedding problem based learning (PBL) into technology education helps preservice teachers develop technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Results of their research indicate that integrating PBL into an educational technology course significantly impacts preservice teachers’ TPACK.

SECTION 3 Section 3, “The Changing Role of Digital Tools,” provides a forum of chapters detailing how digital tools and applications are changing the face of education. The first chapter examines the role of 3D printers in the classroom, the next describes how Twitter can provide students with choice and voice in the classroom, another explores the impact of online classrooms in the K-12 setting, while the final chapter examines the cultural shift required for understanding and participating in a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). In Chapter 9, Trust, Maloy, and Kommers posit that the innovative technology of 3-D printing has the potential to transform the entire teaching and learning process. They point out, however, that a set of “best practices” with regard to 3-D printing has not yet been defined. The authors’ action research project suggests that there are multiple ways to support new and innovative teaching practices with the exciting possibilities that 3-D printers have to supplement study for both teachers and students. In Chapter 10, Noble, McQuillan, Wangia, and Soules, focus their research on student-centered teaching practices using digital tools and applications. The authors highlight several case studies in which Twitter can be harnessed to connect student voice and choice with teacher lead curricular goals. Jones, in Chapter 11, xviii

Preface

outlines online course terminology, highlights the evolution of online learning in K-12 education, and provides an overview of the characteristics of online delivery tools. In Chapter 12, Monge-Lopez and Gomez-Hernandez present research that details how preservice teachers’ lack of knowledge regarding Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) limits their ability to tap into MOOCs as a supplementary educational resource for professional development.

SECTION 4 Section 4, “Digital Literacy and the Changing Role of the Library,” contains two chapters examining the connections between classroom teachers, librarians, and 21st century digital tools and applications. In Chapter 13, Friesem, Jennings, and Prest describe a two-year study of the successful integration of digital and media literacy practices. In Chapter 14, Paynter examines how a classroom teacher and a school library media specialist collaborated to include information technology and literacy in an elementary classroom. Paynter clearly connects the collaborative process to digital literacy and the Common Core State Standards and provides concrete recommendations about how schools can leverage the lessons learned from her study. To summarize, this book explores multiple aspects of the changing role of digital technology and its impact on education from the prospective of teacher educators, classroom teachers, media and library specialists, and indeed from elementary through college age students. The book explores how that change is affecting schools and schooling in the United States and abroad. The variety and scope of digital technologies is growing and the next generation of teacher educators and classroom teachers must critically engage with advancing technology. The goal is not only to advance the teaching and learning process, but also to enhance this process in a meaningful way for the benefit of both teachers and students. Mary Grassetti Framingham State University, USA Silvy Brookby Framingham State University, USA

xix

xx

Acknowledgment

We would like to acknowledge the many individuals who worked tirelessly to see this project through to completion, especially the authors, reviewers, and editorial advisory board for without their support this book would not have become a reality. Our sincere appreciation goes to each author who contributed their time and expertise to this book. We thank you for your timely submissions as well as for your willingness to revise and resubmit your work based on reviewer and editor feedback. We wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the reviewers regarding the improvement of quality, coherence, and content of each chapter. Many of the authors also served as referees, and we sincerely appreciate their double task. We would like to thank the editorial advisory board for their comments and suggestions as to the ordering of chapters and section organization. We appreciate their efforts in seeing this project to completion. Lastly, we would like to thank to Dr. Kathleen Davis for taking the time to write the forward for this book. We are grateful for her insights and appreciate her time and expertise. Mary Grassetti Framingham State University, USA Silvy Bookby Framingham State University, USA

 

Section 1

Acceptance, Access, and Inclusivity

1

Chapter 1

Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance Gary Lee Ackerman Rivendell Academy, USA

ABSTRACT Despite efforts by school leaders, teachers, technologists, and researchers; much teaching is unchanged since the arrival of information and computer technology (ICT). The same devices that are deeply embedded in everyday life are still marginalized in many classrooms. Technology acceptance is a framework that has contributed to the development of ICT and ICT-based practices in many fields other than education. Three strategies for supporting ICT in schools that focus on increasing technology acceptance are described from the participants’ perspective. The experiences are discussed from several perspectives to both understand technology acceptance as a framework for planning in education and to identify some unanswered questions about technology acceptance that are relevant to education populations.

INTRODUCTION Within two decades of the invention of the first electronic digital computer, information and computer technology (ICT) arrived in schools. Its arrival marked a structural deepening (Arthur, 2009) of schools as it added to the existing systems for teaching and learning. Since the late 1970’s computers, software, and network devices have been installed in schools only to be replaced with more sophisticated devices within a few years. In the 21st century, schools in the United States have low student to computer ratios, the computers access the Internet via broadband connections, and wireless networks are available so mobile devices owned by the school and owned by individuals are connected as well (Snyder & Dillow, 2013). Early in the history of electronic educational technology, it was established that availability is not sufficient for it to be an effective tool for curriculum and instruction (Cuban, 1986). Teachers’ competence using the systems, their understanding of its role in the classroom, and their confidence in the reliability of the systems are all factors that influence the degree to which they include it in their teaching plans (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997; Schofield, 1995). Professional organizations have responded by developing expectations for students (NETS Project & Brooks-Young, 2007) and educators (International Society for Technology in Education, 2008), and educational technology continues to focus much research (Hsu, Ho, Tsai, Hwang, Chu, Wang, & Chen, 2012; Hwang, Chu, Yin, & Ogata, 2015; DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch001

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

Lee, Waxman, Wu, Michko, & Lin, 2013). Political and educational leaders, including those who are responsible for implementing Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), recognize the role of ICT in teaching and school as well (Watters, 2014). In the environment of rapidly evolving infrastructure and similarly evolving need to support professional learning, school leaders have implemented multi-dimensional systems to support technology in schools. Technicians and system administrators ensure ICT is secure, updated, and remains functional; training is offered to ensure faculty and staff can operate new devices and software, and teachers are provided with professional development opportunities to help them integrate ICT into curriculum and instruction. In many jurisdictions, school leaders are required to create long-term technology plans, and educators must demonstrate competence with ICT to obtain and maintain teaching licenses. All of these factors necessitate comprehensive technology support systems in all schools. Despite the efforts of local leaders to provide reliable ICT systems and the efforts of professional organizations and education researchers to inform technology decision makers in schools, there is evidence that much teaching resembles that which occurred prior to the arrival of the ICT (Hew & Brush, 2007; Ladbrook & Parr, 2015; Lee et. al., 2013). The slow progress in modifying curriculum and instruction to reflect the emerging ICT-rich world has been a theme in the educators’ professional literature for decades. In 1994, Papert suggested a teacher from 100 years earlier would find classrooms familiar. A decade after the World Wide Web was invented; Pflaum (2005) and Seiter (2005) found the Internet was available in schools, but it was largely distracting students. Pearson and Somekh (2006) suggested most ICT-based teaching was designed to increase the efficiency of direct instruction rather than to engage students in alternative learning activities. Lee et. al. (2013) concluded that the greatest effect of ICT on cognitive outcomes occurred when learners are engaged in creative and collaborative activities rather direct instruction, but direct instruction is still the dominant ICT-based pedagogy. In the same decades that ICT changed how we conduct our economic, political, and social lives (Benkler, 2006), schooling appears to be little changed because of it. In reviewing the literature regarding ICT systems, one will frequently encounter technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) as a framework that focuses the research. In proposing TAM, Davis observed that information and computer technology “offers the potential for substantially improving white collar performance,” but that “gains are often obstructed by users’ unwillingness to accept and use available systems” (Davis 1989, p. 319). In defining TAM, Davis sought to identify those factors that increase the likelihood that users make the choice to use technology. When it was first elucidated, TAM posited perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are positively associated with the intention to use technology. In the years since, more sophisticated models of technology acceptance have been elucidated; and through these models, technology acceptance continues to focus much research and guides designers of devices, interfaces, and ICT-rich practices. In this chapter, the author describes technology acceptance, specifically the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003), as a framework to design the ICT support systems that are necessary in 21st century schools. First, technology acceptance is presented as a model to explain and predict observations in ICT-rich organizations. Second, several practices that appear to have increased technology acceptance in K-8 populations are presented and described through the experiences of the participants. Finally, several themes that appear to emerge from this exploratory research are identified and explained.

2

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

UNIFIED THEORY OF ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are factors that are consistently supported by TAM-based research, and these constructs continue to be refined as well. In 2000, Venkatesh and Davis deconstructed perceived usefulness into job relevance, quality of output, and results demonstrability. This suggests the ICT one believes will improve efficiency or efficacy is more likely to be used. Venkatesh and Davis also found social influences affect technology acceptance; users demonstrate greater acceptance of technologies that are used in social groups with which the user identifies. Hsu and Chang (2013) proposed perceived convenience as a factor positively associated with acceptance of online learning. Other factors including experience (Lee & Kim, 2009) and perceived value (Turel, Serenko, & Bontis, 2007) have been identified as factors that influence technology acceptance by moderating perceived usefulness. Scholars recognize the use of technology as a human behavior that is affected by the perceptions of the individual; different individuals may perceive different ease of use and different usefulness in same technology. This complicates the work of scholars who seek to understand the phenomena and it complicates the work of designers who create ICT systems to accomplish strategic and logistic goals of organizations. Further complicating the application of TAM are the observations that other aspects of personality including self-efficacy (Wang & Wang, 2009), cognitive style (Pitcuch & Lee, 2006), attitude towards computers (Teo, 2007) and motivation (Schaik, 2011) appear to influence the intention to use technology. Because these moderating effects are ambiguous, many researchers use TAM in conjunction with other models when designing research methodology and proposing hypotheses (Atif, Richards, Busch, & Bilgin, 2015). In 2003, many models were being used to predict and explain technology use, so researchers consolidated eight theories, including TAM, into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003). According to UTUAT, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influences are positively associated with the intention to use technology and facilitating conditions are positively associated with the behavior of using technology (see figure 1). Further, four factors (gender, age, experience, voluntariness of use) are indirectly associated with the intention to use technology.

Figure 1. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology Adapted from Venkatesh et al., (2003).

3

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

Performance expectancy is grounded in job fit, relative advantage, and quality of outcomes. When technology use is either voluntary or compulsory, individuals show greater acceptance when it is associated with greater effectiveness in accomplishing desired or necessary tasks. Effort expectancy is grounded in users’ perceptions of ease of use, so greater ease results in greater effort expectancy. Social influences include both the social norms of a group with which the user identifies as well as the beliefs of individuals who are valued by the user. Facilitating conditions include those aspects of “the technological and/or organizational environment that are designed to remove barriers to use” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 453), and those typically include availability of trained technicians, sufficient numbers of devices, adequate budgets, and similar structures. In summary, individuals tend to use ICT they believe is easy to use, will help them perform important tasks, that others expect them to use, and that are well supported. In addition, leaders can reasonably predict that steps taken to increase technology acceptance will increase the use of technology within an organization. Especially within populations of educators, several conditions complicate how the factors associated with increased technology acceptance are understood and experienced, so clear definition of the constructs is difficult. Consider, for example, educational outcomes and performance expectancy. Those mathematics educators who believe learning is measured by students’ performance on tests of computation are likely to perceive skill building software to increase performance expectancy. Those mathematics educators who believe learning is demonstrated through performance on authentic tasks (Herrington, Oliver, & Reeves, 2014) and problem solving are likely to perceive the same software with lower performance expectancy. Consider, also, social influences. An educator may find conflict between the social influences of his or her social peers who encourage and expect technology use and the influences of experienced colleagues who minimize its importance in teaching. Compared to the number and range of problems that have been studied using technology acceptance in business and industry, technology acceptance has been less used by educational researchers. Increasingly, however, technology acceptance is used to “establish scientific knowledge about how to get the best out of educational technology” (Davis, 2011, vii). Teo (2011) further observed that much time is used to plan and prepare to integrate technology; so clear frameworks are needed to guide this work, and technology acceptance provides the necessary framework. Efforts to use technology acceptance in education include validating instruments for measuring technology acceptance in relevant populations (Ackerman, 2012; Teo & Noyes, 2008). The following sections illustrate how UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) has been used to design support systems in schools.

STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE Technology support is the result of purposeful planning by school leaders. The strategies described in this section emerged from exploratory research investigating the experiences of educators who engaged in that planning. In each case, a school leader articulated the desire to expand and enhance how technology affected teaching and learning; he or she wanted ICT to be used for a greater number of learning activities or wanted the ICT to improve the learning environment. Once a particular problem was isolated and defined, the school leaders either invited the author or accepted the author’s offer to identify strategies to solve the problem that were framed in terms of technology acceptance. Defining the details of how each strategy was to be instantiated was assigned to a group of professionals within the community. Once the school leader deemed the strategy was sufficiently developed and that it addressed factors associated 4

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

with technology acceptance, it was formally introduced to the faculty and staff that would experience it. During the introduction, UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) was introduced and the leader articulated which factors he or she intended to influence through the new procedures or system. The qualitative data reported in this chapter originated in documents created during each planning process including memoranda, email, and other communications, records of meetings, journals kept by participants, and training materials. In the initial data set, there were records of 10 projects that were designed and implemented in seven different schools. Of the 10 projects, three had been implemented in more than one school, and those three projects became the focus of this study. The documents available from those three projects were read by two researchers and selectively coded (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) for effort expectancy, performance expectancy, social influences, and facilitating condition. The data in the original documents were supplemented by telephone interviews conducted with each participant whose ideas were used in this chapter. During the interview the participants were asked to reflect on the project and to provide insight gained in the time since the project was originally undertaken. The schools in which these strategies were implemented are all public schools located in rural areas in the New England states in the northeastern United States. The grade configurations varied, and most of the initiatives extended across multiple buildings to include educators responsible for kindergarten through grade 12. The strategies were part of on-going strategic planning practices in the schools and several were coincidently the focus of instructional design projects of interns working in the schools or action research projects for educators who were completing master’s degrees.

Planning Cycle To ensure systems used for teaching and learning remain highly functional, technicians configure ICT so that users are restricted in which resources they can access and what changes they can make to the devices. In organizations that comprise adult users who have very specific data and resource needs and reasonably well-developed keyboarding and language skills, security and other policies that ensure high functionality pose little obstacle to technology acceptance. In educationally relevant populations, the same practices that protect the functionality of ICT used by information workers who are adults can interfere with technology acceptance. Gerry, the principal at a secondary school, along with the other school administrators on the leadership team recognized there were inconsistencies between the ICT needs identified by teachers and those identified by the technology coordinator for the school. Gerry observed, “We have a skilled network administrator, but our teachers are not always sure exactly what they need, then the network administrator makes things way too difficult, but when we try to fix it we seem to not agree about what needs to be done.” In an effort to resolve this and increase technology acceptance, especially through improving the effort and performance expectancies, Gerry and his colleagues developed the technology planning cycle summarized in figure 2. As Gerry summarized it, “We want things to be simple and to do what we want without having to fight with it.” The technology planning cycle begins with technicians designing systems to meet the need as they understand it. The extant technology, budget and other resources, and the skills and experience of the technicians are all important determinants in how the system is designed. Once the system is implemented, the technicians explain how it is to be used to the teachers, students, and other users. All users have an obligation to understand and follow the procedures, so the system is used in the manner it was designed. If teachers and students find the design is suboptimal, they describe how the system is interfering with 5

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

Figure 2. Technology planning cycle

effort expectancy or performance expectancy. Technicians then redesign the system to reflect the changes that teachers indicate are necessary. After debating the appropriate entry point into the cycle, Gerry’s team decided to have a formal presentation from the network administrator about the existing system, so they entered the cycle by understanding how the technicians had designed the system. At the same meeting where the design was explained, the leadership team explained to the network administrator the planning cycle they were implementing, along with the expectation that changes would increase students’ and teachers’ effort expectancy and performance expectancy. When teachers returned to school a few weeks later, the planning cycle was explained to them. Specifically, they were told to express technology problems in terms of effort and performance expectancies. The first situation in which the planning cycle was used began when a mathematics teacher reported that her students could not access the student information system, thus the online grade book, from the laptops distributed as part of the one-to-one initiative in the school. Gerry asked the network administrator to investigate the problem, but he immediately told Gerry, “I want to make sure students don’t ‘hack’ their grades, so [the SIS] cannot be accessed through the wireless network assigned to students. Teachers’ laptops are on the administrative network which can access [the SIS].” After confirming with teachers they were unaware of this limitation, Gerry directed the technology coordinator distribute a memo that clarified, “students can check their grades from home, or they can use a teacher’s laptop to check grades from school.” When the memo was shared, the second step of the planning cycle had been completed; the network administrator had designed the system with the limits he felt were necessary, and he had informed users how to operate it. After one month of using the “connect from home” or “check grades on a teacher’s laptop” solutions, the faculty reported several difficulties to Gerry. The list included, “excessive time to rotate all students through checking grades on our laptops during class” and “students who most need information about their grades are least likely to have access to the Internet from home.” When Gerry asked a group of students about checking their grades, they all agreed with the student who said, “I don’t bother, but I would if I could do it quickly from my laptop at school.” Gerry concluded the current configuration needed to be changed.

6

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

In the memo he sent to the network administrator directing the network be changed to allow students to access the SIS, Gerry noted, “I understand your concerns about this change, but the current configuration makes the system so difficult to use that it is not useful to students.” He also referred to the rationale used to justify the investment in the SIS several years earlier, “easy access to grades should improve students’ performance.” The network administrator did change the configuration so that the SIS was available to users from all of the networks in the school, including the one reserved for students’ laptops. A review of the system logs indicated students did access the SIS more often after the system was reconfigured. No data were collected regarding changes in students’ performance, and the increased number students accessing the SIS can also be attributed to renewed commitment among the teachers to dedicate time in class for students to access the SIS in a concerted effort to reduce the number of missing assignments that were adversely affecting their grades. Another example of how the technology planning cycle affected a reconfiguration of an ICT system to increase effort expectancy comes from the experiences of Donna’s students. Donna is a teacher of the primary grades who has the reputation using diverse and differentiated methods. Her students are frequently in the computer room available to her students, and she rotates students through activities that required the computer and others that do not. Specific to computers, Donna indicated, “I want my students to be able to get on the computer and working quickly and independently when that is their starting spot.” To accomplish that goal, Donna convinced the technology coordinator to add a generic user with which all students could log on using only three keys. Donna explained, “Even my [students] who can’t read yet are be able to get on the computers with no help.” One July, a server was updated, and the generic user name was removed from the network. The technicians who completed the upgrade had left written directions for creating new students accounts at the school, but the pages had been lost as the school year started. When Donna and her students first arrived in the computer room, they were unable to log on with the generic user name, and she was unaware of the new procedure. Once she obtained the directions, Donna attempted to lead her students through the new log on procedure, which necessitated most students to key more than 20 characters. She was unsuccessful, however, and she noted to the principal, “Many of my students are just learning to read, and they are unfamiliar with the keyboard, so long usernames and complex passwords prevent them from quickly logging on without help.” The principal was reluctant to direct the technology personnel to make changes to the system, “After all,” she said, “I am a teacher at heart, and if the tech guy tells me it needs to be this way, I don’t know any different.” After Donna continued to complain that her students could not access the computers with the new usernames and passwords, the principal decided to be present in the computer room when Donna’s students were next scheduled to be there. After she observed students’ struggles to log on, the principal convened a meeting of the technology coordinator along with the teachers, and after some negotiation, the group decided on a scheme whereby students could more easily (and independently) log on to the systems, but each used unique credentials. After more than one year of framing technology infrastructure and configuration support needs in terms of technology acceptance, Gerry observed, “When we talked about technology at faculty meetings, I used to hear endless griping about how stuff was never fixed. The technicians stuck to their plans and were reluctant to modify things. Of course [teachers] were not articulate about what they wanted or needed.” He contrasted that with the meetings after introducing technology acceptance,

7

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

Now, we have a target that everyone understands. If teachers or students tell me something is hard or complicated, we know what needs to be changed and we know things are not fixed until they are easy to use. Teachers also know the standard for purchases or upgrades. They need to explain how new tools will be useful in their courses. Gerry also indicated that school leaders where playing a more active role in managing technology decisions, “The administrative team is very talented, but none of us are technology experts, so we had little choice but to accept what the tech people said.” Gerry described how the cycle supports his decisionmaking, “With this model, I know who to listen to at any point, and I can ask questions that help me understand where in the cycle the breakdown is happening, so I know what steps to take.” In the cases of both Gerry and Donna, UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) provided a method for evaluating the ICT systems. Significantly, in both cases the educators appear to have been empowered by the variables identified as relevant in UTAUT. Donna observed, “Teachers may not know how to set up networks, but we do know if they work for us, and easy and useful are things we can see and talk about.” The constructs of effort expectancy and performance expectancy created a meaningful vocabulary with which educators could explain how functioning ICT was dysfunctional from their perspective.

Reflexive Curriculum Design The term reflexive was first used to describe the interactions between social scientists and their subjects. It was reasoned that the presence of scientists affected the subjects’ behavior thus the observations made by the researcher. In recent decades, reflexivity has been used to describe the influences between technology, people, and their pattern of information use and social interaction (de Vanjany, 2008). New hardware and software make new patterns of information use and interaction possible, and as the technologies are used, the new patterns contribute to further research and development, which leads to new technologies. In an initiative begun by Linda, the curriculum director for a school district comprising several schools, a group of K-8 teachers developed a process they called “reflexive curriculum design” (see figure 3). In the email inviting teachers to participate, Linda stated the purpose was to “update the lessons and units for new standards so that new technology is essential.” She further explained her rationale, “We have a good foundation of technology skill, and I did not want to loose that as we changed the focus of professional development to the new standards.” By specifying, “The lessons we develop will depend on a previously unused technology to accomplish something previously not taught,” Linda identified improving the performance expectancy of the ICT as a goal of the work. Dave, Chris, and Jason are three educators who participated in this reflexive curriculum design project. Dave works as a librarian in two school buildings; between the two schools, he serves the students in all grades K-12 in the town where the schools are located. With a renewed focus in the curriculum on non-fiction texts, he was adding non-fiction to his collections and he was asked to support research projects for students in several grades as part of the reflexive curriculum design initiative. Dave observed, “Keeping track of references can be a real pain, and we all know students are do not do a good job citing their sources. I see it all the way through high school.” When designing a research project for fifth and sixth grade students, he recommended introducing students to an online tool for creating bibliographic references. While the system they selected did not explicitly restrict access to users as young as these students, Dave and his colleagues developed a plan whereby the library assistant would collect and manage the references for all students. When students were ready to compile their 8

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

Figure 3. Reflexive curriculum design

references for their paper, they arranged to work with the library assistant to move the items from the online database to the individual’s paper. Reflecting on the first experience using online bibliography tools with students, Dave observed, “Every student had a complete reference section in his or her paper, which has never happened before! Our procedure was a little slow, because everyone went through [my assistant’s] account, but it worked out.” Dave also noticed a much different attitude among the students compared to other research projects, Previously, the students were encouraged by teachers to be sure they wrote down the information regarding their sources first, and we saw students taking time with those details rather than reading and taking notes on the articles. With the online system, students would read and take notes, then have [my assistant] put it in the database. They focused on the ideas, not the citation. They also saw getting their references from the database and into their papers as a sign they were done, so they were motivated to take that last step. Since that first experience, Dave has continued to work with that cohort of students. He described how the students immediately asked about the site they had used in middle school and began creating their own online bibliographies and compiling references when they were given research assignments early in their high school careers. As part of the reflexive curriculum design project, Chris added several experiments designed specifically to extend and reinforce concepts taught in mathematics curriculum to his middle school science classroom. In one experiment, students record performance on seemingly silly tasks (for example the “cotton-ball shot put”). Students plotted performance on the tasks versus individuals’ height to explore correlation as part of the data analysis that was the focus of the lesson. Chris decided to have students plot the graphs using a spreadsheet, and he distributed a spreadsheet template with a scatter plot already inserted and configured to show the regression line (called the “best-fit line” by Chris and his students) on the plot. As students transcribed the data from their notebooks to the spreadsheet, the points were plotted and the regression line updated to reflect the new points. Students were asked to pay particular attention to the line as the data were plotted, and they shared what Chris perceived to be very sophisticated observations. For example, one student noted, “When the first few points were added, it moved a lot, but it hardly changed at all with the last few points.” Chris commented on the data analysis demonstrated by his students,

9

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

Seeing the best-fit line grow as they added data seemed to make it stick with kids. I haven’t taught best-fit line in years, because, they never really got the idea when they would just draw the line with a ruler on a paper graph. I noticed they even played a little to see if they could change the slope. This would not be possible without the spreadsheet. Jason teaches fourth grade in a small rural school, and for several years his students completed a study of the local community. “It has become a feature of our spring open house,” said Jason, “but we were starting to run out of ideas for making it interesting.” When new computers arrived in his school and they were far better than the computers his students had access to previously, Jason explored Google Earth. For the “our town” project that year, Jason helped students create virtual tours of the town. Jason also incorporated mathematics lessons into the study and used to the tools in Google Earth for this purpose. “Students chose different properties, including farms and the state-owned forests in town, and mapped them. We ended up with interesting shapes to measure and compare.” Jason invited Linda to be in the classroom when his students were preparing to share their work for the open house. In her notes made during that visit, Linda observed, “students checking definitions in the textbook.” Linda further explained that observation, “I was struck by the independence and enthusiasm with which students were checking their work. They cared enough to be sure it was correct and they checked their steps by looking in the book rather than checking with the teacher.” To complete the reflexive relationship between the curriculum that was designed and the technology that was available, Linda convened a meeting of the teachers who participated in the curriculum development and the technology planning committee for the district. Chris described how he had to delay his graphing activity because he needed access to laptops with a full spreadsheet application installed to use the regression line feature. Increasing the number of computers with the full spreadsheet available in Chris’ school is an example of the reflexive effects that the new curriculum exerted on the ICT in the schools that resulted from the discussion about the technology capacity necessary to fully implement the activities designed during the reflexive curriculum project.

Curriculum Repository Pam is a sixth grade teacher who has taken a leadership role in her district’s curriculum evaluation and redesign efforts in recent years. “We discovered that sharing ideas was the key to our success,” she explained. Because her district comprises schools that are separated by more than 10 miles, “working together during the day was not going to be possible, and professional development days were scheduled with other initiatives. We needed to find more time to work together, but the usual options were not possible.” Pam and her fellow teachers brainstormed with the author to develop a curriculum repository; it was designed to be an online space for educators to upload, download, revise, and reload instructional materials; exchange tips and strategies for using the materials, share ideas for organizing discussions, and otherwise provide support to peers and colleagues. The repository was built using the learning management system (LMS) maintained primarily for the high school students and their teachers in the district. The repository was designed to resemble the open educational resource communities in which several student teachers associated with the faculty had participated, “We were guided by the four-R’s when we planned the repository,” explained Pam. She was referencing reuse, revise, remix, redistribute, the four principles used by advocates of open educational materials (Hilton, 2010) to describe what users of the resources are allowed to do with materials created by others. 10

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

As a leader in the curriculum repository project, Pam was a frequent user of the site and a contributor. Pam, observed, “I know to look for certain things from certain teachers. Carol always posts good skillbuilding sites, and Stephanie has great discussion questions, but Amy always seems ahead, has tried the activities with kids, and has good tips.” She attributes the value of the repository to her confidence the materials will be appropriate for her curriculum goals. Comparing the resources on the local curriculum repository to those on an open education community open to all, Pam commented, “Our site is much more specific. If I get something from OER, it takes time to find it and edit it, but the stuff on our site is exactly what I need.” In this character, the curriculum repository appeared to provide greater job fit, thus greater performance expectancy than the other open education sites used by Pam. The curriculum repository appears to have exerted social influences, and the social influences appear to have originated from the teachers. “When we have district curriculum meetings, we go right to the repository, and we all know it better than the administrators. It is a grassroots kind of thing.” She further commented on the efforts of teachers to build the system. “When the new special educator was hired, we made sure she could log on and we helped her add to resources to it before she did anything else.” Pam also described how using the repository improved her own technology skills. “They had been trying to get me to use the LMS with my students, but it always seemed to be more work than it was worth.” After using the site to post and access curriculum materials and also participate in both synchronous and asynchronous discussions, Pam began using the LMS with her students, “I am pretty tech-savvy, but until I got really good at using it, I did not use it with students. Once I could get stuff into my [virtual classrooms] with a couple of clicks, I started posting everything there.” Pam’s enthusiastic participation in the curriculum repository suggests she has accepted it, and her acceptance appears to have been affected by multiple factors: She perceived the resources to be useful, as she expanded her use of the LMS after she found it easier to use, and she expected her colleagues to participate as well. Not all of the teachers in Pam’s school district reacted with similar acceptance, however. The principal at Pam’s school participated in several meetings at which district administrators discussed the curriculum repository. She noted, “We identified three groups of teachers: Those who were active contributors uploading and downloading and discussing frequently, those who just downloaded, and finally, those who uploaded once, then never logged on again.” The leadership team discovered the groups were not evenly distributed. The contributors tended to work in the same buildings, and the one-time-up loaders tended to work together in other buildings, and the downloaders where scattered throughout.

DISCUSSION The three strategies described in this chapter illustrate the several dimensions of a comprehensive system to provide technology support in schools; the planning cycle addressed infrastructure support, reflexive curriculum design addressed student activities, and the curriculum repository addressed educators’ professional learning. In the case, school and technology leaders, along with teachers and other educators, were able to use UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) as a framework for designing technology support practices. Because these were created to address local problems, they were informally evaluated based on the needs and questions of local leaders and practitioners, and all data were collected in a manner that accommodated local circumstances. For multiple reasons, the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Hoepfl, 1997) of the qualitative data cannot be assessed. This is not interpreted a 11

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

limitation of the research, however, as the intent was to explore the influence of technology acceptance on practical planning decisions and designs and and to identify emerging research problems.

Planning for Wicked Problems In 1973, Rittel and Webber, scholars of design theory and city planning, differentiated wicked problems and tame problems. While both types of problems can be complicated and morally challenging, tame problems are those that can be easily isolated and solved and there is consensus regarding solutions. Wicked problems, on the other hand, are hard to define; result from uncertain causes; and lack consensus regarding definition, cause, or resolution. Mechanical systems that are designed for a particular purpose and that can be tested before they are deployed are examples of solutions to tame problems solved with objectively evaluated solutions. Wicked problems include a social element and solutions are not implemented until humans experience them. Cultural, perceptual, and motivational factors make clear definition and completeness of a solution impossible to know with certainty, and the quality of the solution can only be subjectively evaluated. Buchanon (1992) suggested the wicked nature of problems arise “because design has no special subject matter of its own apart from what the designer conceives it to be” (p. 98). In these circumstances, Buchanan suggested designers identify relevant guidelines for solving similar problems that have been defined by scholars, but then translate those guidelines into hypotheses and systems that meet the local circumstances. In each of the strategies, we see how the general principles of technology acceptance were instantiated to reflect local needs and resources and solutions were designed and implemented accordingly. Problems of ICT support in schools appear to be affected by unusual circumstances. First, the design and development of ICT projects typically begin as a technology problem (Richey & Klein, 2014), which can be approached as a tame problem and solutions are engineered to provide functioning ICT. In the cases of Gerry and Donna, however, it can be observed that technologists designed operational ICT, but they failed to recognize the needs of school populations, so solutions deemed satisfactory by technologists were unsatisfactory to teachers and students. This appears to suggest technology management in schools must be an iterative process. Through successive design iterations the guidelines of technology acceptance are reassessed in light of the changed ICT, the capabilities and perceptions of the users, and the goals to be accomplished. Those who solve wicked problems often impose stopping rules so that solutions do no consume excessive resources, but school ICT appears to be a planning problem that necessitates perpetual attention. When analyzing the process of designing systems for ICT-based teaching and learning, Tracey (2015) found successful teams participate in iterative processes that are marked with collaboration and decisive leadership. In the process she described, “collaboration with prototyping resolved questions regarding the feasibility of existing ideas in the design” (p. 106), but the prototype only came into existence through leaders directing next steps. Gerry experienced this while he was trying to convince the network administrator to make the SIS available to students. The network administrator believed that opening the SIS to students posed a serious security risk to the data, so he was reluctant to make the changes that were requested. As a school administrator, Gerry was in a position with sufficient authority that he directed the network administrator to make the changes. While the technology planning cycle is only weakly developed, it appears consistent with the design of solutions to wicked problems. In combination with locally relevant definitions for effort expectancy and performance expectancy, the planning cycle appears to provides an heuristic with which the gen12

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

eralizations contained in UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) can be applied to the design of a technology support system that improved the degree to which ICT serves students’ needs.

Indirect Factors Leading to Technology Acceptance When first elucidated, UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) posited four factors were indirectly associated with technology acceptance: gender, age, level of experience, and voluntariness of use. The school leaders who participated in these projects suggested those factors are not useful in predicting or explaining technology use among K-12 faculty, and they are not useful in helping them develop support systems to increase technology acceptance. Over time, professional educators have become experienced users regardless of age or gender, and voluntariness of use is a complicated factor as well. School leaders recognize that compliance can motivate initial use of technology, but individuals who do not internalize the rationale for using technology are unlikely to continue or expand its role in the classroom. Linda, the curriculum coordinator who initiated the reflexive curriculum design project, made a statement that seemed to resonate with others, “Every teacher needs to know what technology can do and when it is the best option, and this requires they understand it deeply. Through professional learning, we want to make teachers want to use technology.” This motivated Linda’s effort to focus on reflexive curriculum development. Linda appears to be describing a factor that resembles cognitive engagement, and it may be relevant to technology acceptance in educational populations. Blumenfeld, Kempler, and Krajik (2006) suggested cognitively engaging environments are those in which a learner both values the activities and ideas, especially by relating the activities to those that are related to his or her experience, and feels competent to complete the tasks. We can reasonably expect cognitively engaging technology would also be accepted, as value and relevance are similar to performance expectancy and competence is similar to effort expectancy. Autonomy is another factors related to cognitive engagement, but it does not appear to be accounted for in technology acceptance. Blumenfeld, Kempler, and Krajik (2006) define autonomy to include the “perception of a sense of agency” (p. 477), which arises from awareness and understanding of problems and solutions, as well as capacity and authority to implement solutions. The teachers who argued for opening access to the SIS in Gerry’s school exerted agency when they identified a change that was necessary and advocated for the change. The educators who were active in both the reflexive curriculum design and curriculum repository projects were also exerting agency as they were expected to implement the lessons in their classrooms. Given the observations of Huang (2007) and Stefaniak (2015) that autonomy and agency are associated with active learning, it is reasonable to conclude that teachers who are learning “know what technology can do and when it is the best option,” which is Linda’s stated goal for her teachers will find autonomous professional learning most effective when they are developing useful technology in light of new curriculum expectations. The relationship between teachers, technology, and autonomy in the classroom appears to be little studied. Compared to users of ICT for other purposes, users of ICT in educational settings do appear to require greater autonomy (Hu, Clark, & Ma, 2003; Teo, 2011), as educators generally are more independent users of ICT and use a greater variety of applications and data sources than information workers in other fields, and they are more likely than other business users to test new applications and data sources for usefulness. There is evidence that teachers may exert limited autonomy with regards to regarding instructional practices (Range, Pijanowski, Duncan, Scherz, & Hvidston, 2014), however. There appears 13

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

to need to further define, elucidate, and investigate the role of autonomy as a facilitating condition or as a moderating factor on performance expectancy.

Understanding and Measuring the Factors Practitioners are increasingly approaching their work from the perspective of researchers (McKenny & Reeves, 2014; Richey & Klein, 2007) and they are applying more formal approaches to school planning than they did previously. School leaders are approaching school planning with purposeful actions, as they use theory to predict and explain observations, and they gather data to support decisions. As a planning model, UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) provides a framework to focus planning and design and interpret data collection. Technology acceptance incorporates several factors, but how these factors are instantiated in schools and how different stakeholders understand them is constantly changing. This necessitates educators continuously refine definitions and measurements of factors related to technology acceptance. Specifically, the situations reviewed in this chapter indicate effort expectancy and performance expectancy are dynamic factors within communities. Consider steps taken to prevent the intentional or accidental disruption of ICT systems. Technicians and network administrators deploy a wide range of hardware and software protections, and they also establish barriers to prevent unauthorized access to systems and to prevent unauthorized changes to systems. While technicians perceive these as steps to provide stable and secure systems and to improve the effort expectancy of managing the systems (and these are necessary characteristics of functional systems), some steps deemed reasonable and necessary by technicians may make the systems unusable for instructional purposes. Conflicts that can arise from these differences are exacerbated if educators do not have permission to make (or even recommend) changes to ICT configurations. Bereiter (2002) suggested the most effective professional organizations focus planning around conceptual artifacts, which are clearly understood definitions of the goals of the organization. In education, it is not unusual for definitions to be broadened to facilitate compromise; this does threaten the quality of decisions by weakening conceptual artifacts, however. By clearly defining effort expectancy and performance expectancy as observable actions when teachers and students are using ICT, these factors will become conceptual artifacts and changes to ICT be evaluated by observing users after the changes have been made. When fully developed, conceptual artifacts can be used to create both formal and informal instruments for assessing relevant factors in a more objective manner than is possible when assessment and evaluation is based exclusively on the subjective measures typically available to designers of solutions to wicked problems. Perceived usefulness is a factor that is especially prone to change as curriculum expectations change within any jurisdiction. Because schools are political organizations, they react to changes in leadership in school buildings, central offices, as well as political changes at the local, state, regional, and national levels. Combined with the many subject areas in which curriculum has been defined, the work of evaluating perceived usefulness must be conducted in the same iterative manner that effort expectancy is improved and refined with the planning cycle. Curriculum design that follows the reflexive process initiated by Linda will be further complicated by the outside influences as teachers or technicians discover new ICT devices and new software and those are integrated into the curriculum. The changes that influence perceptions of usefulness within educational populations are likely to change quickly for individual and groups as well, so systems that cannot adapt to circumstances in days or weeks rather than months or years will be regarded as less useful by educators. 14

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

CONCLUSION Many stakeholders are concerned with the degree to which technology benefits teachers as they design learning activities to facilitate development of the learning embedded in the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Technology acceptance is a concept that has contributed to understanding of and design of ICT and ICT-based practices in many organizations, and it has provided a framework for educational technology research. In this chapter, several instances in which it was used to design diverse ICT support systems for K-8 educators were described. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003) appears to explain and predict the results of decisions and actions intended to improve the function of ICT in schools. As the model is refined and scholars further elucidate how the factors are realized in educational populations, it will be more accurate and valuable tool for school and technology leaders.

REFERENCES Ackerman, G. (2012). Measuring technology acceptance: Adapting an instrument. Paper presented at the New England Educational Research Organization Annual Conference, Portsmouth, NH. Aitf, A., Richards, D., Busch, P., & Bilgin, A. (2015). Assuring graduate competency: A technology acceptance model for course guide tools. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(2), 94–113. doi:10.1007/s12528-015-9095-4 Arthur, B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Blumenfeld, P., Kempler, T., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learning Science (pp. 475–488). New York: Cambridge University Press. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. doi:10.2307/1511637 Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008 Davis, F. (2011). Forward. In T. Teo (Ed.), Technology acceptance in education (p. vii). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. de Vaujany, F. (2008). Capturing reflexivity modes in IS: A critical realist approach. Information and Organization, 18(1), 51–72. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2007.11.001

15

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, A. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed.; pp. 401-412). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_32 Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5 Hilton, J. III, Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four Rs of openness and ALMS Analysis: Frameworks for Open Educational Resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(1), 37–44. doi:10.1080/02680510903482132 Hoepfl, M. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education 9(1). Accessed September 5, 2015, http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/ v9n1/hoepfl.html Hsu, H., & Chang, Y. (2013). Extended TAM model: Impacts of convenience on acceptance and use of Moodle. US-China Education Review, 3(4), 211–218. Hsu, Y., Ho, H., Tsai, C., Hwang, G., Chu, H., Wang, C., & Chen, N. (2012). Research Trends in Technology-based Learning from 2000 to 2009: A content Analysis of Publications in Selected Journals. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 354–370. Hu, P., Clark, T., & Ma, W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227–241. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00050-8 Huang, H. (2007). Predicting knowledge construction in the web-based learning environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(4), 431–440. Hwang, G., Chu, H., Yin, C., & Ogata, H. (2015). Transforming the educational settings: Innovative designs and applications of learning technologies and learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 127–129. doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.998863 International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education. Ladbrook, J., & Parr, J. (2015). Designing student learning for a networked world. In C. Koh (Ed.), Motivation, Leadership and Curriculum Design (pp. 161–172). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978981-287-230-2_13 Lee, S., & Kim, B. (2009). Factors affecting the usage of intranet: A confirmatory study. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 191–201. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.007 Lee, Y., Waxman, H., Wu, J. Y., Michko, G., & Lin, G. (2013). Revisit the effects of teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 133–146. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2014). Educational design research. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed.; pp. 401-412). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/9781-4614-3185-5_11

16

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author. NETS Project, & Brooks-Young, S. (2007). National educational technology standards for students (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education. Papert, S. (1994). The children’s machine. New York: Basic Books. Pearson, M., & Somekh, B. (2006). Learning transformation with technology: A question of sociocultural contexts? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4), 519–539. doi:10.1080/09518390600773353 Pflaum, W. (2004). The technology fix: The promise and reality of computers in our schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Prituch, K., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 48(2), 222–224. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007 Range, B., Pijanowski, J., Duncan, H., Scherz, S., & Hvidston, D. (2014). An analysis of instructional facilitators’ relationships with Teachers and Principals. Journal of School Leadership, 24(2), 253. Richey, R., & Klein, J. (2014). Design and development research. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed.; pp. 141-150). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/9781-4614-3185-5_12 Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730 Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Schaik, P. (2011). Unified theory of acceptance and use for web sites used by students in higher education. In T. Teo (Ed.), Technology acceptance in education (pp. 159–182). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-487-4_9 Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571268 Seiter, E. (2005). The Internet playground: Children’s access, entertainment, and mis-education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Group. Snyder, T., & Dillow, S. (2013). Digest of education statistics 2012. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Stefaniak, J. (2015). Promoting learner-centered instruction through the design of contextually relevant experiences. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. W. Tracey (Eds.), The Design of Learning Experience (pp. 49–62). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_4 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1991). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

17

 Strategies to Increase Technology Acceptance

Teo, T. (2007). Perceived importance, enjoyment, and anxiety as correlates of computer attitudes. Psychological Reports, 100(1), 127–135. doi:10.2466/pr0.100.1.127-135 PMID:17451015 Teo, T. (2011). Technology acceptance research in education. In T. Teo (Ed.), Technology acceptance in education (pp. 1–5). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-487-4_1 Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2008). Development and validation of a computer attitude measure for young students (CAMYS). Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2659–2667. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.006 Tracey, M. (2015). Design team collaboration with a complex design problem. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. W. Tracey (Eds.), The Design of Learning Experience (pp. 93–108). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_7 Turel, O., Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2007). User acceptance of wireless short messaging services: Deconstructing perceived value. Information & Management, 44(1), 63–73. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.10.005 Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. Wang, W., & Wang, C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 761–774. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.021 Watters, A. (2014). How will the ed-tech industry shape student reading? Knowledge Quest, 43(1), 16–21.

18

19

Chapter 2

Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration Nicholas Wilson Boston University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter explore barriers to technology integration in school-based learning environments. Recent research suggests that such barriers play a significant role in reproducing digital education inequities, otherwise known as the “Educational Digital Divide” (Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, Barron, & Kemker, 2008). Indeed, barriers to integration significantly impact the frequency and purpose of technology use in the classroom, as well as students’ opportunities to develop critical 21st century skills that can be utilized for the betterment of their personal and academic lives. From a sociocultural perspective, many of these barriers implicate elements of institutional structures, as well as teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about technology and learning.

INTRODUCTION The proliferation of smart phones, tablets, and laptop computers over the past decade has accompanied a growing interest in implementing these tools in classroom instruction, particularly for large scale initiatives such as one-to-one device and ubiquitous computing programs (Zucker, 2004). While commonly heralded as an advance for education, there has been a mounting concern within the education research community that such programs impact students’ classroom experiences and digital skills in ways that exacerbate learning inequalities (Sims, 2014; Warschauer, 2004; Wilson, 2014). As reports that the digital divide is narrowing with regard to children’s access to computational tools and the Internet (no doubt in part to the expansion of one-to-one computing in schools), research over the past few years indicates that inequities persist among children’s uses of digital tools, as well as their technological capital (Zhang, 2010). Indeed, the literature shows that youth from urban, disadvantaged, and marginalized communities continue to experience fewer and less-empowering opportunities than their more affluent counterparts to DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch002

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

develop highly-valued technology skills, particularly in school (Barron, Walter, Martin, & Schatz, 2010; Hohlfeld et al., 2008). These and other reports, accordingly, have inspired skepticism among education researchers that technology can serve as a panacea for pedagogical reform, or for improving students’ learning outcomes. Despite commonly held beliefs that the use of digital media and computers in the classroom can make subject matter content more interesting or relevant, and therefore motivate students of all backgrounds to learn, barriers to effective technology integration make realizing the social and educational benefits of learning technologies difficult to actualize. For this reason, digital education research has shifted focus away from issues of access to physical and virtual resources, and instead towards the social and cultural factors that impact youths’ digital learning experiences. The purpose of this summary is to examine a body of selected literature from this small but growing field, that discusses two overarching issues regarding digital education inequities: (1) barriers to technology integration in school-based settings, and (2) the expansion of youths’ action possibilities and opportunities for learning through different uses of technology and digital media.

21st Century Learning and the “Use Divide” Evidence that youth use technology and media for very different purposes outside of school than in the classroom has led education scholars to examine how new models of instruction can engage students’ in academic pursuits across the disciplines through the use of technology (Warschauer et al., 2004). Some, as a result, have called for significant changes to the predominant model of schooling, arguing that teachers should focus on equipping students with a range of abilities that reflects a more modern, technology-enriched approach to learning, such as “21st Century Skills” (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010). Such skills encompass a wide range of competencies related to digital communications, data gathering and analysis, and multimedia design – all of which require opportunities to rehearse fundamental skills and uses of technology for a variety of purposes. The influence of this call can now be observed in the increasing rate of broadband networking and student computing programs implemented across U.S. educational institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), as well as the aforementioned growth in one-to-one laptop initiatives. Yet while access to learning technologies has thus improved in remote, underfunded, or historically disenfranchised communities, research suggests that students across these settings use digital media and technology for more “consumer” than “producer”-type activities than wealthier or more advantaged students (Subramony, 2007; Warschauer, 2004; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). This so-called “use divide” has led many in the learning technologies research community to claim that a new generation of digital inequality is taking place, centering on youths’ ability to use digital media and technology to “create, design, build, explore, and collaborate” rather than “simply use technology to consume media passively” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Such claims have brought much needed attention to the myriad factors that influence educational technology use, such as the quality and effectiveness of technology integration in the classroom – factors that, arguably, original conceptualizations of the digital divide did not account for. To be sure, when it was first coined in the 1990s, the term digital divide centered primarily on disparities in individuals’ access to technology and the Internet (Clinton & Gore, 1996). As such, many of the solutions such a problem framed around access alone inspired, were often tied to the quantity of resources, supports, or learning activities, suggesting that more technology and technology infrastructure could ameliorate social inequalities tied to digital education. Since that time, however, the term has been newly adopted to describe both the wide disparity in the quality technology-integrated curricula avail20

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

able to youth from differing socioeconomic communities, as well as the connection of these curricula to youths’ personal pursuits (Barron et al., 2010; Hohlfeld et al., 2008). Indeed, studies increasingly highlight the effects digital inequity on youths’ social capital (Mouza, 2004) and technology literacy development (Subramony, 2007), arguing that the dearth of technology integration training for teachers and lack of social infrastructures to support effective integration into instruction (Bielaczyc, 2006, 2012) may be at the root of the problem. Such issues extend well beyond access to computers and the Internet, and instead point to the influence of sociotechnical factors on students’ technology-mediated learning experiences, such as educators’ attitudes towards technology, and their pedagogical beliefs (Harris 2010; Mouza, 2004; Warschauer et al., 2004; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). What these arguments share is a hinting at the need to foster and support teacher change, in addition to providing robust and usably technology. While access to technology is a fundamental steppingstone to overcoming digital education inequities, factors such as school culture and teachers’ technology integration practices also have significant impact on students’ opportunities to engage with technology in ways that support their academic achievement and personal growth (Anthony & Clark, 2011; Warschauer et al., 2004, Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Effective technology integration thus represents complex, nuanced challenges that comprise significant divisions among students’ digital education experiences (Hohlfeld et al., 2008). As increasing numbers of schools integrate new, personalized, mobile, and computational technologies into their classrooms at a larger and larger scale, scholarship in the Learning Sciences has taken focus on these issues through the lens of qualitative and ethnographic approaches to better understand how children from disadvantaged communities can enjoy the same opportunities to develop digital literacies, participate in culturally-relevant activities, and acquire 21st century skills as their more affluent peers.

The Educational Digital Divide In an attempt to encompass the various underlying mechanisms affecting students’ opportunities to learn about and with technology, some scholars have proposed new theoretical models to represent current understandings of the digital divide. Hohlfeld and colleagues (Hohlfeld et al., 2008), for example, represented a model of the divide that describes three inter-dependent, hierarchical levels of disparity that impact digital equity in schools: technological infrastructures, technology-mediated teaching and learning practices, and student empowerment. Figure 1 depicts this model as a pyramid. The width of each level indicates the relative proportion the issue within the overall scope of digital inequity, hence, the bottom-most layer (School Infrastructure) is both widespread in scale, and foundational to disparities experienced at narrower, more developed levels of technology implementation, such as use of technology for instruction, and individual student use of technology for personal empowerment. Hohlfeld et al.’s (2008) model may be interpreted as follows: the most fundamental level of disparity in terms of digital inequity among schools is inequitable access to technology resources such as computers, Internet service, and support. Upon securing the infrastructure that is necessary to provide equitable access to, and support of educational technology in the curriculum, schools next face the challenge of ensuring that teachers and students use technology resources frequently, and for meaningful educational purposes. Disparities in access to technology-savvy or constructivist-oriented teachers thus encapsulates some of the inequity covered in this second tier of the digital divide. Other factors that support students’ uses of technology at this level include tasks that encourage authorship and autonomy, such as digital

21

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

Figure 1. 1Hohlfeld, et al.’s model of the educational digital divide

media production and information analysis, rather than tasks that may be considered more “consumptive” in nature (Subramony, 2007; Warschauer, 2004). Research also suggests that students’ technology uses of technology in the classroom are largely contingent on teachers’ comfort with technology, as well as the institutional rules governing certain appropriate uses of computers (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). For this reason, the second tier of Hohlfeld et al.’s model also implicates socio-structural mechanisms that might influence the effectiveness of teachers’ technology integration strategies. These not only include norms around how technology is used by students (as an add-on at the end of class, or for more central learning activities), but the frequency with which that technology is used by students and teachers for learning, and the objectives of that use (e.g., content delivery, rote drill and practice, information gathering and research, game-playing, critical analysis of media content, etc.). The quality of technology, the amount of time spent using it, and the depth of technology-mediated learning activities all contribute to students’ technology skills development, and thus comprise a foundation upon which the third tier, individual empowerment, is constructed. “Empowerment of Students” in Hohlfeld et al.’s model refers to students’ ability to employ technology for “the betterment of their quality of life” (Hohlfeld et al., 2008, p.1650) – a decidedly broad definition. In a large sense, however, this tier refers to students’ abilities to utilize technology resources to achieve personal goals. As Hohlfeld’s model indicates, such an ability is contingent on having a fluency with technological resources, as well as an understanding of how those resources can be used in service of goal-driven pursuits. The “Empowerment of Students” divide therefore represents the disparity among youth to harness available technologies for academic, economic, or personal growth. Indeed, such disparities have become increasingly common findings in research and public discourse surrounding digital inequities, appearing in the literature as a “Second Digital Divide” or “Use Divide” (Sims, 2014; Warschauer, Zheng, Niiya, Cotten, & Farkas, 2014). Hohlfeld et al. suggested that the extent to which technology integration empowers students to become authors of their own academic and personal lives thus represents a level of division that on one end of the spectrum, endows students with the capacity to use technology for change, and on the other, limits students’ technology learning experiences to routine, often pre-defined instructional tasks. It is

22

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

therefore useful to consider what influence social structures and cultural practices surrounding the use of technology for learning and instruction have on student agency and empowerment. As Hohlfeld et al. suggest in their model, such factors may reside at the level of classroom technology integration.

The Second Level of the Digital Divide: Classroom Technology Integration Belland (2009) defined technology integration as “the sustainable and persistent change in the social system of K-12 schools caused by the adoption of technology to help students construct knowledge (e.g., research and analyze information to solve problems)” (p. 354). Arguably, such “sustainable and persistent change” relies on knowledgeable teachers infusing technology into instruction to meet a variety of learning and pedagogical goals, both content- and skills-related (Warschauer et al, 2004). Under such a charge, technology integration in itself represents a complex and dynamic process – one which requires instructors to effectively design and execute the appropriate methods and strategies required to achieve their instructional goals, but also enact the necessary changes to classroom life that afford students the opportunity to engage in learning that makes meaningful use of technology. If for only this reason alone, effective technology integration thus requires that teachers have access to a wide range of technical and social supports to develop, maintain, and adjust their instructional methods and strategies as learning technologies continually evolve. In an effort to identify just what such supports might entail, researchers have closely examined teachers’ technology integration practices, and factors that influence those practices. Hew and Brush (Hew & Brush, 2006), conducted a large-scale review of available studies relating to technology integration. In their report, Hew and Brush argued that teachers’ technology integration practices could be categorized according to the varied roles technology played in particular learning tasks, and the ways in which technology shaped the end products of those tasks. Examples of these categories include: “(a) replacement, (b) amplification, or (c) transformation” (Hew & Brush, p.227). Replacement, Hew and Brush described, means to literally use technology in place of an existing “analog” technique, without altering the substance of the task. An example of such might be to use presentation software to project text onto a whiteboard or projector screen, rather than writing the same text with chalk or marker on the classroom chalk- or whiteboard. Amplification, alternatively, refers to an increase in task efficiency through the use of technology, but again without an actual alteration of the task. An example might be using a word-processing template to create several copies of a form letter, as opposed to handwriting each individual copy. Transformation, finally, involves the use of technology to “go beyond” what would otherwise be impossible or unrealistic in an analog context. According to Hew and Brush (2006): [The] use of technology as transformation has the potential to provide innovative educational opportunities (Hughes, 2005) by reorganizing students’ cognitive processes and problem-solving activities (Pea, 1985). For example, students can use computer databases and graphing software as tools for exploratory data analysis, data organization, and for framing and testing hypotheses related to the data. Many teachers have not been exposed to transformative technology-supported-pedagogy because professional development activities have focused primarily on how to merely operate the technology. (p.228) Other taxonomies of technology use, such as Puentadura’s (2009) SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition) follow a similar logic, suggesting that certain activities and tasks require differing levels of sophistication or higher order thinking than others. Unsurprisingly, then, research on 23

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

learning technologies and digital equity has taken a concentrated turn towards examining the conditions and factors that impact students’ opportunities to engage in more sophisticated, or transformative, technology tasks in the classroom. As mentioned earlier, a growing body of research suggests that youth from socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, indeed, are afforded fewer opportunities to engage in, and develop the skills necessary to perform, more transformative uses of technology. Studies hint, as well, that student agency and empowerment suffer as a result of this comparative lack of opportunity. For this reason, scholars have attempted to identify the range of barriers students and teachers face when it comes to engaging in transformative technology activities, or to effective technology integration.

BARRIERS TO TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION Legitimate assumptions to make as to why not all technology integration practices or tasks are “transformative,” would be that such uses of technology are by definition, more difficult to implement, as they require teachers to have a thorough level of knowledge and/or skills to incorporate them into classroom instruction (Hew & Brush, 2006). Yet perhaps more complexly, scholars note that other barriers related to institutional structures may also negatively affect how, when, and for what purposes teachers and students use technology. Indeed, recent studies detailing barriers to technology integration suggest that factors such as: 1. Expected behavioral norms for students interacting with technology in the classroom, 2. Teachers’ and students’ epistemological assumptions about what “counts” as evidence of learning, and 3. The institutional rules surrounding the use of technology all have a significant effect on how technology and digital media-based learning experiences are implemented (Anthony & Clark, 2011; Hew & Brush; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). In terms of digital education inequities, these barriers represent important concerns that have the potential of limit the frequency with which technology is used in the classroom, as well as how different uses of technology may empower students to become agents of change. As discussed in turn below, such barriers include teachers’ knowledge and skills about technology and its transformative uses, institutional pressures associated with assessment culture and frequent high-stakes testing, and teachers’ personal attitudes and beliefs about technology (Anthony & Clark, 2011; Hew & Brush, 2006).

Issues Related to Teachers’ Technology Knowledge and Skills As described above, transformative uses of technology in the classroom tend to reflect constructivist and student-centered pedagogies, thereby providing students forms of classroom participation that traditional instructional models typically do not. Digital media production projects, interest-driven or open-ended scientific inquiries, and “maker”-based design activities have the potential to structure student engagement not only in ways that afford greater autonomy (Ito et al., 2013; Jenkins, 2009), but that allow students to bricolage various technologies and funds of knowledge together, producing new ways of learning that may not otherwise be feasible or possible. Such activities, however, are neither easily designed nor created, nor are they easily integrated into classroom instruction without significant support for teachers 24

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

or for students to take up the new forms of participation these activities entail. Skepticism that digital media and technology-based activities can more effectively (or more efficiently) support student learning than traditionally didactic or teacher-centered methods, for instance, is just one barrier to integration that centers on teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. As Hew and Brush (2006) suggested above, without adequate knowledge of technology-supportedpedagogy, teachers face significant hurdles utilizing technology in “transformative” ways. Indeed, several studies in the literature cite the need for teachers to obtain technology knowledge and skills in order to effectively facilitate or integrate transformative technology tasks and activities (Anthony & Clark, 2011; Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Harris 2010; Hew & Brush; Mouza, 2004). To meet this need, schools typically rely on professional development and training for faculty and staff. Some argue, however, that the focus and depth of teachers’ technology professional development at times focus too narrowly on skills acquisition, rather than providing teachers with more in-depth training on how certain skills may connect to one’s pedagogical or curricular goals (Anthony & Clark) and that this itself can be a barrier to teachers’ integration of technology (Kopcha, 2012). Without a clear understanding of how certain uses of technology can support a wide breadth of students (with varying educational needs) to meet their curricular and instructional goals, it is no wonder that some approaches to professional development leave many teachers uncomfortable implementing technology-based activities in the classroom. One reason for this may be that the inclusion of laptops, mobile devices, Internet resources – even monitors, mice and keyboards – presents potential distractions that can compete with teachers or content material for student attention, and exacerbate classroom management issues (Hew & Brush). Inability to maintain control, or fear of losing control in such an environment arguably puts many instructors on edge. Altering the classroom dynamic, especially in ways that introduce tools over which teachers have little or no direct control (or confidence in using themselves) can potentially shift the balance of power and authority in the classroom (Burns & Polman, 2006; Roth & Lee, 2007). Such threats to teacher control and student productivity may reinforce canonical methods of instruction that intentionally limit students’ roles and the types of participation in which they engage in classroom activities (Wang & Ching, 2003; Wilson, 2014). Without the skills to ward off or adapt to these situations, or understanding of how their efforts will impact their students’ learning, teachers might arguably have little energy or motivation to address important technology and digital media skills. While many teachers are reluctant to embrace such changes, developments like the ones just mentioned may, however, present positive challenges to the traditional teacher-centered model of education (Roth & Lee, 2007). Indeed, some have argued that technology necessarily expands the action possibilities of students in ways that challenge traditional classroom structures and practices (Wang & Ching, 2003), calling for the need to train teachers in ways to not only integrate technology into classroom activities, but to rethink traditional student-instructor roles and power dynamics. Bielaczyc (2006, 2012), for instance, argued that the design of technology-based learning activities must “extend… beyond the toll itself to encompass a broader range of factors such as the classroom social structures” (Bielaczyc, 2006, p.302). These structures include not only institutional practices and culture surrounding teacher support and technology, but teachers’ own attitudes and beliefs about technology and learning.

Institutional Factors Institutional factors affecting the integration of technology in the classroom include administrative practices such as scheduling, planning, and leadership (Hew & Brush, 2006), as well as norms and structures 25

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

that may implicate teachers’ and students’ sense of autonomy (Bielaczyc, 2006). In cases of top-down technology implementation initiatives, Hew and Brush noted that teachers’ relationships to administrators, and understanding of technology program objectives, significantly influenced how teachers integrated technology into the curriculum. Lack of administrative support, as well as constraints to in-class time, limited teachers’ ability to implement a variety of technology-related activities (Karasavvidis, 2009). Further, insufficient planning for technology implementation, including lack of widespread involvement and training, consequently diminished the expansion of teachers’ use of technology (Hew & Brush). Anthony and Clark (2011) found that expectations from parents as well as administrators regarding student technology use created tensions that unduly affected teachers’ attitudes about technology integration, and subsequently, the purposes for which technology was used for classroom tasks. In their study, teachers reported that bell schedules, overload of high-priority, non-technology initiatives, and a lack of training made meeting the expectations of administrators and parents very difficult without bending other institutional rules, such as classroom meeting times. Without the autonomy or flexibility to develop their own ways of coping with these tensions, technology integration suffered. Alternatively, Warschauer et al. (2004) found that when institutional structures demonstrated and supported a commitment to teachers’ ability to modify classroom social structures, particularly related to student authority over the nature and ownership of their assignments, technology integration practices were highly effective. In the cases presented by Warschauer et al., administrators supported teachers in movement towards student-centered classrooms, granting teachers the autonomy to set their own schedules based on student- and curricular needs, and one special case, considerably extend classroom meeting time up to three hours. More recently, scholars have begun to argue that modifying institutional structures to increase students’ and teachers’ authority over the learning process can greatly benefit the effectiveness of teachers’ technology integration practices (Salen, 2011). In this vein, new schools that seek to significantly reconceptualize traditional teacher roles, assessment structures, and forms of student participation in classroom activity, such as Quest to Learn in New York City and High Tech High in San Diego County, California, are gaining in popularity, and drawing the attention of researchers and education stake holders alike as possible models for improving digital education equity.

Attitudes and Beliefs about Technology and Learning In addition to institutional structures and technology training, teachers’ attitudes and epistemological beliefs about learning, and the role of technology in supporting learning, can deeply effect students’ learning experiences, particularly with regards to the purpose and frequency of technology-related activities. Whereas teachers’ technology skills, or administrative barriers might limit how technology is used in the classroom, research over the past several decades indicates that even when such barriers are minimized, technology integration practices are frequently limited to drill and practice, note taking, and other “low level” uses of technology (Cuban, 2001; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Warschauer, Zheng, Niiya, Cotten, & Farkas, 2014). Differences in the literature, however, appear when teachers’ beliefs about learning were taken into account. According to Ertmer and colleagues (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012), for instance, teachers whose beliefs aligned with student-centered pedagogies tended to implement student-centered curricula, even when faced with administrative, institutional, and technological barriers. Indeed, teachers who hold constructivist beliefs, as well, have been shown for decades to enact more student-centered pedagogies, particularly with regards to the use of technology for learning and instruction (Becker, 1994; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Harris, 2010). 26

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

Research on teachers’ technology integration practices has proposed in the past that improved access to technology and technology training may be responsible for such findings (Bebell, 2010; Burns & Polman, 2006; Silvernail & Lane, 2004), but increasingly, scholars have grown critical of the notion that technology itself has served as an agent of teacher change in these previous reports (Fisher, 2006). Indeed, evidence now shows that teachers use technology in ways that align with their already-held epistemological and pedagogical beliefs (Sullivan & Moriarty, 2009; Zhang, 2009), bringing renewed focus to the role of pedagogical (as opposed to purely technological) knowledge in teacher training and professional development (Warschauer, Grant, Real, & Rousseau, 2004; Warschauer, 2004). According to Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), “When [teachers’] learning experiences are focused solely on the technology itself, with no specific connections to grade or content learning goals, teachers are unlikely to incorporate technology into their practices” (p.263). As Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich suggest, moving teachers towards constructivist and student-centered pedagogies requires that teachers experience opportunities to reflect on their beliefs about technology and learning, and to see the connection between different uses of learning tools and classroom instruction. Such experiences, when combined with additional support from peer teachers and administrators, Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich argue, can improve the effectiveness and level classroom technology integration. Perhaps most importantly, Ertmer et al. (2012) indicate that new uses of technology, embedded into the design of teachers’ professional development, can play an equally significant role in supporting teacher change. Web 2.0 technologies, including wikis, blogs, Twitter, and other forms of social networking have enabled teachers to develop professional learning networks (PLNs) and to find and collect lesson plans that use technology for student-centered activities. Ertmer et al.’s work suggests that these advances in the availability and usability of technology, coupled with increased state- and national- emphasis on the use of technology in schools, have helped to diminish the impact of external barriers to integration, and support a movement towards constructivist and student-centered teaching practices nationally.

Coping with Barriers to Integration While some barriers to integration point to issues of infrastructure, administration, and professional development, it is clear that there is no simple pathway or formula for effective technology integration. Integration into classroom instruction, like other aspects of schooling and school culture, reflect complex relationships between individuals (teachers as well as students) and structures (institutional rules, high-stakes assessment, state-mandated curriculum, etc.). Changes to how classrooms function and how learning happens when technology is introduced, can compound issues related to technical and social infrastructures, as well as individuals’ beliefs about learning. As many teachers struggle with new roles, challenges, and opportunities brought on by technology – including issues related to discipline and authority, student autonomy and engagement, and the arrangement of new learning activities (Bauer & Kenton, 2005) – the importance of considering how relations of power, divisions of labor, and the organization of supporting resources impact technology integration is receiving increasing attention. Anthony and Clark (2011) found that teachers demonstrated a range of coping strategies to overcome what they called “dilemmas of practice” related to technology integration – some of which necessitated “breaking the rules” that schools commonly impose on teachers and their students. Other strategies, however, negatively affected the frequency and purpose of students’ uses of technology. Some of the teachers in their study, for instance, struggled to meaningfully situate technology into learning activities, as outside factors such as expectations that students would use technology on a frequent basis and simul27

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

taneously learn required content material created tensions that obfuscated how to effectively accomplish such goals. Teachers came to integrate additive tasks such as online games, puzzles, and manipulatives, which served to mediate students’ learning of curriculum material, but predominantly as ancillaries to more common instructional techniques such as drill and practice. In many of these cases, technology was used as a tool to motivate student engagement, rather than to serve a primary learning objective. Teachers who persisted in the face of these barriers, however, found that they needed to develop inventive ways of extending class time beyond the standard duration of the period, or slowing down the pace of instruction so as to integrate technology effectively for student-centered learning. The need to subvert institutional structures and expectations thus presented a clear source of conflict between teachers and administrators, with obvious implications for student learning.

ISSUES OF PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE IN ATTEMPTS TO EMPOWER STUDENTS While effective technology integration may be difficult to achieve because of the factors mentioned above (i.e., school culture, teacher attitudes and beliefs, access to technology, administrative support, etc.) (Anthony & Clark, 2011; Mouza, 2004; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002), contextual factors at the classroom- and individual levels, such as students’ orientation to schooling and computers, or their cultural approaches to learning and technology may also influence teachers to enact different integration strategies (Subramony, 2007; Windschitl & Sahl). Indeed, some argue that technology integration practices are strongly influenced by the contexts in which technology is being used. For this reason, proponents of school-based technology initiatives in schools should consider how sociocultural factors related to schooling and social inclusion influence what students do with technology in the classroom (Hohlfeld et al., 2008; Warschauer, 2004). In a study of classroom technology use across two different schools serving with English Language Learners (ELLs), Warschauer, Grant, Del Real, and Rousseau (2004) found that instructors leveraged the unique circumstances of their students’ cultural backgrounds to tailor integration practices, resulting in high-achieving learning outcomes. While Warschauer, et al. assert, “The keys in both cases are a school-wide commitment to excellence, equity, and development of classroom communities of inquiry” (p.535), it is important to note that in each example presented, the object of technology integration was not to have students gain fluency with specific technology tools. Rather, students used technology to “follow through” the process of language learning by producing digital artifacts that represented students’ own knowledge constructions. In this sense, the role of technology was not to serve as an endpoint of student learning, but to mediate the achievement of a learning objective in which technology served as a meaningful tool. In the cases presented in Warschauer et al.’s report, the purpose of technology use was to support student reflection and facilitate the production of representational media, such as CD-ROMs and digital presentations. These activities reflected metacognitive tasks that made students’ thinking explicit (Lin, Schwartz, & Hatano, 2005). To support reading fluency, an instructor at one of the schools guided students in activities that included vocabulary-picture matching and “Webquests” (Internet-based searches for pictures of different words) as a scaffold with which to prepare students for independent reading activities. Students used word processing and spreadsheet software to keep track of their reading progress, as well as to submit work and receive instructor feedback on their progress. Students then produced

28

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

multi-media instructional material using similar tools, and then collectively critiqued and wrote book reviews on Amazon.com. As a form of summative assessment, students completed a matrix within a Microsoft Excel file to analyze the development of various characters in the books they were reading. Though such uses of technology inevitably necessitated that students learn various Excel skills to complete their matrices, the authors do not mention that any significant barriers arose in the process that were related to a lack of students’ (or teachers’) technology skills. Nor did any tensions between institutional structures (such as technology curriculum standards) and the teachers’ instructional practices get in the way of having students produce their character development matrices. While it is not out of the question to presume that some stumbling blocks did likely arise, it could be argued that any barriers were ameliorated because of the flexible and adaptive nature of the teachers, support resources, and school administration. An important takeaway from this report, then, is that as school culture and institutional structures do at times present substantial barriers to technology integration, the tensions that arise when teachers and students encounter those barriers create opportunities to adapt and make changes to the activity, or perhaps more importantly, to the structures that reinforce those barriers. In the second case described by Warschauer, et al. (2004), the use of “relevant” technology resources was credited with producing successful learning outcomes. The school’s educational model, called “Expeditionary Learning”, focused on “the relationship between learning and representation” which was “supported by research indicating that student’s best master curriculum that they are required to represent, and consequently, that learning is extended by one’s access to, and literacy and facility with, representational media” (p.533). This approach dovetailed easily with the adoption of a one-to-one laptop program, which provided students with regular access to presentation tools and information resources.þ According to Warschauer, et al., at the time the school made the move to implement the “Expeditionary Learning” model, it had suffered from “low test scores, deteriorating attendance and discipline, few extracurricular activities, low expectations for teachers and students, and a climate of hostility” (p.532). Drastic changes within the school such as eliminating the bell schedule, mainstreaming all previously tracked classes, and integrating fine arts, special education, and reading specialists into humanities and science subjects, provided necessary reforms that supplanted the move to a project-based learning curriculum. Arguably, these reforms created an atmosphere of support and flexibility that allowed teachers to integrate technology to help differentiate instruction in mainstreamed classes, provide students with access to sophisticated tools, and create authentic learning opportunities regardless of language ability or technical fluency. How, then, might such successful results be replicated in other learning environments, particularly in ones where a total reformation of educational practices seems unlikely or out of the question? A commonality between both scenarios presented by Warschauer, et al. is that technology integration followed a model of instruction that prioritized pedagogical values (e.g., constructivism and metacognition) over technology skills acquisition (e.g., learning specific presentation software). By establishing a culture that enabled instructors to integrate technologies that best fit the needs of a given activity, a potential “dilemma of practice” between teachers and institution did not appear. From a theoretical standpoint, in both cases presented by Warschauer, et al. (2004), technology served two important functions: 1. It mediated learning activities in which students were positioned as producers of knowledge, and 29

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

2. It expanded the action possibilities of the students by providing an alternative means (digital media production) to achieve the learning goals. Indeed, Warschauer et al.’s findings resemble other classroom studies in which the reframing or reconceptualization of the activity system (i.e., who participates in the activity, the norms of behavior regulating how participants interact with each other, the divisions of labor, the artifacts or tools that are used, the cultural community in which the activity is taking place, and the goals of the activity) expanded how students accessed and arranged opportunities to learn. Such reconceptualizations and the actions that resulted in these similar studies effectively disrupted systemic barriers to student learning, and in the process, created more equitable conditions for student participation (Roth & Lee, 2007; Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004; Tan & Calabrese Barton, 2007). An important commonality among this work is that in each of the cited studies, student learning is approached from a sociocultural perspective, rather than an individuated or purely cognitive one.

Expansive Learning Through Technology Many sociocultural learning theorists believe that learning happens as individuals participate in different cultural activities, where the norms of behavior, attitudes about what learning “looks like” – or in a more classroom-centric sense, where pedagogies, instructional models, and even uses of technology – intersect to produce a context or “cultural community” in which individuals participate in various goal-driven tasks (Holland, Skinner, Lachicotte, & Cain, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991). It is through increasingly central participation in these tasks or “cultural activities” that individuals learn the situated ways of using tools, of interacting with other community members (both novice and veteran), etc. – very much like how students are enculturated into “being a student” in the classroom. In this sense, “learning” is closely tied to a students’ participation in the activity of “classroom instruction,” and the factors that enable or constrain that participation. As such, how a student participates in the cultural activity of classroom learning is necessarily dependent on the different actions that the activity system (mediating artifacts, norms of behavior, divisions of labor, etc.) make available to student – in other words, the student’s action possibilities. According to Engeström (Engeström, 2010), by expanded upon one’s action possibilities, a community (e.g., a classroom) may create “culturally new patterns of activity” (Engeström, p.139) that can yield new roles for participants, new ways of using tools (or the invention of new tools), etc. These new patterns of activity may, in turn, help overcome systemic barriers that get in the way of achieving shared community (classroom) goals, such as learning within a particular discipline. As Warschauer et al. show, deconstructing socio-structural barriers that prevent the expansion of students’ action possibilities (for example, by providing greater flexibility in how classroom schedules and tools may be utilized for learning) can create new ways for students to learn content matter, such as through technology-mediated activities that position learners as knowledge resources, rather than knowledge consumers. According to Engeström, (2010) such transformations happen through social processes in which members of a given cultural community are afforded legitimate opportunities to reconceptualize how to achieve their collective goals: As the contradictions of an activity system are aggravated, some individual participants begin to question and deviate from its established norms. In some cases, this escalates into collaborative envisioning and

30

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

a deliberate collective change effort. An expansive transformation is accomplished when the object and motive of the activity are reconceptualized to embrace a radically wider horizon of possibilities than in the previous mode of the activity. (Engeström, p.137) In a case study presented by Engeström’s (2010), members of three interacting communities involved in Finland’s health care system – primary care givers, hospitals, and patients’ families – convened in a series of discussions to uncover tensions that prevented the delivery of effective patient care. Over the course of several meetings during which stake holders considered and generated the new potential ways of “doing” effective health care, new tools and processes were envisioned and put into practice, producing mutually beneficial outcomes for each party involved. Such methods as the ones produced by the participants in Engeström’s study hold promise, as well, improving the effectiveness of classroom technology integration (Anthony, 2014). A big difference between Engeström’s study and school classrooms, however, is that Engeström’s subjects were hospital staff, primary care providers, and patients, not administrators, teachers, and students. Arguably, the historical relationships of power, discipline, and authority of schools require different methods when it comes to coordinating negotiations related to alterations to classroom practices – that is, expanding students’ action possibilities – considerably more difficult to achieve. Indeed, such deeply rooted relationships of power – relationships that in many ways define traditional approaches to instruction – may inhibit the agency and willingness of students, teachers, and administrators to propose new approaches to entrenched cultural practices (Moje et al., 2004). As such, Moje et al. suggested that students may not readily look for opportunities to navigate, bridge, or challenge schooling practices, even when they have the autonomy to do so. For this reason, the authors argue, educators may need to actively legitimize students’ cultural identities and non-school social practices in order to help students see themselves as agents of change to classroom practice. Pointing to four specific areas from which students’ cultural “funds of knowledge” might be tapped for this process – family, community, peer groups, and pop culture – Moje et al. propose that positioning students’ lived experiences as assets for agency and learning may invite greater participation among students for negotiating new ways of “doing” school. Of course, in some cases students may attempt to challenge rules or normative practices on their own, without and as some studies have shown, technology can serve as a catalyst for such reforms. Wang and Ching (2003), for example, found that students spontaneously negotiated classroom rules so as to create opportunities for themselves to participate in technology-related activities, when no such opportunities were readily apparent. Restricted to limited computer time (which was enforced with a timer and waiting lists) by an instructor, students in Wang and Ching’s study “socially [constructed] not only their computer experience, but also their early school experience on a whole” (p.335). Because the classroom in their study was equipped with only a single functioning computer, the instructor set a rule that only two students could sit at the workstation at a time. This rule required, subsequently, that the teacher enforce a number of measures so as to regulate students’ fair and equitable access to the computer. Teacher implemented a plan that went as follows: when first called up from the waiting list, students were allowed to act as a workstation observer, sitting next to the “player” – the student in control of the actual computer. After a turn was over (a standardized period of time set be the teacher), students would move from the observer position into the player position. The previous player then went back to the waiting area, which was demarcated a certain distance away from the gaming workstation. Working within these constraints, students began inviting other classmates to observe and provide guidance on the game from beyond the teacher-mandated boundary line (Wang and Ching referred to 31

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

these outside participants as “mobile participants”). Eventually, a crowd formed at the line, with students jockeying for position so as to observe the game from a distance. In this way, students challenged (but did not explicitly break) the teacher’s rules. Wang and Ching (2003) argued that these negotiations over the rules of participation “transformed the meaning of the area around the computer, such that it became a highly significant space with shifting zones of participatory legitimacy” (p.351). In other words, by impressing upon the boundaries of acceptable practice, the students effectively reconceptualized how they could participate in playing the computer game. According to Lave & Wenger (1991), such negotiations serve as evidence agency development within the context of a given cultural activity. Hence, by legitimizing such attempts at classroom practice, the instructor, then, provided the conditions with which students to expand their action possibilities for social interaction and learning the computer game. According to Wang and Ching (2003), the buzz around the workstations resembled “chaotic” interactions among the students, with “highly overlapping talk”, animated behavior, and groups of students clustering around a single computer screen. Such interactions have been described as a barrier to integration in other studies (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002), particularly because they are commonly seen as threats to teacher control. Yet in Wang and Ching’s study, the challenges to the rules the teacher set forth created opportunities for students to interact in new ways, as well as to utilize each other as resources for technology-skills development. The authors propose that research could better understand how technology is thus used to mediate the negotiation of behavioral norms and agency in the classroom, and by extension, that examining students’ spontaneous uses of technology should reveal some clues as to how certain integration strategies, such as those that expand students’ action possibilities, can create opportunities for agency and empowerment.

CONCLUSION The literature discussed in this chapter highlights three major concerns for research on digital inequity and technology integration: • • •

Instructional technology use for the replacement, amplification, or transformation of learning activities has differing effects on students’ opportunities to learn with technology, especially in ways that contribute to the development of agency and empowerment; Institutional structures and pedagogical values have a significant impact on the ways instructors integrate technology into the curriculum, and thus have an important effect on students’ use of technology for learning; Students and teachers come to terms with (i.e., navigate, bridge, and challenge) school-based social practices in various ways to achieve their situated objectives. In technology rich learning environments, students have been shown to spontaneously appropriate technology to mediate this process (Wang & Ching, 2003), but in some circumstances, students may require scaffolds to develop the agency necessary to challenge social practices.

The topics presented in this chapter address many of the concerns scholarship on ubiquitous-computing learning environments has raised, ranging from the instructional practices of teachers, to the institutionalized rules and culture of schools, to perceptions about technology’s role in the creation of student32

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

centered learning environments. As the literature has shown, while access to technology is the most fundamental issue contributing to digital education equities, the frequency and purpose of technology use in the classroom provides the foundation for students’ technology skills, and supplants their facility for agency, and ability to wield technology as a tool for personal and academic growth. Though some approaches to learning, such as constructivism, may lend themselves well to the enabling of students’ use of technology for transformational, or agentive activities, tensions between students’ use of technology and classroom practices (i.e., rules, division of labor, etc.) often act as barriers to transformative uses of technology. In some cases, students are supported in navigating, bridging, and challenging these tensions to realize opportunities for learning, or more basically, ICT skills development. In others, students come to terms with these tensions in unpredictable ways, with differing results. To that end, future research should seek to understand the nature of students’ technology use, and how students might be empowered to navigate, bridge, and challenge barriers to their technology literacy development. As a greater body of research now looks to understand a new generation of digital inequity, commonly referred to as the “use divide,” many educators, administrators, and policy makers are looking to not only increase youths’ access to computers and technology, but to opportunities to develop a newer range of skills, interests, and ways of participating in technology-mediated activities. What the research presented above makes clear, is that educators face a variety of challenges in providing their students such opportunities. With a better understanding of the barriers – particularly, the social barriers – involved in empowering youth to use technology for academic and personal growth, the field of technology integration studies now finds itself in need of research that explains the roles that schools play in mentoring youth into becoming agents of change. A common refrain in educational technology circles is that although classroom technologies allow learners to “do school” in new ways, they seldom disrupt the practices of “schooling.” One direction for future research to consider, for this reason, is how ubiquitous computing environments provide youth with new ways to construct and participate in learning activities, new ways to express or showcase their learning, or new ways to connect classroom learning to their interest in the outside world. Such an approach would necessitate research in how schools can provide better infrastructural – and social – supports for these new ways of learning, and how youths’ connections to life outside of the classroom can be leveraged for school-based learning. Based on the current body of scholarship – some of which has been discussed in this chapter – it appears that many of the challenges to technology integration will not be solved with more technology, or even simply more technology professional development. Rather, it appears that new approaches to classroom-based technology that support youth in taking up agentive stances towards learning and personal achievement are required if educators are to begin narrowing the “use divide.”

REFERENCES Anthony, A. B., & Clark, L. M. (2011). Examining dilemmas of practice associated with the integration of technology into mathematics classrooms serving urban students. Urban Education, 46(6), 1300–1331. doi:10.1177/0042085911416015 Barron, B., Walter, S. E., Martin, C. K., & Schatz, C. (2010). Predictors of creative computing participation and profiles of experience in two Silicon Valley middle schools. Computers & Education, 54(1), 178–189. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.017

33

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546. Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2). Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291–321. doi:10.1080/08886504.1994.10782093 Bellanca, J. A., & Brandt, R. S. (2010). 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Belland, B. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52(2), 353–364. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.004 Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1503_1 Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Informing design research: Learning from teachers designs of social infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258–311. doi:10.1080/10508406.2012.691925 Burns, K., & Polman, J. (2006). The impact of ubiquitous computing in the internet age: How middle school teachers integrated wireless laptops in the initial stages of implementation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 363–385. Clinton, W. J., & Gore, A. A. (1996, October 10). Remarks by the President and Vice President to the people of Knoxville. [transcript]. Retrieved March 1, 2010 from http://archives.clintonpresidentialcenter. org/?u=101096-remarks-by-president- and-vp-in-knoxville-tn.htm Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology, 1980-2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher Technology Change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551 Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 Fisher, T. (2006). Educational transformation: Is it like beauty in the eye of the beholder, or will we know it when we see it? Education and Information Technologies, 11(3-4), 293–303. doi:10.1007/ s10639-006-9009-1 Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalties and distinctive patterns in teachers integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101(3), 261–315. doi:10.1086/444044 Harris, M. J. (2010). Impactful student learning outcomes on one-to-one student laptop programs in low socioeconomic schools. (Doctoral dissertation). San Francisco State University.

34

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2006). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5 Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.002 Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte, W., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Harvard University Press. Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., & Salen, K. (2013). Connected learning: an agenda for research and design. Watkins, SC: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity theory as a conceptual framework for understanding teacher approaches to information and communication technologies. Computers & Education, 53(2), 436–444. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2009.03.003 Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–1121. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 245–255. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_6 Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4 Mouza, C. (2004). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447–472. doi:10.1080/15391523.200 8.10782516 Puentedura, R. (2009). As we may teach: Educational technology, from theory into practice. Retrieved from https://itunes. apple. com/itunes-u/as-wemay-teach-educational/id380294705 Roth, W. M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking Scientific Literacy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203463918 Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotskys neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. doi:10.3102/0034654306298273 Salen, K. (2011). Quest to Learn: Developing the School for Digital Kids. MIT Press.

35

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

Silvernail, D. L., & Lane, D. M. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students. Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI). University of Southern Maine. Sims, C. (2014). From differentiated use to differentiating practices: Negotiating legitimate participation and the production of privileged identities. Information Communication and Society, 17(6), 670–682. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.808363 Subramony, D. P. (2007). Understanding the Complex Dimensions of the Digital Divide: Lessons Learned in the Alaskan Arctic. The Journal of Negro Education, 76(1), 57–67. doi:10.2307/40026330 Sullivan, F. R., & Moriarty, M. A. (2009). Robotics and discovery learning: Pedagogical beliefs, teacher practice, and technology integration. Technology (Elmsford, N.Y.), 17(1), 109–142. Tan, E., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2007). Unpacking science for all through the lens of identities-in-practice: The stories of Amelia and Ginny. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(1), 43–71. doi:10.1007/ s11422-007-9076-7 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2005 and Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: Fall 2008; and unpublished tabulations. Author. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education. Washington, DC: Author. Wang, X., & Ching, C. (2003). Social construction of computer experience in a first-grade classroom: Social processes and mediating artifacts. Early Education and Development, 14(3), 335–362. doi:10.1207/ s15566935eed1403_4 Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. MIT Press. Warschauer, M., Grant, D., Del Real, G., & Rousseau, M. (2004). Promoting academic literacy with technology: Successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System, 32(4), 525–537. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.010 Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791 Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the one-to-one equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 46–62. doi :10.1080/10665684.2014.866871 Wilson, N. (2014). Interrogating the divide: a case study of student technology use in a one-to-one laptop school. Doctoral Dissertations 2014-Current. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/ dissertations_2/266 Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205. doi:10.3102/00028312039001165

36

 Sociotechnical and Pedagogical Barriers to Technology Integration

Zhang, W. (2010). Technical capital and participatory inequality in edeliberation. Information Communication and Society, 13(7), 1019–1039. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2010.495988 Zhao, Y., & Bryant, F. L. (2006). Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to high levels of technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers’ technology integration after state mandated technology training. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 53–62. Zucker, A. (2004). Developing a Research Agenda for Ubiquitous Computing in Schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 371–386. doi:10.2190/BYR8-CGFC-WVHV-T0TL

37

38

Chapter 3

Universal Design for Learning: Using UDL to Make Teacher Education More Accessible and Inclusive for All James Cressey Framingham State University, USA

ABSTRACT Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework for curriculum and instructional planning through which educators can maximize accessibility and minimize barriers that are often experienced by learners. Teacher educators are in a unique position to introduce UDL to future elementary teachers and support them in developing inclusive pedagogical methods early on in their careers. While Common Core State Standards can guide educators in what to teach, UDL provides a framework for how to teach. Education technology tools are used extensively within UDL to make curriculum materials more accessible and engaging. In this chapter, the UDL framework will be described along with many specific applications within elementary teacher education.

INTRODUCTION Elementary teacher preparation programs often include at least one course related to inclusive practices or special education, but this is not always required by state standards or accrediting organizations. It is still possible for many elementary educators to complete all of their licensure requirements and step into their 21st century classroom as a first-year teacher without ever having learned how to provide an inclusive educational environment for children with disabilities. Nationally, approximately 13% of public school students aged 3-21 are categorized within the special education system under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). This percentage does not include students with disabilities served under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, nor students with unidentified disabilities. Of the students in special education, the majority (61%) spend 80% or more of each day in general education classroom settings (NCES, 2015). There is a clear need for more focused preparation of preservice elementary teachers to provide for the needs of students with disabilities. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch003

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Universal Design for Learning

Teacher educators who prepare elementary teachers have opportunities to share this responsibility across multiple courses. Particularly in programs where special education coursework is missing or minimal in scope, there is a need for distributed exposure to important theories and practices for inclusion and accessibility. Yet, teacher educators are often trained within specific areas such as literacy or mathematics education and may not themselves have the requisite knowledge of inclusive practices. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework with much potential for use by elementary teacher educators from all backgrounds, in both general education and special education courses. UDL provides educators with pedagogical techniques that are flexible and suitable for elementary education methods in all subject areas. UDL provides important methods for inclusive practices to support the variability of all learners, not just those with disabilities. Teacher educators can implement UDL themselves as well, modeling its use for preservice teachers while also making their own coursework and professional development materials more accessible for adult learners. UDL allows us to teach with variability in mind, beginning with the design phase and continuing through instructional delivery. By planning for the variability of all learners, with an emphasis on including the students “on the margins,” educators can improve their curriculum and instruction for all students (Meyer & Rose, 2005). UDL is a structured framework that brings accommodations, scaffolds, and supports to the forefront of instructional design, rather than as an afterthought or addendum. Elementary educators who learn the principles and practices of UDL from the start of their careers are in an excellent position to form inclusive, equitable classroom communities that will support a diverse range of learners. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) includes UDL as one of the “additional supports and services” that may be provided to students with disabilities in order to help them achieve proficiency with the standards. As you will learn in this chapter, UDL can also improve curriculum and instruction for all students, by providing multiple means of content representation, student expression, and learner engagement. Elementary educators who are learning how to design instruction aligned with the CCSS guiding them in choosing what to teach can also be supported by UDL as a framework for how to teach. The 21st century elementary teacher is also expected to leverage a variety of technology tools in the classroom, with new hardware and software applications becoming available frequently. Teacher education programs at the elementary level may or may not include dedicated coursework about educational technology. Teacher educators often provide distributed experiences with technology in all subject-area methods courses. UDL has many connections and applications that implement technology tools, many of which center around multimedia representations of content, and opportunities for elementary students to show their knowledge through media content creation. UDL provides an ideal framework for elementary educators to explore educational technology and evaluate tools for specific purposes. In this chapter, you will be provided with a discussion of why UDL is an important and useful approach for teacher educators. You will also learn what UDL looks like in practice and how it can support elementary education coursework related to CCSS in various content areas. The chapter will incorporate numerous opportunities for the integration of educational technology within UDL. Finally, you will be provided with specific examples of how to begin implementing UDL within elementary teacher education and professional development settings.

39

 Universal Design for Learning

Background What is Universal Design for Learning, and how did it originate? Prior to their application in the field of education, Universal Design principles were developed in the 1970s and 1980s to improve accessibility and accommodations for persons with disabilities in a wide range of contexts. Federal legislation such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 were important victories in the disability rights movement, but they only required minimum levels of accessibility. Universal Design was developed in order to expand the concepts and practices of access into many more applications. At the Center for Universal Design (1997) at North Carolina State University, an interdisciplinary working group consisting of architects, engineers, and others collaborated to develop the following principles to guide the design process for physical environments, products, and communications: 1. Equitable Use: The design is useful and marketable to people. 2. Flexibility in Use: The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. 3. Simple and Intuitive Use: Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. 4. Perceptible Information: The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities. 5. Tolerance for Error: The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. 6. Low Physical Effort: The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue. 7. Size and Space for Approach and Use: Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user’s body size, posture, or mobility. Universal Design for Learning refers to the ways in which these seven principles have been applied to curriculum design and instructional practice (CEC, 2005; King-Sears, 2009). For example, “equitable use” might be applied in a classroom by providing a textbook in digital formats, so that students with visual or learning disabilities could listen to the text in audio format, or students with visual impairments could easily increase the font size to access the curriculum successfully. “Simple and intuitive” instructional practices might include adaptations in language complexity with monitoring of student responsiveness and adjustments to practice as needed. More recently, an adapted set of principles and guidelines for UDL was introduced by the Center for Applied Special Technologies (CAST) and the National Center for Universal Design for Learning (Rose, Meyer, Strangman, & Rappolt, 2002; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). These UDL guidelines are organized around a different set of principles, guidelines, and checkpoints that diverge from the original framework of universal design. CAST (2011) developed these guidelines with input from researchers and K-12 educators, with the intention that they would be implemented with all students, including those with and without disabilities. The updated version of the UDL guidelines (version 2.0) is organized around three core principles, with nine numbered guidelines, and thirty-one specific checkpoints:

40

 Universal Design for Learning

Provide Multiple Means of Representation: 1. Provide options for perception 1.1 Offer ways of customizing the display of information 1.2 Offer alternatives for auditory information 1.3 Offer alternatives for visual information 2. Provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols 2.1 Clarify vocabulary and symbols 2.2 Clarify syntax and structure 2.3 Support decoding of text, mathematical notation, and symbols 2.4 Promote understanding across language 2.5 Illustrate through multiple media 3. Provide options for comprehension 3.1 Activate or supply background knowledge 3.2 Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships 3.3 Guide information processing, visualization, and manipulation 3.4 Maximize transfer and generalization II. Provide Multiple Means for Action and Expression: 4. Provide options for physical action 4.1 Vary the methods for response and navigation 4.2 Optimize access to tools and assistive technologies 5. Provide options for expression and communication 5.1 Use multiple media for communication 5.2 Use multiple tools for construction and composition 5.3 Build fluencies with graduated levels of support for practice and performance 6. Provide options for executive functions 6.1 Guide appropriate goal setting 6.2 Support planning and strategy development 6.3 Facilitate managing information and resources 6.4 Enhance capacity for monitoring progress III. Provide Multiple Means for Engagement: 7. Provide options for recruiting interest 7.1 Optimize individual choice and autonomy 7.2 Optimize relevance, value, and authenticity 7.3 Minimize threats and distractions 8. Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence 8.1 Heighten salience of goals and objectives 8.2 Vary demands and resources to optimize challenge 8.3 Foster collaboration and community 8.4 Increase mastery-oriented feedback 9. Provide options for self-regulation 9.1 Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize motivation 9.2 Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies 9.3 Develop self-assessment and reflection I.

41

 Universal Design for Learning

CAST proposes that learners use three kinds of brain networks when they are thinking about the “why,” the “what,” and the “how” of learning. Affective networks (the “why” of learning) refer to the neural pathways in which we process social-emotional information, stress, anxiety, excitement, and other emotions. Educators can use the UDL principle Multiple Means of Engagement to help students make emotional, real-world connections with the content they are learning. Recognition networks (the “what” of learning) are those processes in which the brain identifies and categorizes the sensory inputs it receives through vision, hearing, touch, and other senses. The UDL principle Multiple Means of Representation guides educators to provide a variety of formats for reading, listening, seeing, touching, and moving, allowing learners to use their recognition networks effectively to make sense of new content. Finally, the strategic networks of the brain (the “how” of learning) are accessed when learners plan actions and carry them out, thereby demonstrating their skills and knowledge. Multiple Means of Action and Expression is the UDL principle that reminds us to offer a variety of assessment and assignment formats to students. By removing barriers that students may experience when attempting to express knowledge or demonstrate a skill, we can more accurately assess students and allow them to perform successfully (CEC, 2005; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Novak, 2014). Educators can use these principles to ensure that students are able to make choices and experience a variety of learning formats. Some students will be more successful taking part in a classroom dialogue, while others may engage more deeply with an online discussion or social media conversation. When both formats are offered, we provide a more universally accessible experience for all students (Baird & Fisher, 2006). Likewise, when a teacher provides content instruction using a variety of methods of representation such as a book chapter, a website, a lecture, a video, a discussion, and a hands-on activity, these multiple means provide more access to that content for all learners. In addition to allowing for audio or enlarged font, these digital texts can provide scaffolding and supports for struggling readers (Dalton & Strangman, 2006). Finally, when students are asked to demonstrate their knowledge, teachers can provide multiple means of action and expression such as a menu of assignment options. Some students will demonstrate mastery through a traditional test, while others may experience barriers in that format. Writing a paper or giving an oral presentation might allow some students to demonstrate their knowledge with fewer barriers (Novak, 2014). With the increase in technology tools now available, providing these options for content and assessment is easier than ever before. While there is still a need for direct empirical research to continue investigating the efficacy of UDL (Edyburn, 2010, 2013), the framework is a promising approach based on many findings from educational and psychological research. CAST (2011) maintains a list of research supports for each UDL checkpoint at the website of the National Center on Universal Design for Learning. Recent developments in education laws and policies have also incorporated UDL. The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 have defined UDL in the following way: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) means a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that — (A) provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (B) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient.

42

 Universal Design for Learning

The ESSA includes several recommendations for how UDL should be applied in public education, including the use of alternate assessments, comprehensive literacy instruction, and technology. States are also encouraged to award funding to school districts that are implementing UDL in significant ways. UDL is discussed within the Common Core State Standards documentation as a framework for teaching with disabilities in a supplementary document to the standards. CCSS materials fail to describe how UDL can be used with all students, to support the variability of all learners. This illustrates a persistent trend in education which reinforces the barriers between general education students and those receiving special education services. Since the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), there are policy provisions supporting the use of a Response to Intervention (RTI) or Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) framework for educating students with and without disabilities who may need additional supports in school. UDL provides us with a flexible approach that has the potential to support the goals of RTI/MTSS, inclusion, and prevention-oriented educational practices (Hehir, 2009).

WHY SHOULD I USE UDL IN TEACHER EDUCATION? Reducing Opportunity Gaps The accountability era in public education has focused on reducing achievement gaps between student subgroups, such as the one between students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers. Achievement gaps can be identified in many underserved populations, including students of color and English language learners. From a UDL perspective, we must begin by examining the curriculum and instructional practices that may be disabling to students, before focusing in on individual students with disabilities. UDL asks us to consider the possibility of a “disabled curriculum” (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2013). A curriculum is disabled or disabling to learners if it only provides one-size-fitsall learning modalities and content. The impairment that some students face when trying to access this curriculum is not solely caused by features of the learner; instead, the impairment or disability exists in the interaction between the curriculum, the instruction, and the learner. A student labeled with a disability may be more successful (seemingly less disabled) in one classroom, but seem more disabled in another, depending on the factors that surround her. Thus, we might instead view the curriculum itself as disabled or disabling to the student. This paradigm shift away from the strictly within-child view of disability has implications for how we should view achievement gaps between students with and without documented disabilities. UDL encourages us to think about how to design curriculum and instruction with learner variability in mind, so that we remove these opportunity barriers for students who do not fit the mythical profile of the “average student.”

Diversity and Equity Teacher educators are well positioned to be change agents within the broader landscape of public education. UDL can provide a framework through which preservice teachers explore diversity and equity. While UDL principles emerged from efforts to promote better access and inclusion of students with disabilities, its value for other student subgroups should also be understood. There is also a danger that UDL can be implemented in narrow ways that do not fully maximize its potential for reducing all opportunity gaps. 43

 Universal Design for Learning

If UDL is applied only to the “structural accessibility” of learning formats, the curriculum can remain inequitable and inaccessible for students of color, LGBT students, English language leaners, and others. Hackman (2008) suggests that an approach like UDL should be combined with Social Justice Education (SJE) and Critical Multicultural Education (CME) frameworks. Without considering structural inequalities such as racism, sexism, and heteronormativity, UDL alone may not prompt educators to remove barriers to accessibility for all students, as we intend to do. Incorporating these social justice themes into teacher education courses through a critique of UDL theory and practices can help prepare preservice teachers to consider the complex inequities in the educational system beyond just those experiences by students with disabilities. This is particularly important as UDL is increasingly considered as a framework for supporting English language learners (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2011). Finally, the use of technology in UDL implementation has the potential to reproduce inequities between students and school communities with and without access to these resources and tools (Hackman, 2008). A social justice perspective is important for educators to consider if they are expecting students to have computers, iPads, or internet access at home or at school in order to participate in learning activities designed using UDL principles. Technology has the potential to remove barriers to education, but it can also increase opportunity gaps if access to the needed tools is not equal for all students.

HOW CAN I USE UDL IN TEACHER EDUCATION? Teaching All Students With these goals in mind, teacher educators can help promote inclusive and equitable practices for all students by introducing preservice teachers to UDL as a foundational approach to general education curriculum and instruction. If UDL is reserved as an accommodation or intervention only for students with identified special needs, or for so-called “diverse students” then we are failing to use it as a preventative tool for all students. Teacher education coursework at the elementary level provides many opportunities to incorporate UDL into general education curriculum and methods learning experiences for preservice teachers. When preservice teachers are learning to design lessons and units of study in each content area, including literacy, mathematics, science, social studies, and others, this is a prime opportunity to introduce them to the UDL frameworks. Using the cycle of planning, assessing, teaching, reflecting, and receiving feedback, preservice teachers can actively explore UDL methods as part of their teacher preparation and begin to see the value of this approach for their future teaching practices (Israel, Ribuffo, & Smith, 2014).

Welcome to Dr. M’s Class “Dr. M” is an assistant professor at a university-based elementary teacher education program. She is eager to inspire the next generation of 21st century teachers in her new position. However, after her first year, she discovers that teacher education is full of unanticipated challenges and that her population of students have many diverse strengths, interests, and learning needs for which she was not prepared in her doctoral program. She gains a new appreciation for the variability of learners in teacher education. Dr. M is looking for new ways to promote inclusion and to make her courses more accessible to all learners. Dr. M is also interested in educational technology and hopes to improve how she integrates 44

 Universal Design for Learning

technology tools into her courses. She has recently learned about UDL through attending conferences and reading journal articles and it sounds like a good fit for students’ learning needs. She has ensured that her course assignments and content are aligned with the Common Core State Standards. The Common Core provides guidance for what to teach, but not how to teach. Thus, Dr. M is hopeful that UDL will provide a structured framework for her planning, and for her students to make decisions about how to teach. The second half of this chapter will use Dr. M’s context as a running example through which to present strategies for implementing UDL in elementary teacher education course experiences or in professional development experiences. The methods and strategies presented through Dr. M’s example have been drawn from recent experiences with real-world teacher education courses and incorporate feedback from preservice teachers.

Creating a Universally Designed Learning Community When Dr. M reflects back on some of the challenges in her first year of teacher education, she believes that certain problems stemmed from the lack of an inclusive, supportive learning community among her students. She resolves to spend more time at the start of the semester building that foundation this year. Using the UDL guidelines, she selects several checkpoints that will guide her in designing activities for the first few class meetings: 8.3 (Foster collaboration and community) and 9.3 (Develop self-assessment and reflection). To foster collaboration and community, Dr. M designs several introductory activities for her preservice teachers to begin thinking about their new community of learners. She meets with the class on the first day to discuss guiding questions such as “What kind of learning community do we want to have this semester? What will that look and sound like in our class meetings?” Dr. M engages the class in a dialogue about these ideas and encourages them all to share in developing the norms and expectations for their learning community. Students share thoughts such as “Treat one another with respect and listen to other people’s ideas” and “Be open-minded.” Dr. M asks the class if they will challenge one another’s ideas and find ways to explore potential conflicts. The class discusses how to foster this collaborative approach during dialogues. They decide as a group that they will sit in a circle when holding whole-group discussions. At times, they will sit in small groups around the movable tables in the classroom for other activities. One preservice teacher suggests that they establish a norm of not raising their hands, but instead just jumping into the conversation more naturally. Several others speak up to support this idea, citing their recent experiences with this norm in another course. Other students raise concerns about how the norm can bring about barriers to participation for some students who struggle to jump into conversations. Students leave the first class feeling heard and welcomed after this conversation. They are given the following week to think more about the topic and revisit the conversation again later. After a follow-up discussion, they all agree to sign the chart paper with these expectations and it is hung in the classroom. Dr. M and her students can refer back to it later in the semester as needed, when discussing their group process and when discussing UDL checkpoint 8.3 (Foster collaboration and community). Dr. M also uses interactive community building activities at the start of the semester to begin forming student-to-student connections. She presents the group with a challenge or activity and then observes how they complete the task. One example of this is a simple game in which a ball must be passed around to each person and end up back with the original person in as short a time as possible. Dr. M uses a timer and records the time for each round, encouraging them to think creatively and work together to beat their time. She stops them periodically to ask for reflections on the process. She asks them to discuss who 45

 Universal Design for Learning

has emerged as a leader in the group? Who has offered suggestions? Who has remained quiet? How did the timer influence the group? How did you feel about the group process? These reflections allow her to build the culture of reflective practice with her students from the start of the semester. She will refer back to this activity later in the semester when discussing UDL checkpoint 9.3 (Develop self-assessment and reflection) with the class. Challenges also emerge in this process of developing an inclusive classroom climate among the preservice teachers. Some members of the class, particularly those who are older, did not have inclusive schooling experiences themselves. They were not educated in environments that explicitly valued diverse opinions, social-emotional skills, or community building exercises. They raise critiques about the importance and priority of these concepts and activities in relation to academic content instruction and methods. Dr. M tries to make sure their voices are heard and encourages peer-to-peer discussion of these questions. Finally, Dr. M reflects on how to incorporate these UDL practices within her learning activities related to the Common Core State Standards. She selects certain passages and sections from the standards that include an emphasis on collaborative group work, the importance of helping students to explain their reasoning, and critiquing the reasoning of others. She will make connections between the Common Core standards and the UDL frameworks using these activities as a shared experience to discuss later in the semester.

Introducing the Principles of UDL to Preservice Teachers When Dr. M learned about UDL during the previous academic year, she conducted an informal poll of her elementary preservice teachers to learn who was familiar with the model. She found that very few of them had studied UDL in their previous courses or field placement sites. The students with a background in special education settings were more likely to have some knowledge of UDL. She realized that, in addition to using UDL to inform her own planning and teaching practices, she also wanted to introduce the concepts and theories of UDL to her students explicitly. Dr. M selects a recent text from CAST, titled Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice, by Meyer, Rose, and Gordon (2014) for her students. The text is available in traditional book format, but also in a free, digital text format with many accessible features at http://udltheorypractice.cast.org/ login. These multiple means of representation of the text allow her to model UDL implementation by offering her students choices in how they will read and learn about UDL. The digital text allows her students to experience some of the benefits of this format, by exploring the supplemental features of the text, including the following options: • • • • • •

Create a free account and log in to save notes and highlighting (in three different colors) Watch embedded videos in each chapter with additional examples of UDL practices Take notes in an online notebook that will be saved for each chapter Create tags and add them to text throughout the book Click on the glossary from any page and look up an unfamiliar term Select text and have it read by your text-to-speech screen reading software

In addition to the CAST text, Dr. M asks her students to explore online articles, websites, and digital tools with related content. Some current websites and resources that teacher educators can use for this 46

 Universal Design for Learning

purpose include the National Center on Universal Design for Learning (www.udlcenter.org), and the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) (www.cast.org). Within the CAST website, students can find the BookBuilder and ScienceWriter tools, as well as model UDL lesson plans. After giving her students these multiple means of representation through which to learn about UDL principles and practices, she asks them to complete an assignment that will demonstrate their knowledge of UDL concepts. Rather than assigning everyone to write a paper, or to write a lesson plan, she offers choices to her students from a menu of assignment formats. She thereby models how to provide multiple means of action and expression. Some of her students write lesson plans independently, and others work in pairs. A few groups of students create videos illustrating role-plays of an elementary science or social studies lesson with UDL checkpoints exemplified. The videos are posted to Youtube and shared with the rest of the class for feedback and discussion. Dr. M will then also have these video examples to show to her future students in the next semester. After completing the assignment, students are asked to write a short reflection about which means of action / expression they chose and why. Dr. M is able to respond with comments about the choice. Most of her students chose formats that allowed them to demonstrate their knowledge of UDL effectively. For one or two students, Dr. M provides constructive feedback about the students’ choices and suggests that an alternative format may have been a better choice to demonstrate their knowledge more clearly. She views this feedback as equally important to her feedback on the student’s accurate implementation of UDL methods. Later in the semester, Dr. M gives her students more opportunities to implement lessons designed using UDL in their field placements, building on this introductory phase of the course.

Helping Preservice Teachers Explore UDL, Implicit Bias, and Social Justice Dr. M wants to make sure her students explore the “what,” the “how,” and the “why” of learning the importance of UDL. Dr. M has noticed that her students care deeply about promoting diversity and inclusion. However, they do not always have a strong understanding of the concepts of identity, positionality, and privilege. Most of her students have not studied social justice education or critical multicultural education theories. To this end, through their study of UDL and special education, they will consider their own identities in relation to disability / ability privilege. One tool that Dr. M selects for these purposes is the Implicit Association Test (Nosek, et al., 2007), which can be accessed at implicit.harvard. edu. She has her students take some of these tests, exploring their implicit biases related to disability, race, sexual orientation, and other variables. They reflect on the results of their tests and find that many students have an implicit bias against people with disabilities, people of color, LGBT persons, and other marginalized groups. Dr. M facilitates a dialogue about how and why these biases may have developed as a result of societal inequalities, media representations, and experiences of privilege. Her students come away from these activities with mixed emotions, some with a desire to change their implicit biases. Some students find the activities challenging and do not easily accept the notions of implicit bias, white privilege, or ableism that are discussed. Follow-up discussions in class will focus on the intersectionalities of the students’ ability/disability, race, class, and gender identities, and how these factors influence their work as educators of students with their own complex identities. To further explore the experiences of individuals with disabilities and how they experience inequities in our society, Dr. M holds screenings of two documentary films: Lives Worth Living (Neudel, 2011) and Who Cares About Kelsey? (Habib, 2012). These films are accompanied by discussions about social justice for individuals with disabilities, and panelists representing the disability advocacy community. 47

 Universal Design for Learning

Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) and UDL The preservice teachers in Dr. M’s courses are introduced to the research and practices of social-emotional learning (SEL) and how this aligns with UDL principles. They read about specific SEL curriculums and programs such Open Circle (Seigle, Lange, & Macklem, 1997) and Responsive Classroom (NEFC, 1997). The preservice teachers make connections to UDL checkpoints 8.3 (Foster collaboration and community), 9.2 (Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies), and 9.3 (Develop self-assessment and reflection). They reflect back on their earlier work to establish their own collaborative learning community norms. Dr. M has found that SEL is an area of strength for many of her students, and an area of interest. She wants to build on their funds of knowledge by designing assignments that will help them to achieve multiple goals. The preservice teachers will explore theories and practices from SEL and UDL, as well as finding connections to the CCSS. One of Dr. M’s assignments requires the preservice teachers to design and teach an interdisciplinary lesson incorporating SEL objectives along with academic learning objectives. Options include social studies, science, ELA, or mathematics topics. Preservice teachers are provided with SEL frameworks from the state curriculum frameworks. Teacher educators who are designing a similar assignment in states without SEL frameworks might choose to use the SEL competencies from CASEL (the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning) or from a specific curriculum like Teaching Strategies Gold with SEL objectives. Incorporating these SEL objectives along with academic curriculum objectives helps the preservice teachers to view SEL as an ongoing practice, embedded throughout the school day. One example lesson from an elementary preservice teacher involves the use of reader’s theater. The teacher provided students with scripts that were at an appropriate reading level to support them in building oral reading fluency. The scripts also were designed to help students work on specific vocabulary and comprehension skills related to character traits. The academic content of the lesson was strong, and so was the social-emotional component. Throughout the lesson, students would be interacting with one another, collaborating on their performance, and exhibiting a variety of emotional cues to one another. By providing multiple means of representation and multiple means of engagement in the lesson, the preservice teacher was also showing her knowledge of UDL. Teaching lessons with SEL components in their field placements and recording a video of the lesson is a valuable extension activity for preservice teachers. Dr. M selects certain video clips from her preservice teachers’ lessons and asks for their permission to show them in class for analysis. The class has a chance to share what they notice about student-to-student social interactions, as well as emotional responses from students in these collaborative lessons. Dr. M then asks the preservice teachers to reflect about how the infusion of SEL methods may have made the lesson more accessible to certain students, from the perspective of the UDL principles. Dr. M also asks her students to reference the CCSS in their work on social-emotional learning and UDL. For example, where and how do the CCSS include references to themes related to UDL checkpoint 8.3 (Foster collaboration and community)? Her students might focus on standards from both ELA and Mathematics, such as the following: •

48

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.SL.1: Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.

 Universal Design for Learning

• • • •

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.5.1.B: Follow agreed-upon rules for discussions and carry out assigned roles. CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.1.B: Work with peers to set rules for collegial discussions and decision-making (e.g., informal consensus, taking votes on key issues, presentation of alternate views), clear goals and deadlines, and individual roles as needed. CCSS.MATH.PRACTICE.MP1: Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them. CCSS.MATH.PRACTICE.MP3: Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.

Dr. M and her students use these connections between CSSS, UDL, and SEL to discuss the broader purposes of education and schooling. They review contemporary policy debates about social-emotional learning, inclusion, and accessibility, and discuss to what extent these initiatives are supported by the adoption of CCSS.

Modeling UDL: It’s All About Choice How can teacher educators and professional development providers model UDL practices in their own teaching? The first UDL principle (Provide Multiple Means of Representation) can be brought to life by making a variety of accessible text formats available. Dr. M chooses to do this in her teacher education courses by gathering content from multiple sources. She uses traditional textbooks, but also finds related articles and websites with the same information provided in a different format. She finds videos online that address the content she wants her students to read and view. When she cannot find videos that meet her content needs, she creates lecture videos using a screen capture program or a narrated PowerPoint file. This allows her to model this UDL principle and reinforce its value for her students. As an extension of this, she gives them an opportunity to try a screen reader program that is often used by students with visual impairments or reading disabilities. Likewise, teacher educators can also model the second principle of UDL (Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression) by allowing students to show their knowledge in various formats. Dr. M gives her students choices between writing a reflection paper, narrating it as a podcast, or recording it as a video file. In some cases, it may be appropriate for students to upload and share their audio, video, or text responses on open websites like Youtube, Teachertube, and Schooltube. For other, more private responses, the learning management system (LMS) such as Blackboard may allow students to create private audio or video posts that only the instructor, or perhaps classmates, can access. For written pieces, students may be allowed the choice between a typed reflection paper, a blog entry using an open site like Blogger or Wordpress, or a private LMS blog such as found on Blackboard. Dr. M uses all of these formats in various ways, based on the assignment she has given. Dr. M notices challenges that comes up repeatedly with the use of choice in her assignments. Most students are not accustomed to having these choices in their previous learning experiences. They are used to following specific instructions from a teacher with very little flexibility. Dr. M notices that adding elements of choice to her assignments actually provokes more stress and anxiety for some students, because they are worried about doing something incorrectly. They ask many clarifying questions and make sure that their choices are acceptable. Another challenge is the trend of students gravitating towards response formats they are familiar with, typically the written reflection post. Dr. M notices that few students choose the option to create audio or video reflections. For some students, they report that they 49

 Universal Design for Learning

are not proficient with the technology tools. She wonders if others are simply not eager to step outside of their comfort zones with new assignment formats. Dr. M considers whether she should require at least one assignment to be completed in an audio or video format in the future, to push her students to try these alternatives. One way that Dr. M applies the third principle of UDL (Provide Multiple Means of Engagement) is by offering her students a choice between collaborative and independent work on certain assignments. While she requires that some of her assignments are completed independently (such as a test), and others are completed collaboratively (such as a group presentation), she offers a choice for others. This allows her students to develop their reflective practice and make choices that will best fit their learning needs. After completing the assignment, her students write a short paragraph reflecting on why they chose to complete it independently or with classmates, and what the outcomes were.

Using Shared Documents to Foster Effective Collaborative Work When Dr. M requires collaborative work from her students, she often sees the challenges they face. In her first year as a teacher educator, she received many complaints from her students about group work. They told her when one group member was not completing his or her fair share of the work. The students also relayed the challenges of finding time to meet outside of class. Many of Dr. M’s students work part-time or full-time during the semester. Many have families and live off-campus. They also juggle their schedules to attend pre-practicum field experiences in the classroom. Dr. M takes a two-pronged approach to the challenges of collaborative group projects with her students, using in-class activities as well as a technology-based solution to further promote UDL checkpoint 8.3 (Foster collaboration and community). One goal of elementary teacher education is to build collaboration skills for the preservice teacher. Dr. M emphasizes the importance of teacher collaboration throughout her course and designs class activities that build on her introductory meetings in which the class designed shared norms and expectations. She introduces her students to school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) approach and asks them to develop a matrix of expected behaviors for their collaborative group work. Her students build the matrix around key values and specific contexts (see Table 1). They discuss problems that occur frequently during group assignments (such as a communication breakdown between members over email between meetings). They propose possible solutions using technology, such as a shared document that all members can view and edit. Dr. M builds on the idea of using a shared online document for groups to edit and view between meetings. She chooses Google Documents as her preferred tool because of its simplicity to set up and share with her students. She asks her students to create free Google accounts and she demonstrates how to create and edit a shared document in class. She also informs them of other options for this technology, such as creating a Wiki in Blackboard or other platforms, or using a sharing feature with Word or Pages word processing software. She asks each group to use a shared Google document to keep track of progress and action items for their group assignments. She asks them to give her access to the documents as well, so that she may review their progress and add comments if asked for feedback. This allows Dr. M to model additional UDL methods in her teaching practice, such as checkpoint 8.4 (Increase masteryoriented feedback) and 6.4 (Enhance capacity for monitoring progress).

50

 Universal Design for Learning

Table 1. PBIS matrix for group collaboration In Class

Out of Class

Online

At Field Placements

Respect

Listen to others; Honor their opinions; Protect confidentiality

Communication; Understand life situations; Share the work-- don’t take it all on one’s self and don’t allow others to

Give constructive criticism with appreciation

Appreciate the time your SP* puts in; Enjoy, learn, smile

Achieve

Do our work; Participate; Read

Coordinate and meet with others; Actually do work while together; Read

Read what others post, reply promptly; Use Google Drive; Read

Participate and accept feedback; Read

Motivate

Engage with what people say; Give feedback

Keep others in check; Help finish work

Give positive comments to show you read what others wrote; Communicate effectively

Motivate students; Be enthusiastic

Support

Share best practices

Coffee; Venting; MTEL** prep study groups

Think before you tweet

Assist your SP*; Be responsive

* Supervising Practitioner ** Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure

Applying UDL in Common Core-Aligned Lesson and Unit Design In her teacher education courses, Dr. M requires her preservice teachers to write a variety of individual lesson plans as well as longer interdisciplinary units of study. She considers three possible ways that her preservice teachers can incorporate the UDL principles, guidelines, and checkpoints in their instructional planning. In the first assignment, the preservice teachers will be asked to design a lesson on any topic, incorporating each of the three principles in some way (Multiple Means of Engagement, Multiple Means of Representation, and Multiple Means of Action/Expression). This will give them a preliminary opportunity to apply their new knowledge of UDL and reflect on the process. Dr. M finds that many of the preservice teachers choose a science or social studies lesson for this assignment. They report finding natural ways to match the UDL approach with inquiry-based science lessons and interactive, hands-on social studies lessons. Thus, Dr. M designs a more challenging assignment to follow this one. The second assignment requires the preservice teachers to adapt a Math lesson plan that is drawn from a prescribed, published curriculum. The lesson plan must be aligned with the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. The preservice teachers are asked to implement UDL checkpoints within the lesson, adapting it for increased accessibility while still meeting the district requirements to use the published curriculum, and meeting the Common Core requirements for the appropriate grade level. Dr. M and her preservice teachers have had many discussions about how Math curriculums are used in the field placement sites that accompany the course. The preservice teachers share their conversations with their supervising practitioners in which they have learned how strict (or flexible) each school district is about following the published curriculum. This assignment is designed to help prepare the preservice teachers to work within the limitations and requirements of a district Math curriculum and the Common Core, while also making their instruction more accessible for all learners using the UDL framework. Many of Dr. M’s preservice teachers find this assignment more challenging than the first assignment, because they are required to work from a predefined lesson plan. Others share in their reflections that they preferred having a pre-written lesson plan to start from, and that they found the first assignment

51

 Universal Design for Learning

more challenge because of its lack of structure. These different perspectives on the instructional planning process provide another meaningful conversation topic for the class to discuss as they analyze UDL further. Dr. M’s third UDL lesson plan assignment requires the preservice teachers to explore a new instructional technology tool and evaluate it after teaching the lesson. She has found that most of the lesson plans written for the first two assignments do include technology, but the preservice teachers usually stay within their comfort zones. They usually add a video or website to provide multiple means of representation. They offer students the chance to record themselves or dictate to a scribe to provide multiple means of action / expression. However, in this final lesson plan assignment, Dr. M asks them to research a new tool such as the CAST BookBuilder or ScienceWriter, or a new iPad app. She wants them to practice how they will critically select and evaluate technology tools that will help them implement the UDL checkpoints for a particular grade level and subject area. Dr. M provides the students with a few suggestions, but she also learns about new tools from her students as part of this assignment, because so many new tools are becoming available each semester. Some current tools and apps that preservice teachers have used in their lesson plans include the following: • • • • • • • •

Voicethread Prezi Book Creator Explain Everything Visual Timer Voice Recorder Garage Band iMovie

As an alternative to assigning a discrete lesson plan in which UDL or technology tools are applied, teacher educators may also ask their preservice teachers to incorporate UDL throughout a larger unit plan. When Dr. M gives an interdisciplinary unit assignment within her courses, she includes some of the work described above within the overall unit plan. This allows the preservice teachers to consider how UDL checkpoints and technology tools can best support their learners over the course of a sequence of 8 to 10 lessons, instead of individual lessons.

UDL and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) Within a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) model, UDL may be considered an important feature of the universal core curriculum for all students (tier 1) (Massachusetts DESE, 2011). After introducing UDL in her courses, Dr. M builds on that foundation by exploring research and practices related to MTSS with her preservice teachers. She asks them to design targeted (tier 2) interventions for small groups of students who are in need of additional supports beyond the core curriculum. The preservice teachers continue to apply the UDL checkpoints in their intervention planning, perhaps expanding the range of menu choices for a given learning experience so that the intervention group has access to even more technology tools. Students also begin to explore intensive, individualized (tier 3) interventions. Dr. M and her students discuss how UDL can be applied at all tiers of the MTSS model. Tier 1 intervention and instruction encompasses the learning experiences that are made available to all students. Dr. M emphasizes how UDL can have a preventative effect at tier 1 by supporting more students in being 52

 Universal Design for Learning

successful, so that they will not need more intensive supports. They discuss tier 2 supports such as small group instruction and progress monitoring, and supplemental instructional supports to practice fluency skills or concepts that were not fully understood by certain students. Brief, formative assessments used frequently will allow the teacher to create and adapt flexible groupings for tier 2 supports. Dr. M also discusses individualized tier 3 interventions with her preservice teachers. Students with or without IEPs might be provided with individualized instruction within the MTSS approach. UDL guideline 3 (Provide options for comprehension) might be implemented in a tier 3 intervention by pre-teaching background knowledge or vocabulary before a lesson to certain individual students. Preservice teachers completing field experiences in contemporary elementary schools will find that some school districts have adopted a multi-tiered model of interventions formally, while others have not. Dr. M asks the preservice teachers to investigate the level of MTSS implementation in their placements and share their findings with the class. In some schools, the daily schedule has been rearranged so that a 30-minute “intervention block” is available for students from all grades who need tier 2 interventions, or more individualized, intensive (tier 3) interventions (Brown-Chidsey, Bronaugh, & McGraw, 2009). Dr. M designs a series of class activities in which her preservice teachers are presented with a spreadsheet of class-wide data from screening and benchmark assessments in literacy, mathematics, and social-emotional or behavioral functioning. Each assessment is tiered with color-coding to indicate the level of functioning when compared to peers. Using Microsoft Excel, or the spreadsheet feature of Google Documents, the preservice teachers are asked to sort the data in multiple ways, creating possible instructional groupings. Dr. M asks the class to discuss the value of homogeneous and heterogeneous groupings for various instructional purposes. Finally, the preservice teachers write lesson plans that incorporate their use of technology in planning for multi-tiered supports using these different groupings. As an extension to this assignment, teacher educators can assign a progress monitoring project to the preservice teachers. If there are a few students in the field placement classroom who can participate in a series of small-group intervention lessons, then the preservice teacher can also implement formative assessments and create a progress monitoring report. Once again, using Excel or Google spreadsheet technology, the preservice teacher can create a line graph reflecting an individual student’s growth over the course of time. After a few weeks of intervention, the class can discuss these progress monitoring results and make instructional decisions about the effectiveness of the intervention. Additional technology tools for progress monitoring may be explored using free online sources such as Intervention Central (www.interventioncentral.org) or commercial products like Aimsweb (www.aimsweb.com).

UDL and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) Dr. M creates an assignment in which students must adapt lesson plans using an IEP, incorporating the student’s accommodations, modifications, goals, objectives, and related services into their plans. Many of the preservice teachers find that they would like to offer some of those accommodations to all students in the lesson, not just the student with the IEP. This allows them to see how UDL practices can emerge from special education and become universally applied as a preventative and supportive approach for all students. She adds more sample IEPs, 504 plans, and informal behavior plans to her course, so that students can see more accommodations that teachers may be asked to provide. She asks the class to discuss whether

53

 Universal Design for Learning

or not UDL removes, or reduces, the need for these individualized plans. The class engages in a lively discussion with a range of opinions. Some preservice teachers believe that if UDL becomes more widely practiced, we would not need a separate system of special education. Others view UDL as a preventative approach that may reduce the number of children who will be diagnosed with a disability, but that some students will still have the need for intensive, individualized accommodations and supports. Dr. M makes connections with them to the concept of a “disabled curriculum” and questions with them to what extent we can remove all barriers and impairments for individuals with disabilities. Dr. M integrates technology into this phase of the course by introducing her students to several online IEP systems that school districts have adopted. The preservice teachers learn what systems are in place in their field placement schools and conduct research about the benefits and potential problems with their use. One of the author’s preservice teachers continued this research in an honors thesis, exploring how these online IEP systems address concerns related to confidentiality and security under FERPA and IDEA. Some current tools that can be explored online include Enrich IEP, EasyIEP, IEPWriter, Netchemia, and ESPED. Preservice teachers can be asked to examine these technology tools for alignment with UDL principles.

UDL and Assistive Technology Elementary preservice teachers should also be prepared to work with students with special needs who have assistive technology tools and services available to them. Dr. M’s course includes readings and assignments that allow her preservice teachers to learn the difference between educational technology tools that might be used to implement UDL for all students, and specific assistive technologies for individual students with disabilities. They also explore how these technologies may overlap at times and what types of assistive technologies are most suitable for expansion to universal use. Dr. M is able to obtain a set of iPads for her preservice teachers to use during the semester. The class explores many assistive technology apps and features on the iPad. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) apps are designed to support individuals with communication impairments, often by tapping icons to generate digital speech. Dr. M’s students investigate these apps and suggest some UDL applications with young children and English Language Learners. Most of the UDL applications address the principle of Multiple Means of Action/Expression by allowing students to communicate their knowledge without using verbal speech. Tap-to-talk apps can be customized with pictures of classroom items, activities, or school staff members for a child to request. Daily routines and other important phrases can be customized to meet the needs of an individual or group. These features are intriguing to the preservice teachers and they implement some of their ideas using free versions of AAC apps like Able AAC (www.ablevox.com), Alexicom AAC (www.alexicomaac.strikingly.com), and GoTalkNow (www.attainmentcompany.com). As they continue to explore assistive technology, the class explores text-to-speech and speech-totext dictation apps and programs as well. They explore how these tools can be useful for individuals with learning disabilities such as dyslexia. They also explore the speech-to-text feature of apps such as Dragon Dictation (www.nuancemobilelife.com) in their own writing assignments. The preservice teachers conclude that these apps would have many applications for students with and without disabilities, working from the UDL principles.

54

 Universal Design for Learning

Before You Leave: Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) for Preservice Teachers Dr. M uses a UDL approach to teaching her students how to develop a personal learning network (PLN). By using Twitter, Google Communities, and other tools, she capitalizes on her students’ strengths and prior knowledge of digital social media as a text and as a tool. Teacher educators can encourage their preservice teachers to create accounts, follow other educators, experts, and professional organizations, as well as each other. They can gather and compile sources from various educators and professional organizations using a shared platform for posting articles and links. Then, the class can collectively evaluate the value and accuracy of these resources. Dr. M creates Twitter hashtags for her courses using course codes such as #EDUC376. She asks her students to participate in Twitter chats using this hashtag with one another in real time. They are encouraged to participate in national and global chats with educators outside of their class, such as #UDLchat and #edchat. The goal is for the preservice teachers to remain connected to one another beyond the end of class, and beyond the semester, as well as building connections to professional organizations in the field by way of their new PLN. Dr. M faces certain challenges with the use of social media in her courses. She finds that some students are creating Twitter accounts specifically for their use as educators, while others are using a personal account for the course. She is unsure about how to navigate the boundaries in this new social media learning space. Some students struggle with Twitter as a new technology and have not had experience with using it before. One student had recently deleted her Twitter account in order to prevent distractions from studying and was worried about using it for that reason. Dr. M reflects on these challenges and decides to continue including social media as a supplemental component to her course, but removes the required posts from the syllabus for next semester. In this way, she will offer choice to her students about which technology tools to use for their personal learning networks.

THE FUTURE OF UDL IN TEACHER EDUCATION How can teacher educators promote an equitable, inclusive, 21st century classroom? How can UDL and technology continue to be used in responsible, ethical ways? Edyburn (2013) suggests several propositions for the future of UDL, some of which are particularly relevant to teacher education. Will technology soon become as mandatory as a textbook? In some universities, such as the author’s institution, students are required to own a laptop. Teacher educators can add a “Required Technology” section to their syllabi with specific details about what tools will be needed and how they are to be used. Free tools such as Google, Twitter, or YouTube accounts can be required and used later in the course for various assignments. Paid subscriptions to other online services or software programs might replace the purchase of an expensive textbook. It is hard to predict whether more digital technology might result in a higher cost for the student, or a lower cost. Many teacher educators already have begun to reduce the number of textbooks to be purchased, because so many readings and resources are freely available online. Will UDL therefore be a catalyst for more equity and inclusion within teacher education? There is a clear potential for this to occur, if technology is used to reduce the cost of teacher education and increase its accessibility. If teacher educators use the principles and methods of UDL to provide multiple means of representation and offer choices for means of action and expression, perhaps more preservice teachers with disabilities or who are themselves English language learners will be able to succeed in their efforts 55

 Universal Design for Learning

to meet licensure requirements and professional teaching standards. Future research should address how UDL can be used to support the recruitment and retention of a more diverse pool of preservice teachers, including teachers with disabilities and bilingual teachers.

CONCLUSION UDL principles and practices have demonstrated much promise for improving the accessibility and inclusivity of teacher education. As demonstrated by the case study of Dr. M’s experiences, there are many opportunities for teacher educators to make their coursework and field experiences more meaningful and engaging using UDL. Many of the methods described in this chapter are likely to be familiar to elementary teacher educators, such as those built around collaborative work and the co-construction of knowledge. Other UDL applications, such as those aligned with assistive technology or the multitiered system of supports model, may represent new opportunities. The educational technology tools and digital media available to the 21st century teacher educator can be overwhelming in their scope and in how quickly they evolve. UDL provides a helpful framework through which teacher educators can filter and select tools for use in their coursework. Using technology tools for the goals of increasing accessibility and equity within teacher education is an important and thoughtful way to approach their use. UDL also helps preservice teachers think carefully about their own identities and implicit biases, and how to foster a safe and equitable classroom climate when they step into the role of the teacher. In this way, UDL provides a secure foundation for elementary preservice teachers to build their skills with inclusive practices and educational technology as they prepare to meet the needs of their future students.

REFERENCES Baird, D., & Fisher, M. (2006). Neomillennial user experience design strategies: Utilizing social networking media to support always on learning styles. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 5–32. doi:10.2190/6WMW-47L0-M81Q-12G1 Brown-Chidsey, R., Bronaugh, L., & McGraw, K. (2009). RTI in the classroom: Guidelines and recipes for success. New York: The Guilford Press. Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2011). Universal Design for Learning guidelines (Version 2.0). Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design, Version 2.0. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2015). SEL and pre-service teacher education in the United States and Canada. Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/pre-serviceteacher-education/ Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (2005). Universal Design for Learning: A guide for teachers and education professionals. Arlington, VA: Authors.

56

 Universal Design for Learning

Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers’ comprehension through scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Keiffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (2nd ed.; pp. 75–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dieker, L. A., Kennedy, M. J., Smith, S., Vasquez, E., III, Rock, M., & Thomas, C. N. (2014). Use of technology in the preparation of pre-service teachers (Document No. IC-11). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/ Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize Universal Design for Learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41. doi:10.1177/073194871003300103 Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 7–24. Habib, D. (2007). Including Samuel. [Motion Picture]. Institute on Disability. Habib, D. (2012). Who cares about Kelsey? [Motion Picture]. Institute on Disability. Hackman, H. W. (2008). Broadening the pathway to academic success: The critical intersections of social justice education, critical multicultural education, and universal instructional design. In J. L. Higbee & E. Goff (Eds.), Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation: Implementing Universal Design in higher education. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal Design for Learning in the classroom: Practical applications. New York, NY: Guilford. Hehir, T. (2009). Policy foundations of universal design for learning. In D. T. Gordon, J. W. Gravel, & L. A. Schifter (Eds.), A policy reader in universal design for learning (pp. 35–45). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Israel, M., Ribuffo, C., & Smith, S. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Recommendations for teacher preparation and professional development (Document No. IC-7). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http:// ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/ King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal Design for Learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 199–201. doi:10.2307/27740372 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). (2011). The Massachusetts Tiered System of Supports Blueprint. Malden, MA: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/ apa/sss/mtss Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer, & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13–35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

57

 Universal Design for Learning

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST. National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2011). English Language Learner FAQs. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/advocacy/faq_guides/ell National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2013, April 17). What Does It Mean to Say that Curricula are Disabled? Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlcurriculum/disabledcurricula National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors. Neudel, E. (2011). Lives worth living. [Motion picture]. Independent Lens. Northeast Foundation for Children (NEFC). (1997). Guidelines for the responsive classroom. Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., & Banaji, M. R. et al. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 36–88. doi:10.1080/10463280701489053 Novak, K. (2014). UDL Now: A teacher’s Monday morning guide to implementing Common Core standards using Universal Design for Learning. Wakefield, MA: CAST. Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011). Universal design for instruction in postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24, 5–15. Rose, D., Meyer, A., Strangman, N., & Rappolt, G. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Scott, S., McGuire, J., & Shaw, S. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A new paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special Education, 24(6), 369–379. doi:10.1177 /07419325030240060801 Seigle, P., Lange, L., & Macklem, G. (1997). Open Circle Curriculum. Wellesley, MA: Reach Out to Schools Social Competency Program, The Stone Center, Wellesley College. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2010). Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Retrieved from www.pbis.org U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2015). The Digest of Education Statistics, 2013 (NCES 2015-011). Author.

58

 Universal Design for Learning

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Assistive Technology: Technology tools designed to help individuals with disabilities to learn, communicate, and perform other important life functions with greater independence. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA): Current federal special education law ensuring accommodations and services for children with disabilities in the United States. Individualized Education Program (IEP): Document prepared yearly by multi-disciplinary team for a student with a disability, stating present levels of functioning, accommodations, modifications, goals, objectives, special education and related services, and other required components. Multiple Means for Action and Expression: Providing options for how learners navigate a learning environment and express what they know (the “how” of learning). Multiple Means for Engagement: Providing options for how learners can be motivated to learn and engage with learning experiences (the “why” of learning). Multiple Means of Representation: Providing options for learners to perceive and comprehend information (the “what” of learning). Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): Framework of supports for academic, social-emotional, and behavioral needs of all students, with increasing levels of individualization and intensity based on student needs. Personal Learning Network (PLN): An informal system of connectivity to other people, through social and technological means, designed and curated for the purposes of learning and sharing information. Social-Emotional Learning (SEL): The attainment of knowledge and skills related to emotional awareness and regulation, empathy, relationships, and decision-making.

59

Section 2

Technology and Teacher Preparation

61

Chapter 4

Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction Erold K. Bailey Westfield State University, USA

ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to share an approach articulating how learning theories can be used to inform computer technology in classroom instruction. This report is based on a course introducing student teachers to using cutting-edge computer technology in their future classrooms. An analysis of three exemplary responses to course assignments revealed that student teachers demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of how to apply the behaviorist, cognitivist, and constructivist theories of learning to computer technology for classroom instruction. This chapter also provides ideas about how students and educators can contribute to the development of educational apps that can support teaching and learning.

INTRODUCTION Computer technology is a ubiquitous presence in our world, and K-12 students are among the demographic most “wired” to the latest forms of the technology (Palidino, 2015; Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010), so much so that children spend countless hours fortifying their fascination with this phenomenon. Quite likely, teachers who do not co-opt the technology in their classrooms are at the perilous risk of becoming irrelevant. Although many teachers make the effort to support their instruction with computer technology, this author has found no evidence in the literature that their decisions are informed by established pedagogical theories. The purpose of this chapter therefore, is to provide a framework for using principles of major learning theories to inform the application of computer technology to elementary classroom instruction. The chapter is inspired by EDUC 396 Seminar in Recent developments: Computers in Education, a course that the author teaches to early childhood, elementary, and special education student teachers. EDUC 396 is geared towards introducing students to ideas and practices regarding how to employ comDOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch004

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

puter technology to support their work as future teachers, and teachers of the future. In Collaborative Learning Teams (CLTs), students explore and demonstrate how the latest apps and other software can support instruction, classroom management, classroom assessment, and students with special needs. The scope of the discussion however will be limited to how learning theories can inform technology to support instruction. Basically, this chapter is a report on how the author teaches the course, and how it can be a model for introducing prospective teachers to an approach to using cutting-edge computer technology in their classrooms. Teacher educators working with pre-service teachers on the use of technology, in-service teachers, and policymakers should find this chapter useful.

THE CASE FOR LEARNING THEORIES To further set the stage for the ideas, applications and insights that will be subsequently covered, a brief rationale is provided for the use of learning theories to inform computer technology in classroom instruction. The author contends that a major reason for employing learning theories to inform the application of technology in the classroom is their compatibility. As will be discussed and illustrated in greater details later, principles of the major learning theories logically connect with the technical applications of computer software. For example, one principle of the cognitive theory of learning is that learning is made up of the component processes of attention, encoding, storage and retrieval (see the work of Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). Computer applications engage the human brain using these four components. As will be shown, behaviorism and constructivism comport the same compatibility with computer technology. Another argument for using learning theories to inform computer technology for instruction is that this synergy has a strong potential to enhance cardinal principles of teaching and learning. In particular, it provides instructional direction and potentially, learner motivation. A fundamental consideration for the teacher when planning and implementing lessons is to formulate, and be guided by clear instructional objectives, which articulate intended learning outcomes (Ormrod, 2011; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005; Saphier & Gower, 1997; McCown, Driscoll & Roop, 1996). The instructional objectives in turn inform the methods and materials that will accomplish the goals of the lesson. Methods and materials will therefore, involve the learning-theory-informed-technology the teacher selects for supporting the lesson. In terms of learner motivation, because students are so fascinated by computer technology, it is reasonable to assume that such passion will positively influence their engagement with the lesson. Instruction informed by learning theories is also likely to reduce the romanticism of computer in the classroom. The romanticized view (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999) or fantasy effect of the technology may drive teachers to believe that heeding the call of integrating computers in their classrooms will solve teaching and learning challenges. Indiscriminate use of computers will be no more effective than not using the technology at all. Applying principles of learning theories requires teachers to be more deliberate in the use of the technology. In that way, the application of the computer is likely to make learning experiences more meaningful and potentially more effective. The thoughtful use of computer applications for instruction is likely to provide targeted flexibility in the teaching and learning process. In particular, the teacher and/or students can use computers at any point during the course of a lesson. For example, the teacher might opt to present a YouTube video at the beginning of a lesson in order to arrest students’ attention and stimulate interest in the rest of the les62

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

son to follow. Or she/he may prefer to engage students in an online scavenger hunt to teach the concepts studied in the body of the lesson. In addition, the teacher might decide to reserve the use of technology for the end of the lesson to facilitate the culminating activity, reinforcing the key concepts covered. Furthermore, the teacher might elect to use technology at all 3 major stages of the lesson, as well as for the assessment of the learning outcomes.

Computer Technology and Elementary Level Learners Learning about and applying computer technology might well be analogous to acquiring and using a new language. In the same way young children seem to have an enormous capacity for (first) language acquisition at a “critical period” of development before puberty (Lenneberg, 1967; Hurford, 1991), so it is for them with computer technology. Also, while some scholars believe language development is a result of environmental factors (Skinner, 1957; Getner & Namy, 2006; Saffran 2003); others contend that young children are particularly wired to acquire or learn language easier than adults (Pinker, 2007; Chomsky, 1972; Greiser & Kuhl, 1989). In light of that nature-nature debate, the author is of the view that while the environment impacts the developing skills of individuals, there is indeed a critical period when they are more “fertile grounds” for growth and development in certain skills such as computer literacy. That period is during the childhood years. The technology-divide between children and their parents and teachers has also been described as “digital natives” versus “digital immigrants” (see Prensky, 2010) for a thoughtful conversation on this insightful analogy). The difference between young and adult learners in terms of engagement with computers may also be a result of acquisition versus learning, as distinguished by Krashen (1987) with regard to language development. According Krashen, language acquisition (among children) relies on skills developed more subconsciously as a result of being immersed in the authentic experience. On the other hand, language learning (among adults) is a conscious process governed by a more formal experience. This author is of the view that young learners tend to acquire, as opposed to learn computer knowledge. The current computer environment enables children to be independent learners, naturally engaging with the technology, while adults need to be taught. Young learners like elementary school children therefore, are endowed with certain characteristics amenable to and compatible with computer technology. That said, it is important for teachers to still provide explicit instructions for students to learn basic computer knowledge and skills, for example how to save files in an organized fashion. This will ensure that learners are not only creative, but also efficient and effective users of the technology. Elementary students possess what the author terms “technology innocence”, which may make it easier for them than for adults, to interact with and use computers. The author believes that this openness enables young learners to be more receptive and less influenced by preconceived notions, which can adversely affect their engagement with the technology. Older learners, particularly adults, exhibit more technophobia or anxieties about using the computer (Valentine & Holloway, 2013; Piper, Campbell, & Hollan, 2010; Chung, Park, Wang, Fulk, & McLaughlin, 2010; Czaja et al., 2006; Ellis & Allaire, 1999; Baack, Brown, & Brown, 1991), and hence are likely to be slower at learning or embracing the technology. Another favorable characteristic of young children with computer technology is that they are at the formative stage of active exploration and meaning-making (see the work of Piaget, Vygotsky and Bandura) which empowers them to be less inhibited by the phobia that adult learners might have for computers. The world of computer technology is a vast galaxy of digital devices and operations, which

63

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

might be overwhelming for adults in particular. Because of the exploratory proclivities of children, this is a welcome environment in which they can investigate and learn. Closely related to the above point is that young children are actively creative because of their developing stage of exploration and sense-making. Because of their active imaginations, and given the chance to act on those impulses, these learners can be quite innovative. Computer technology naturally provides the latitude to facilitate learners’ creativity. For example, an app (StoryKit, ICDL Foundation) that presents the opportunity for the child to create her/his animated storybook is a wonderful tool to stimulate the creative power. Finally, young children are in the process of developing a range of skills that can be definitely enhanced by computer technology. For example, early childhood and early elementary students are still developing and refining fine motor skills in terms of eye-hand coordination (Berk, 2014). Opportunities for developing these skills through technology, range from manipulating hardware components like the computer mouse to correctly tracing or keying in virtual letters on a tablet. Children are also developing intellectual skills such as understanding cause and effect relationships (Meisels, Wen, & Beachy-Quick, 2010; Bayley, 2006; Parks, 2004; Lerner & Ciervo, 2003; Papalia, Olds & Feldman, 1999). Computer technology can indeed enhance such competences through the act of children clicking/tapping and observing graphic or textual results on a screen.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE: LEARNING THEORIES AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM This chapter focuses on three major learning theories, but before they are discussed, a definition of learning is helpful here. According to a host of thinkers in the field of education and psychology, learning is a change in behavior, thinking or attitude resulting from experience (Ormrod 2011; Papalia et al., 1999; Davis & Paladino, 1997; McCown, et al., 1996; Wood & Wood, 1993; Seifert & Hoffnung, 1991; Mazur, 1990; Rathus, 1990). The core idea in this definition is that there is change in the individual as a result of experience. This overarching principle implies that whatever our students achieve from our instruction is largely dependent on the quality of learning experiences we provide in the classroom. Therefore, as teachers we should ensure that the pedagogical strategies we use are likely to effect change in our students. Although there is consensus on a definition for learning, there are divergent perspectives on the process of learning. As a result, different learning theories have been formulated to explain the differing foci and processes. While no learning theory is independent of the others, they are meaningfully designated to three major categories: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Learning theories serve as conceptual frameworks that describe how information is absorbed, processed, and retained during learning (Illeris, 2004); or simply, frameworks that explain how learning happens. Following is a discussion on the principles and applications of each theory identified here.

Behaviorism Behaviorism is based on the thinking that the process and outcome of learning is best understood through observable behaviors or actions (See the work of theorists such as J. B. Watson, I. P. Pavlov, B. F. Skinner, & E. L. Thorndike). According to this theory, behavior can be manipulated, measured

64

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

and changed. In the field of education, behavior broadly refers to students exhibiting pro- or anti-social behaviors, being on or off task with assigned work, and students’ performance on assignments or tests. We manipulate behavior in the classroom by establishing rules for acceptable conduct, instructional approaches, and presenting incentives or disincentives. We measure behavior when we assign a grade or rating to academic performance or classroom conduct. And we change behavior through incentives or disincentives. Essentially, the theory purports that our behavior after an experience indicates whether we have learned or not. Furthermore, behaviorists hold that learning is dependent on the negative or positive consequences received after a behavior.

Theoretical Principles of Behaviorism How learning occurs from the behaviorist perspective can be explained through four major principles. These are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Learning is inferred from behavior, Behavior is determined by its antecedent(s), Whether a particular behavior is repeated depends on the consequence(s) that will follow it; and When a behavior is repeated, the consequence is a reinforcer.

Behaviorism is predicated on the argument that what is taking place in the brain during the process of learning, cannot be directly observed. Hence, judgment about whether learning has taken place must be inferred from observable behaviors. Therefore in the classroom, we provide students with particular learning experiences with specific anticipated behavioral outcomes, and then observe the degree to which our expectations were realized. For learning to take place we first need to provide the learner with a set of prior experiences – or antecedents – that are intended to induce certain desired outcomes. The quality of the experiences or antecedents determines if and/or to what extent learning will take place. For example, advance organizers (See the work of David Ausubel) can prepare students for an upcoming lesson; or using cues and hints can direct students’ thinking to desirable or appropriate responses (or instructional objectives). After the learner exhibits a particular behavior or performance, that behavior needs to be encouraged or discouraged. These two polar options are dependent on either positive or negative consequences, respectively. For example, if the learner exhibits acceptable classroom conduct or academic performance, she/he should be rewarded to maintain or repeat the behavior. If the conduct or performance is deemed unacceptable, the behavior should be discouraged in order for it to be eliminated or alleviated. As teachers we manipulate desirable and undesirable behaviors through verbal or symbolic currencies (e.g. grades, stars, check marks) and other forms of consequences. Finally, teachers should, overtime understand what consequences motivate students to continue reproducing desirable behaviors. Behaviorists refer to the consequence that causes a behavior to be repeated, as a reinforcer. For example, if attaching a smiley face to a student’s work motivates him/her to maintain or improve a behavior, that reward is a reinforcer. It is also important to understand that a consequence can be a reinforcer for undesirable behaviors. For example, uncritical attention to a disruptive, attentionseeking student might encourage her/him to persist with the behavior. Attention will now be directed to how the theory is applied to an assignment presented to the author’s student teachers.

65

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

Behaviorism and Computer App-lication1 For this assignment student teachers were required to design a mini-lesson2 supported by computer technology, and informed by principles of the behaviorist theory of learning. Students were required to respond to two major questions: (1) How are the principles of the theory reflected in the mini-lesson? (2) How are the principles of theory reflected in or supported by the technology? These questions were included in the assignment, to stimulate students’ thoughtfulness about developing lessons that are grounded in learning theories. The assignment was preceded by a brief lecture and discussion presented by the author. Students worked in Collaborative Learning Teams (CLTs)3 to explore and accomplish the assignment. The cognitive and constructivist learning theory assignments presented in this chapter also followed this model. An exemplary response to the behaviorist assignment is presented in Table 1. Following the table is an analysis of how students’ response to the assignment engaged principles of the theory.

Analysis of How Assignment Engaged Principles of the Behaviorist Theory The above lesson (see Table 1) is designed to reinforce students’ knowledge about rock classification and characteristics. The primary instructional objective is that “Students will be able to identify the characteristics of rocks and the class of rocks with 80% accuracy” (Table 1). The instructional technology employed in the lesson was the Interactives Rock Cycle web-page, which is a topic on the Annenberg Learner website. Learners were required to respond to questions presented on the site by selecting the correct responses from a list of options. Upon a selection, the learner will be informed if he/she is correct or not. Depending on the total selections after 24 minutes, learners were informed through a message on the screen to proceed to the next chapter or revise the material. The activity selected by the CLT is a classical behavioral-response and consequences scenario. As discussed earlier, behaviorism essentially concerns drawing inferences about learning based on student “behavior”. Also, the theory is governed and explicated by key principles. This CLT applied the following principles to the assignment: 1. Learning is inferred from behavior, 2. Behavior is determined by its antecedent(s), and 3. Whether a particular behavior is repeated depends on the consequence(s) that will follow it. In light of the two questions stated in the assignment above, salient points on how each principle was addressed will now be discussed: •

66

Learning is Inferred from Behavior: In terms of how the principles of the theory are reflected in the mini-lesson, the authors of the assignment pointed out that the teacher will focus on the students’ progress during the lesson, particularly concentrating on the number of points they receive for answering the questions. Therefore, the teacher can determine the extent of learning based on students’ behavior (i.e. the points received.) Regarding how the theory is reflected in the technology itself, the team provided a detailed description and explanation of how the students will be engaged with the Interactives Rock Cycle website, and how their behavior will inform the teacher, through the technology, how much they have learned. Notably, sometimes there is little distinction

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

Table 1. Exemplary response to behaviorism assignment EDUC 396 SEMINAR IN RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: COMPUTERS IN EDUCATION Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology - Behaviorism Instructions: Design a computer technology-supported mini lesson informed by the principles of the behaviorist theory of learning: (1) provide a brief description of your mini lesson; and (2) use the table below to connect the theory, technology, and instruction. Brief description of Mini-Lesson: The subject: Science The Topic of the Lesson: The Rock Cycle What Students will Learn at the End of the Lesson: Students will be able to identify the characteristics of rocks and the class of rocks with 80% accuracy. The Material (s) that will be used in lesson (essentially the technology you will be using): - SmartBoard, computers or tablets (one per student). - The www/ or Internet: http://www.learner.org/interactives/rockcycle/types3.html - Projector and Screen - Teacher computer - Classroom board - Marker Steps in the Lesson Introduction Students will have previously learned about the various characteristics and classes of rocks. To begin the teacher will complete a quick review of the characteristics and classes of rocks with the students. This will be done using questions that connect with the students’ prior knowledge. Some questions that could be asked include: “What types of rocks are formed when piles of sediment are pressed together?” (Sedimentary), or “A rock that changes when it is subjected to intense heat or pressure is called what?” (Metamorphic). The teacher will then introduce the website. This introduction will inform the students that in the lesson they will be reinforcing and building upon their knowledge surrounding the characteristics and classes of rocks. Development After the introduction of the website, the teacher will model how students are to use the link written on the classroom board to navigate the World Wide Web. Once at the website, the teacher will demonstrate how the students should be interacting with the website. As a class they will answer two questions together. Then, the teacher will tell students that if in the twenty-four minutes they receive a score of at least an eight or better they will get a star sticker to add to their achievement chart. Students know that once they get to twenty star stickers they get to pick a prize. Once each student had the chance to ask questions, they will begin working on their tablets, computers, or Smart board. During this time-frame the teacher will be walking around and checking in with students to ensure that all are on the correct track; as well as monitoring each student’s progress by taking note of that student’s scores for the star stickers. Conclusion The teacher will write this sentence on the board, “I now know ________________.” The teacher will instruct the students to first discuss their answers to this sentence with their neighbor. Students will also be instructed to make sure their answers are grounded to the lesson’s objective. Once students had the opportunity to share with a partner, the pairs will group together, so that there are four students in each group. After each group member has an opportunity to share, the teacher will then bring the class together. Next, the teacher will ask if any student wants to share their new understanding with the class. Then, the teacher will ask the students using their thumbs (up, middle or down), to show their current understandings of the characteristics and classes of rocks. The teacher will conclude the lesson by placing the stars on the chart for those students who achieved a score of eight or better in the time-frame. Description of the Selected Technology World Wide Web/ Internet (http://www.learner.org/interactives/rockcycle/types3.html), this is an interactive website. The formal title of this page is Interactives Rock Cycle. This page includes an activity specifically addressing the characteristics and classes of rocks. Students can access this website using either a Smart board, tablet, or computer. Also, it is free to access. The activity involves students answering ten questions in six minutes. The questions are formatted with three to seven options for students to select as the best possible answers. Also, accompanying each question is an image that serves as a visual aide to students while they are making their answer selections. Once a selection has been made, sounds, colors, and words inform students as to whether their selection was accurate. Students will be prompted to answer a total of ten questions in the allotted time frame (six minutes). Principles of the theory

How are the principles of theory reflected in minilesson? (Explain in sufficient details)

How are the principles of theory reflected in or supported by the technology? (Explain in sufficient details)

Learning is inferred from the behavior of students.

The teacher will be monitoring students’ progress during the completion of the activity. He or she will be looking at the number of points the students received for answering the questions correctly.

Using the number of points students receive from answering questions correctly the teacher will be able to determine if a students was able to identify the characteristics and classes of rocks with 80% accuracy. Students are timed--a total of six minutes-- to complete this activity. Each question posed is accompanied with a picture and there are between three to seven possible answers to choose from. The students view the picture and choose the best possible answer from the options available on the website. If the student chooses the correct answer then they accrue a point. If the student chooses an incorrect answer a notification in red pops up saying, “Sorry, that is incorrect” then informs the individual of the correct answer. The student cannot retry the question again, but is prompted with another. When the student answers a question correctly, the area under the questions is highlighted in green with “Correct” displayed in white lettering. The student is able to accrue 10 points--1 point for each question--by the end of the activity.

continued on following page

67

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

Table 1. Continued Behavior is determined by its antecedent(s).

There have been previous lessons on the classes and characteristics of rocks; the teacher hooks the student’s prior knowledge of this topic by using the review questions. Also, the teacher demonstrates and models how to answer two of the questions involved in the activity. Students are given the activity and asked to answer the questions as best as they can, in order to score the most points as possible.

Students are provided the interactive website through the teacher’s demonstration. Once students click to begin a question is displayed and the students are provided with a list of options to choose the best possible answer.

Whether a particular behavior will be repeated depends on the consequence(s) that follow it.

The lesson indicates that students who obtain a score of an eight or better on the activity will receive a star sticker. These star stickers are being collected and once a student reaches twenty stickers on the achievement chart they are allowed to pick a prize. By doing so, the lesson is manipulating a student’s behavior. This is done by the positive consequence of receiving a sticker and the negative consequence of not receiving a sticker.

This website includes noises, colors and points as positive and negative consequences. First, if the student chooses the correct option then a lovely bing noise occurs and “Correct” highlighted in green is displayed in white lettering. The screen then prompts the student to move on to the next question. Also, the student will notice that a point is placed in the left hand corner of their screen. However, if a student chooses the incorrect option a loud noise occurs and the words “Sorry, that is incorrect” pops up. At this time the individual is informed of the correct answer and at this time the student can see that they earn no points for an incorrect response. This student is then prompted with a new question. In conclusion, student’s behavior is manipulated through the positive and negative consequences listed above.

•

•

in student teachers’ responses between what is reflected in the lesson and the technology, because both are intertwined. Behavior is Determined by its Antecedent(s): This concerns what goes on in a lesson before the learner is required to demonstrate what he/she gained from the instruction. The antecedents in this lesson comprise previous instruction, review questions, and teacher demonstration and modeling. As it relates to the computer technology used in this lesson, the options offered once the learner clicks to begin a question on the website, are cues (or antecedents) that will determine learner behavior. Whether a Particular Behavior is Repeated Depends on the Consequence(s) that will Follow it: The desirable behavior in this lesson is for students to receive a score of 8 or better, and the consequence (or reward) for this achievement is a star sticker. Furthermore, once the learner amasses 24 stars, he/she receives a prize. As the CLT explained, being awarded stars represents positive consequences, while not receiving stars represents negative consequences. The technology also inherently provides examples of negative and positive consequences. For example, as the authors of the assignment stated, “This website includes [sounds], colors and points as positive and negative consequences”. As shown in Table 1, the CLT provided great details about how these elements function in determining whether the desired behavior is repeated or not.

Cognitivism The cognitive theory of learning is somewhat of a counter-theory to behaviorism, and largely grounded in the ideas and work of scholars such as Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, and Ausubel. It is their view that the study of learning should be based on the workings of the mind, and therefore the focus should be on mental processes instead of observable behaviors. The cognitive theory is also referred to as the Information Processing Model (IPM), an analogy comparing the human brain to how the computer functions. Our understanding of human memory is attributable to research done by many scholars (see Anderson, 1995; Ericcson & Kintsch, 1994; Massaro & Cowan, 1993; Akinson & Shiffrin, 1968). The

68

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

IMP model constitutes three major serial components or stages: the sensory, working, and long-term memories. In simple terms, the sensory memory collects information from the environment through the senses; the working memory receives the information that was not lost during that process; and the long-term memory stores the information that was preserved in the previous stage. Later we are able to retrieve the information stored (or saved).

Theoretical Principles of Cognitivism As stated before, cognitive theorists argue that learning is meaningfully explained through an understanding of how the brain functions. How learning occurs from the cognitivist perspective can be explained through 3 major principles: 1. Knowledge is organized in memory, 2. Learning is influenced by students’ existing knowledge, and 3. Learning is made up of the component processes of attention, encoding, storage and retrieval. The idea that knowledge is organized in memory is arguably the central principle of the cognitive theory. This means that our knowledge and insights are not scattered around in our memory, but instead are logically organized and stored in mental structures containing similar or related information. This thinking is largely based on the notion of schemata or schema (see the work of Immanuel Kant; Jean Piaget; Frederic Bartlett; & Richard Anderson). The theory is that from infancy, we begin to develop mental compartments or schemes to organize our knowledge and perceptions through the process of assimilation and accommodation. We assimilate new information into already existing schemes with similar material, or create other schemes to accommodate new information that has no existing scheme. This does not mean that schemes are totally discrete entities; they also interact or intersect to reflect the complexity of our experiences. An important insight from this principle is that teachers should present information and learning experiences in an organized manner. Another related principle is that learning is influenced by students’ existing knowledge. People learn the material faster and more easily if it is connected to information already known. For example, a child is only able to identify or spell words after he/she has learned the alphabet. That is why it is critically important that learners have the proper foundational knowledge and skills before advancing to the next level in a curricular sequence. Teachers should therefore carefully link new information to existing knowledge. It is reasonable to conclude that the two principles of cognitivism previously discussed would be impossible without the process of attention, encoding, storage, and retrieval. This third principle forms the framework of the Information Processing Model. According to this model, learners first attend to or gather information from the environment through their senses. This would directly relate to the sensory memory previously discussed. The next step in the process is to encode the information we are receiving. This means making sense of the information and converting it to some meaningful codes that facilitate assimilation and accommodation. Storage involves practicing or rehearsing the material so that it is committed to memory before it is lost or forgotten (See Baddeley, 2013; Cermak & Craik, 1979; Norman, 1976; Eysenck, 1974; Hyde & Jenkins, 1969 for a deeper understanding). Rehearsal ranges from simply mentally repeating the information to actively practicing it through simulation or application to real life situations. The process is complete only when learners are required to retrieve the information 69

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

as evidence that it was in fact committed to memory or learned. The application of this principle requires educators to use a variety of techniques to guide and support students’ learning. For example, teachers should employ processes, including focus questions, highlighting, analogies, and mnemonics (i.e. rhyme, acronym, acrostic and keyword).

Cognitivism and Computer App-lication See Table 2.

Analysis of How Assignment Engaged Principles of the Constructivist Theory The goal of the science lesson outlined in Table 2 was for learners to develop understanding of how to categorize plants and animals. The general course of the lesson is that the teacher provides information about plants and animals, and learners are then required to rehearse or demonstrate their knowledge through related exercises and information provided through a computer application called Classify It! Table 2. Exemplary response to cognitivism assignment EDUC 396 SEMINAR IN RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: COMPUTERS IN EDUCATION Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology - Cognitivism Instructions: Design and demonstrate a computer technology-supported mini-lesson informed by the principles of the cognitivist theory of learning: (1) provide a brief description of your mini lesson; (2) use the table below to connect the theory, technology and instruction; and (3) prepare about a 10-minute presentation to explain the principles of the theory and how you applied it to the mini-lesson. Description of Mini-Lesson: The subject Science Lesson: Classify Plants and Animals 3rd-4th grade activity The Topic of the Lesson Categorizing plants and animals based on their characteristics. What Students will Learn at the End of the Lesson After creating a class information chart and working with the app Classify It!, students will demonstrate their ability to distinguish between plants and animals. In addition, students will discover how plants and animals are connected to one another as well as how they are different. The Material (s) that will be used in lesson (essentially the technology you will be using) Classroom board, Marker, Sticky notes, iPads (one iPad for each pair of students), and the app Classify It! Steps in the Lesson Introduction 1. Host an open discussion with the entire class about what they already know about plants and animals. The teacher will prompt students to think back to what they already know about these two categories. 2. Create a chart on the board with students input. Students will be encouraged to share examples of plants and animals and characteristics that define each category. Each student will be given three blank sticky notes to write examples of terms or animals that fit in either category. Students will be invited up to the board to stick their notes in the appropriate category. 3. After all sticky notes are shared, students will check that each note is in the right category, addressing problems and questions. Sticky notes that are placed in the incorrect category will be reorganized and discussed. This allows students to activate background knowledge on the topic and teachers to correct misunderstandings before proceeding with the lesson. 4. Use the chart and examples to come up with a whole class response to the questions “What is a Plant?” and “What is an Animal?”. Post these definitions, along with the chart, for students to refer throughout the lesson and iPad activity. Development Activity 1. Teacher projects iPad on smartboard for the class. She will demonstrate to the students how to access and play the game. Depending on the students prior knowledge of iPad use, the teacher will model how to turn on/log in/ find the app. The teacher will remind students to refer to the chart on the board before asking for help. Classroom iPad use rules will also be reviewed as a class. Students are reminded to begin at Easy Level 1 and proceed through the game as they pass each level. 2. Students are paired and each pair is given one iPad preloaded with the Classify It! App. 3. 15 minutes is given to the class to work in pairs to progress through the app. Teacher monitors pairs work. Conclusion 1. Gather students together in one group. Have pairs share out to the group about new learning or questions. 2. Each student is given one sticky note with the opportunity to add a new example or characteristic to the class chart. 3. Students who achieved “Creature Cards” while playing the game will share to the class the new information they learned about specific plants and animals included in the game.

continued on following page 70

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

Table 2. Continued Name & Description of the Selected Technology Classify It!- This app makes learning about the classification of animals and plants a fun game for students. Classify It! takes students through a series of different levels which are unlocked by correctly classifying the animals or plants based on the questions given. Students are given the opportunity to choose from three levels of difficulty: easy, intermediate, and advanced. The variety of levels allows this app to have great flexibility for use with multiple age groups. Given a category, such as “Living Things that are Mammals”, students select the images of plants and animals that fit that description, choosing from a set of 16 images. After completing each level, students are given a percentage reporting their accuracy. Students must achieve an 80% accuracy score in order to proceed to the next level. In addition, if students pass any level with a 100% accuracy score, they unlock a “Creature Card”. These cards provide an image and written description of various plants and animals. Classify It! is a great app to help students learn about and classify plants and animals. Principles of the theory

How are the principles of theory reflected in or supported by the lesson? (Explain in sufficient details with at least one example)

How are the principles of theory reflected in or supported by the technology? (Explain in sufficient details with at least one example)

Knowledge is organized in memory

The introduction of the lesson allows students to begin to organize their prior knowledge about the similarities and differences between plants and animals. As the students use sticky notes to organize their knowledge on a class chart, they are able to see where each fact fits. Reviewing as a class allows the teacher to correct any misconceptions and help students fix any incorrect fact placements. In addition, when students return and add to their chart after playing the classification app game, they are able to assimilate their new learning with the prior knowledge, adding to their organization structure.

The app Classify It! requires the students to organize a set of plants and animals by a given category. Each level of the app gives a new category, requiring students to stretch and apply their knowledge about plants and animals. For example, one question might ask students to identify all living animals in the selection. The next level could then ask the student to identify all amphibians within the animal category. Students must be able to distinguish between types animals based on their organization of knowledge into different categories.

This application or app requires the user to classify plants and animals by responding to a series of questions. Classify It! also provides information that learners can use as they proceed in the game. This instructional support is appropriate for applying the cognitive learning theory, as it requires the students to classify or organize information. As discussed earlier, the cognitive theory of learning has to do with explaining how learning occurs as it relates to how the brain functions. Recall that the key principles of the theory are: 1. Knowledge is organized in memory, 2. Learning is influenced by existing knowledge, and 3. Learning is made up of the component processes of attention, encoding, storage and retrieval. The salient key points illustrating how the CLT addressed these principles in this lesson (Table 2) are highlighted in the analysis below. •

Knowledge is Organized in Memory: This principle is first observed when the teacher introduces the lesson. The students are prompted to begin organizing their previous or existing knowledge about plants and animals. This is largely accomplished through identifying similarities and differences between plants and animals. The teacher also instructed the learners to demonstrate what they are learning by using sticky notes to organize the information on a physical chart. Later, as the CLT points out (Table 2), students are able to assimilate new knowledge gained from working with the app. In terms of how the cognitive theory is reflected in the app, learners are required to organize a set of plants and animals by given categories (e.g. mammals, organisms without legs, amphibians). Also, the hierarchical levels of the app require students to expand their knowledge, i.e. modifying existing schemes or creating new ones. This process of rehearsal and reinforcement facilitates organizing and solidifying the knowledge students receive, hence increasing learning.

71

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

•

•

Learning is Influenced by Existing Knowledge: The underlying assumption of this principle is that learners build on their prior knowledge to enhance their understanding. Again, the strategy the teacher employs to introduce the topic reflects this principle of the cognitive theory. The teacher connects the current lesson to previous ones on plants and animals. Students are also instructed to write on sticky notes, knowledge they already have about the topic, then place the information on a chart. Still in the introductory phase of the lesson, students and teacher engage in a discussion to confirm or clarify the information they shared on the sticky notes. Any new knowledge gathered at that point in the lesson would also qualify as previous knowledge before learners proceed to the next phase or activity (i.e. playing the game in Classify It!). In terms of the application of the principle to the app, students are required to use previous knowledge to successfully respond to the questions, as well as learn new information presented during the course of the game. Learning is Made up of the Component Processes of Attention, Encoding, Storage and Retrieval: In general, attention occurs in the lesson while students listen to the teacher and each other talk about plants and animals. Whatever is initially registered in that sensory memory phase is transferred to short-term memory; for example a plant classification term or characteristic learners did not know before. Also, while using the app, learners are attending to the questions, responses to their answers, and the additional information provided to support their progress. The lesson and computer activity provide the opportunity for learners to encode any new information to expand or develop new schemas or knowledge structures. This encoding process as well as the rehearsal of the material increases the likelihood of effective storage. The retrieval of the information is reflected in the lesson itself when students are required to recall what they know about the topic as demonstrated in the evidence they provide in their sticky notes. Also, retrieval is inherent in the technology, when learners respond to questions to categorize or identify characteristics of plants and animals.

Constructivism While the behaviorist and cognitivist theories focus on the learner as a passive recipient of knowledge, constructivism considers the learner a more interactive participant in the process. The constructivist theory of learning is rooted in the work of Piaget (experiential learning); Dewey (democracy, hands-on learning); Maria Montessori (learner-centered classroom); Bruner (learning as an active process); and Vygotsky (Social learning). Essentially, constructivism advances the perspective that people (re)construct knowledge for themselves as they attempt to understand their environment. Learning therefore, should focus on providing learners opportunities and support to (re)construct or co-construct knowledge. As Slavin (2000) argued “Teachers can give students ladders that lead to higher understanding, [but] the students themselves must climb these ladders” (p.256).

Theoretical Principles of Constructivism In keeping with the idea that learners construct or reconstruct their own knowledge as they seek to make sense of their environment, constructivism offers the following governing principles: 1. Learners construct their own meaning, 2. New learning builds on prior knowledge, 72

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

3. Learning is enhanced by social interaction, and 4. Meaningful learning develops through “authentic” tasks (Cooperstein & Kocevar-Weidinger, 2003). Perhaps the central principle and premise of constructivism is that learners construct their own meaning. As a species humans are marvelously equipped with the capacity to discover and make sense of our environment. Furthermore, when we discover knowledge on our own, the commitment and motivation involved in the process cause us to develop a high degree of intimacy with the knowledge. This relationship with such knowledge enables us to be more effective in applying it later. Constructivism therefore, requires that the classroom affords learners the opportunity to exercise their inalienable agency to discover knowledge for themselves, instead of being fed by the teacher. The idea of new learning building on prior knowledge or experience speaks to the understanding that learning largely concerns making connections. It is easier, and arguably only possible to make sense of new information by connecting it to the old. We have all had that moment when we found new information easy to understand because there was a frame of reference for it. Conversely, we have also found it challenging to understand some material, because it appears to be all novel and not yet fully meaningful to us. To be effective, teachers therefore need to strategically connect new with previous knowledge or experience, when introducing a topic or concept to the students. There is always prior knowledge or experience; for example, an analogy with a seemly unrelated idea could be effective in the absence of an explicitly related one. Another potent principle of constructivism is that learning is enhanced by social interaction. Humans are inherently social beings, endowed with manifold experiences, perspectives and insights. When we interact and exchange ideas with others, our understanding becomes more enlightened and enriched. The classroom environment should take full advantage of this social quality. Teachers should therefore provide directions, questions and experiences that will foster exchanges that bring about meaningful learning for students. Finally, constructivists maintain that meaningful learning develops through “authentic” tasks. Many classrooms tend to operate like labs that seem to engage in experiments, resulting in contrived learning experiences disconnected from reality. The constructivist theory of learning proposes that classrooms should instead provide learners with the opportunity to engage in authentic activities that match or closely approximate reality. For example, the teacher can take students on a field trip to a realistic experience in the community, or instead create a simulated version of that experience in the classroom. Students are more likely to see meaning, logic, and value in classroom experiences that they believe will prepare them for the real world.

Constructivism and Computer App-lication See Table 3.

Analysis of How Assignment Engaged Principles of the Constructivist Theory As outlined in Table 3, this CLT designed a lesson to develop understanding in the concepts of displacement and buoyancy, by having students experiment with objects that float or sink. The lesson begins with the teacher leading a discussion about boats, followed by students viewing a YouTube video on objects that float or sink. This is a video with friendly, age-appropriate cartoon characters that students 73

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

Table 3. Exemplary response to constructivism assignment EDUC 396 SEMINAR IN RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: COMPUTERS IN EDUCATION Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology - Constructivism Instructions: Design and demonstrate a computer technology-supported mini-lesson informed by three (3) principles of the constructivist theory of learning: (1) provide a brief description of your mini lesson; (2) use the table below to connect the theory, technology and instruction; and (3) prepare about a 10-minute presentation to explain the principles of the theory and how you applied it to the mini-lesson. Brief Description of Mini-Lesson: The Subject Science Grades 1-2 The Topic of the Lesson Will It Float? What Students will Learn at the End of the Lesson Students will learn why things float or sink and what materials and other influences would cause an object to float or sink. Students should also understand the concepts of displacement and buoyancy, and how they apply to sinking or floating. The Material (s) that will be used in lesson (essentially the technology you will be using) http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/lesson-plan/activity-plan-5-6-build-boat-floats Steps in the Lesson 1. A discussion about boats will occur. The students will be asked what they know about boats and can engage in any stories about boats they wish to share. The teacher will guide this discussion by asking questions that encourage students to think about how boats are able to float and what it means to float versus what it means to sink. 2. The students will then watch a video that discusses boats and what boats are made of/why boats float and not sink when they are sailing in the ocean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8kszaZGLKE 3. Students will work in small groups where they will be provided a multitude of materials in which they will be able to make their own boats. Creativity is encouraged when the children are building their boats. Some of the objects would include: Styrofoam, sponges, cardboard scraps, plastic containers, tin foil, egg cartons, paper tubes, and more. 4. Once the boats are completed, the students will each have turns taking their boat to a water table where they will see if the materials they chose will either keep their boat afloat or if it will sink. If their boats sink, they can try again with different materials to see if the change will help their boat float. Students record their observations in a notebook. 5. What similarities do the boats that float have? What differences do the boats that sink have in comparison to the ones that float? Once the boats are completed, the students will each have turns taking their boat to a water table where they will see if the materials they chose will either keep their boat afloat or if it will sink. If their boats sink, they can try again with different materials to see if the change will help their boat float. Students will record their observations in a notebook. 6. Once the activity is complete, there is a conversation for the class to go over what was the best material for helping the boats stay afloat and one ones caused quick sinking. What other aspects of boat building contributed to the floating or sinking? Did the size of the boat matter? Did the shape matter? Did the weight of the objects used contribute to floating or sinking? Provide Name & Description of the Selected Technology The selected Technology is a video on YouTube, by Make Me Genius, called “Float or Sink: Why do things float? Why do things sink?” The video shows a young scientist experimenting with different objects, seeing if they will float or sink. The video explains the concept of displacement, and how if an object is heavier than the water it is displacing, it will sink. It explains that an object needs to displace an amount of water, equal to its own weight, in order to float. It also explains the term of buoyancy, how whether an object floats or sinks, depends on both the weight and shape of the object. The video also has a link to a quiz, to assess students understanding on “sink or float.” Principles of the theory

How are the principles of theory reflected in or supported by the lesson? (Explain in sufficient details with at least one example)

How are the principles of theory reflected in or supported by the technology? (Explain in sufficient details with at least one example)

New learning builds on prior knowledge

The principle that learning builds on prior knowledge is supported by this lesson because the students will be able to recall previous knowledge they have on boats. Whether it be that their family owns a boat, they’ve been to the beach, they watch tv shows or movies and have seen boats, or more. Students may have also played with toy floating boats, or similar toys in the bathtub or swimming pool, so they should already understand the concept that some materials float, and some materials sink. They will be able to build on this prior knowledge through discussion and the hands-on activity. They will hopefully draw from their prior knowledge when they are constructing their boat.

By watching the video on boats, the students will gain more knowledge on the subject but in more depth. They will begin to understand why and how boats work, how they stay afloat, and in what circumstances a boat might sink. Having the background on boats from their own memories will reinforce what they learn from the video because they will be able to put the connection together. Hopefully the video will allow students to remember similar experiences with floating objects, from the bathtub or swimming pool. The information learned in the video should help this prior knowledge click in their minds, and allow the students to link the vocab and information taught in the video, to their experiences.

Learning is enhanced through social interaction

Through interaction and discussion with classmates, while building the boats by hand, the students will be able to make a strong connection to what the lesson is. The students should also be able to discuss and bounce ideas off of each other, in order to gain a better understanding of the concepts of the lesson. The discussion at the end of the lesson will expand on their activity because they will be able to learn about other group’s discoveries.

The video that is shown, which is the use of technology, will give the students the basis of the lesson. Because of the video the students will be able to discuss what they saw, understood or questions that they still have about creating a boat that will float. Because of the technology the students will have sufficient information to discuss among themselves.

continued on following page 74

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

Table 3. Continued Meaningful learning is developed through “authentic” tasks

This lesson supports the aspect of “authentic” learning because it gives the students a chance to take what they had learned in the video and discussion and put it to practice with their own creation. This boat creation task is authentic because it brings a real world situation, such as creating objects that float, into the classroom instead of purely discussing the topic. The lesson will allow students to gain more knowledge on the subject of floating and sinking, which can be applied throughout the rest of their lives. It is an authentic subject because it relates to normal activities, and ideas such as boats.

Though watching a video is not an “authentic task”, this video helps introduce the knowledge needed for students to perform the “authentic task”. Also, this video is age appropriate so it provides something the students can relate to and understand so that they are successful when it comes to creating their own boat. The video contains information that is so simple, and deals with things that they have surely experienced before, so it will be “authentic” to them.

can identify. After watching the video, students are provided materials to construct boats and experiment with them to learn what materials will float or sink. All the while students are recording their observations in a notebook. At the end of the activities, the teacher conducts a discussion based on a series of questions relating to the factors that contribute to objects floating or sinking. This is an engaging activity that provides students the opportunity to discover knowledge for themselves instead of it being delivered by the teacher. The teacher’s role was to provide students structure and direction to achieve the instructional goals. How the principles of constructivism are demonstrated as discussed by the CLT is highlighted below. •

•

•

New Learning Builds on Prior Knowledge: This principle is reflected in the lesson, as students are required to draw upon their knowledge of the behavior and nature of boats. As the CLT explained (Table 3), such knowledge may come from parents owning boats, watching TV shows with boats, and/or playing with such toys. The teacher uses an introductory discussion to elicit this knowledge and have students begin the process of making the connections between old and new information. In terms of how new learning builds on prior knowledge is reflected in the technology; as students watch the YouTube video they are able to see the connections between what they already know about objects that float or sink. As the CLT pointed out, “The information learned in the video should help this prior knowledge click in their minds, and allow the students to link the vocab and information taught in the video, to their experiences” (See Table 3). Learning is Enhanced by Social Interaction: To recall the point made earlier, the premise of this principle is that learners benefit from each other when they share their diverse and multiple experiences and perspectives. The CLT pursued this goal in the lesson by facilitating discussions where students exchanged ideas and details from their experiences. Students also worked in small groups using various materials, collaborating, negotiating, and noting their observations. The CLT also highlighted the point that the technology also facilitated learning through social interaction. For example, students were able to have conversations about the rich and informative material presented in the video. Meaningful Learning Develops through “Authentic” Tasks: As discussed before, authentic tasks are those that provide realistic experiences for learners. The experiences can be real life or simulated. The goal of this lesson is for students to develop greater understanding about objects that sink or remain afloat. Instead of providing students a list of facts about what materials sink or float, the teacher allows students to use “real” materials to simulate and explore the concepts

75

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

being taught. As the CLT argued, “This boat creation task is authentic because it brings a real world situation, such as creating objects that float, into the classroom instead of purely discussing the topic” (See Table 3). The technology also supports the idea of authentic task as it represents a vivid simulation of real life objects and experiences. And as the team elucidated, “The video contains information that is so simple, and deals with things that [students] have surely experienced before, so it will be “authentic” to them” (Table 3).

THE WAY FORWARD: IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING This chapter focused on how the teacher can explicitly and thoughtfully employ computer technology to lessons supported by major learning theories. It must be pointed out here too, that although the examples focused on one learning theory per lesson, it is conceivable that a teacher could combine multiple theories in a single lesson depending on pedagogical need and appropriateness. Because of the limitations of a single chapter, the author was only able to “scratch the surface” of the rapidly growing landscape of the technology. To illustrate, three student assignments that sufficiently demonstrate the point of the chapter, highlighting a few major forms of computer technology - webpages, apps, and YouTube videos were selected. There is a plethora of others including pod-casts, blog posts, computer games etcetera, that can be exploited for the instructional purposes explored here. This technological revolution has tantalizing implications for the education of prospective teachers with the imperative to adapt to, and prepare their students for the next frontier in teaching and learning. In light of the rapid development of classroom-adaptable computer technology, some suggestions on how we can proceed in capitalizing on this bounty are offered below. We live in an era where every conceivable type of information can be accessed through a variety of computerized electronic devices. This revolution has effectively rendered the traditional role of the teacher redundant. Consequently, the work of the teacher has evolved from that of essentially providing information, to one of equipping students to be researchers of evidence for teacher- and learner-directed questions and explorations. This progressive pedagogical approach taps into learners’ largely dormant exploratory nature, and empowers them with the confidence to research and verify information and sources. If teachers are not cognizant of this profound paradigm shift, they will continue to operate as if still in a long departed era. The role of teacher educators therefore, is to enlighten our students and open wide the gate for them to explore the vast new world of learning. Computer technology, although in no way a panacea, can support this vision and infinite possibilities. Educators and their students should not be mere consumers of computer technology. They can also be instrumental contributors to the development of appropriate computer application for the field. Educators and students are well positioned to express what they would like to see in the technology to support their work and study. Educators have the theoretical and practical knowledge about how learning occurs. They can surely lend pedagogical voice and expertise to inform the design of an app or software for classroom management, for example. Also, our students are a “walking thesaurus” of ideas that can certainly benefit this agenda. As ardent users of much of today’s popular technological tools, they have valuable experiential knowledge and insights that can be brought to bear on the process. Furthermore, our students possess metacognitive understanding about how they learn, which can be tapped into for ideas to inform the relevance and refinement of the technology for learner-centered instruction.

76

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

Fortunately, with the advent of apps, the world of computing is replete with opportunities for users to perform a significant role in this technological revolution. The developers of today’s computer technology, especially in the area of app creation, have provided users the opportunity to be “co-developers”. For example, users are afforded the option to rate an app and offer comments supporting their judgment. In addition, app developers provide a built-in option for users to inform them of features they would like included or modified. Recently this author was invited by the developer of a popular app he uses, to test a beta version and provide feedback. These are indeed wonderful opportunities for educators and students to advance ideas beneficial to teaching and learning, as developers use feedback from users to improve their products. One meaningful way in which teachers can contribute to the development of computer application is to design assignments that require students to evaluate apps that are applicable to the classroom. For example, as part of a major assignment on the exploration and application of computer technology to classroom assessment, the author’s students are required to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the apps they select for their projects. Again, the students work in teams to share ideas and arrive at informed consensuses and decisions. This is one model that teacher educators can explore to develop proactive pedagogy among prospective teachers, and thereby contribute to the field. Another approach that educators can take to contribute to the development of computer technology for educational purposes, is to craft assignments requiring students to design apps. Students can either actually develop the apps themselves, or forward their ideas to engineers – established app developers, or to students in the computer department at their institution. As Scott Hirsch (2012), founder of appsbar. com declared, “Today, anyone with a big idea and the littlest tech know how (sic) can build and publish an app and take part in the app economy.” There are many free and paid programs for creating apps. Consequently, there is a rapidly growing DIY (Do it Yourself) app-making trend. Educators need to take advantage of this currency, or they will be left in the dust of irrelevance, having to contend with products designed by others primarily motivated by financial gains rather than the improvement of education. Investment in innovative technology and classroom-driven research can also serve in the kind of advancements that are suggested here. Exploration in the natural “labs” of the classroom and a more systematic process of understanding the needs, and how computer technology can be meaningfully applied, would be definitely beneficial. At the author’s institution for example, faculty members can apply for Innovative Pedagogical Initiative (IPI) grants. This grant is offered to professors who identify, and apply non-traditional or progressive methods of instruction. Faculty in colleges and universities, as well as colleagues in K-12 institutions can implement this and other such action research models. Investment in innovative technology and classroom research is a promising area in which educators and policy makers can collaborate to make a difference in sustainable education. The suggestions above for the advancement of teacher education and computer engineering are just a few among the many that could be proposed. The author is of the view, however, that the implementation of the ideas in this chapter would be positively impactful on instructional approaches and learning outcomes. As discussed throughout the chapter, and illustrated by the thoughtful work produced by the author’s student teachers, the undeniable benefits of computer technology to classroom instruction can be greatly enhanced by practices informed by educational theories. Apart from the three learning theories discussed here, there are other theories, models, and frameworks that can inform technological application and development. These include Multiple Intelligences (MI), Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and Blooms Taxonomy of Thinking Skills. It is hoped that the ideas offered here, provide meaningful insights on how teachers can become more empowered facilitators of technology application in their 77

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

classrooms, and inspire their students to not only passively use technology, but also apply or even enhance its usefulness in innovative ways. Finally, because of the focus and scope of this chapter, the critical issues of access and equity were not discussed. It is important to mention that computer technology is not available at the same levels in all classroom and homes. Therefore prospective teachers like those being prepared by this author need to be sensitive to that reality. Not only do they need to adjust to this uneven technological landscape when they enter their own classrooms, they should also be advocates for their students who might have no, or limited access to computer technology.

REFERENCES Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Wiley. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human Memory: A proposed system and its component processes. In K. Spence & J. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Academic Press. Baack, S. A., Brown, T. S., & Brown, J. T. (1991). Attitudes toward computers: Views of older adults compared with those of young adults. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(3), 422–433. doi:10.1080/08886504.1991.10781970 Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley scales of infant and toddler development (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Berk, L. E. (2014). Child development. Boston, MA: Pearson. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Cermak, L. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (1979). Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chung, J. E., Park, N., Wang, H., Fulk, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2010). Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1674–1684. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.016 Cooperstein, S. E., & Kocevar-Weidinger, E. (2003). Beyond active learning: A constructivist approach to teaching. RSR. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 141–148. doi:10.1108/00907320410537658 Czaja, S., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzdog, C., Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A., & Sharit, J. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333–352. doi:10.1037/08827974.21.2.333 PMID:16768579

78

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Davis, S. F., Palladino, J. J., & Davis, S. F. (1997). Psychology 2. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ellis, R. D., & Allaire, J. C. (1999). Modeling computer interest in older adults: The role of age, education, computer knowledge, and computer anxiety. Human Factors, 41(3), 345–355. doi:10.1518/001872099779610996 PMID:10665203 Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1994). Long-term working memory. Boulder, CO: Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado. Eysenck, M. W. (1974). Age differences in incidental learning. Developmental Psychology, 10(6), 936–941. doi:10.1037/h0037263 Gentner, D., & Namy, L. L. (2006). Analogical processes in language learning. Current Directions In Psychological Science Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 297–301. doi:10.1111/j.14678721.2006.00456.x Grieser, D., & Kuhl, P. K. (1989). Categorization of speech by infants: Support for speech-sound prototypes. Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 577–588. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.4.577 Hammond, L. D., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hirsch, S. (2012). How to create an app. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://www.appsbar.com/howto-create-an-app/ Hurford, J. R. (1991). The evolution of the critical period for language acquisition. Cognition, 40(3), 159–201. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(91)90024-X PMID:1786674 Hyde, T. S., & Jenkins, J. J. (1969). Differential effects of incidental tasks on the organization of recall of a list of highly associated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82(3), 472–481. doi:10.1037/ h0028372 ICDL Foundation. (2012). StoryKit (Version 1.1) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from https:// itunes.apple.com Illeris, K. (2004). The three dimensions of learning. Malabar, FL: Krieger Pub. Co. Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York, NY: Wiley. Lerner, C., & Ciervo, L. A. (2003). Healthy minds: Nurturing children’s development from 0 to 36 months. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press and American Academy of Pediatrics. Massaro, D. W., & Cowan, N. (1993). Information processing models: Microscopes of the mind. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 383–425. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.002123 PMID:8434893

79

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

Mazur, J. E. (1990). Learning and behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. McCown, R. R., Driscoll, M. P., & Roop, P. (1996). Educational psychology: A learning-centered approach to classroom practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Meisels, S. J., Wen, X., & Beachy-Quick, K. (2010). Authentic assessment for infants and toddlers: Exploring the reliability and validity of the ounce scale. Applied Developmental Science, 14(2), 55–71. doi:10.1080/10888691003697911 Norman, D. A. (1976). Memory and attention: An introduction to human information processing. New York, NY: Wiley. Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Educational psychology: Developing learners. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Palladino, L. J. (2015). Parenting in the age of attention snatchers: A step-by-step guide to balancing your child’s use of technology. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications, Inc. Papalia, D. E., Olds, S. W., & Feldman, R. D. (1999). A child’s world: Infancy through adolescence. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Parks, S. (2004). Inside HELP: Hawaii early learning profile: Administration and reference manual. Palo Alto, CA: VORT Corporation. Pinker, S. (2007). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics. Piper, A. M., Campbell, R., & Hollan, J. D. (2010). Exploring the accessibility and appeal of surface computing for older adult health care support.Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2010). doi:10.1145/1753326.1753461 Prensky, M. (2010). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 Rathus, S. A. (1990). Psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-yearolds. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527859.pdf Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions In Psychological Science Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 110–114. doi:10.1111/14678721.01243 Saphier, J., & Gower, R. R. (1997). The skillful teacher: Building your teaching skills. Acton, MA: Research for Better Teaching. Seifert, K., & Hoffnung, R. J. (1991). Child and adolescent development. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. doi:10.1037/11256-000 Slavin, R. E. (2000). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

80

 Applying Learning Theories to Computer Technology Supported Instruction

Valentine, G., & Holloway, S. (2013). Technophobia: Parents’ and children’s fears about information and communication technologies and the transformation of culture and society. In I. Hutchby & J. MoranEllis (Eds.), Children, technology, and culture: The impacts of technologies in children’s everyday lives. New York, NY: Routledge. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wood, E. R. G., Wood, S. E., & Garrison, M. (1993). The world of psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS App: A computer software or program that is primarily used on mobile devices such as smart phones and tablets. Authentic Tasks: Assignments that involve real life or simulated activities or experiences. Behaviorist Theory of Learning: The view that the process of learning is best understood through observable behaviors or actions. Cognitivist Theory of Learning: The view that the process of learning is best understood through the workings of the mind. Collaborative Learning Teams: Groups of 3-4 members working collaboratively on an assignment completed in Google Drive. Constructivist Theory of Learning: The view that people (re)construct knowledge for themselves as they attempt to understand their environment. Learning therefore, should focus on providing learners opportunities and support to construct or co-construct knowledge. Learning Theories: Theoretical frameworks that explain how learning takes place. Technology Innocence: The belief that as opposed to adults, children engage computers with more openness and less influenced by preconceived notions that can adversely affect their engagement with the technology.

ENDNOTES 1 2

3



Spelling is an emphasis on “app” in the vernacular of current computer technology. The assignment only required a mini-lesson since the majority of the students have not yet learned how to formulate a fully developed lesson plan. They were however provided a lesson plan template with some key elements that satisfied the purposes of the assignment. Consistent with the author’s constructivist teaching approach, students work in Collaborative Learning Teams (CLT’s), a term he coined for the groups of 3 – 4 members organized according to area of teaching certification (i.e. early childhood, elementary and special education).

81

82

Chapter 5

Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs:

Research-based Recommendations Joan M. Giovannini Holyoke Community College, USA

ABSTRACT The integration of technology in K-12 education is highlighted in the ISTE Standards, Common Core State Standards Initiative, and Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Preservice teacher education must reevaluate how technology integration is approached, examining preservice teacher attitudes and competencies toward instructional design and technology use. Recent studies indicate that, while preservice teachers demonstrate a high level of understanding of technology tools, they do not integrate those tools naturally into classroom settings for lesson delivery, assessment and classroom management. In a world of rapidly changing technology tools, preservice teacher education must develop an instructional and philosophical approach that identifies challenges and opportunities for technology integration in teaching and learning. This chapter provides an overview of research that explores the integration of educational technology in preservice teacher education. It provides emerging recommendations for design and redesign of those programs.

INTRODUCTION In December 2015, the Every Child Succeeds Act was passed into law. The Act governs United States’ educational policy. It is a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The reauthorization marked an important policy-driven approach to education reform in the United States. Echoed throughout the ESEA is the need to address the digital literacy skills of K-12 students in curriculum development, instruction, and assessment. Digital literacy skills outline how teachers and students use technology to access and present information in print and digital environments. The incluDOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch005

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

sion of digital literacy skills in the Every Child Succeeds Act aligns emerging digital pedagogy with national policy, setting the stage for emphasis on teaching and learning that integrates technology into the framework of education in the United States. The ESEA aligns with primary points seen in the International Society for Technology in Education standards (ISTE) and in threads throughout the Common Core State Standards Initiative. ISTE (2016) asserts that …as educators, we are preparing students for a future that we cannot yet imagine. Empowering students to become lifelong learners and providing them with the skills to face future challenges resourcefully and creatively is critical. It’s not about using digital tools to support outdated education strategies and models; it’s about tapping into technology’s potential to amplify human capacity for collaboration, creativity and communication. ISTE Standards are refreshed every five to ten years. Student Standards were refreshed and released in 2016. Refreshed Teacher Standards will be released in 2017. Refreshed standards for administrators, coaches and computer science educators were released between 2009-2011. ISTE Standards require that educators • • • • •

Facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity; Design and develop digital age learning experiences and assessments; Model digital age work and learning; Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility; Engage in professional growth and leadership (ISTE, 2016).

ISTE and ESEA pave a path for funding, maintaining that school systems must use some portion of their funding for activities that support effective technology integration (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Examples of activities outlined in ESEA include • • • •

Using technology in classrooms for assessments; Creating blended learning instructional models; Purchasing digital instructional resources; Providing access to online instruction, especially for students in rural, remote and underserved areas (U.S. Department of Education, 2015);

ESEA and ISTE require that teachers consider the role of educational technology in K-12 classrooms. They move teachers beyond having technology available for use by students, and into pedagogy that incorporates technology as an integral learning tool for all students in learning activities and assessments. Derived from the Greek word paidagogos, pedagogy means “teacher of children.” It implies that teachers participate in an active and reflective practice that incorporates the experiences of children into teaching and learning. Pedagogy implicitly relates teachers to children, assuming that both parties necessarily influence each other in a classroom. Therefore, pedagogy provides a framework for the interpretation and application of curricula in a real-world context. Croxal and Koh (2013) define digital pedagogy as the use of electronic elements to enhance or to change the experience of education. Their definition builds upon Prensky’s (2010) discussion that asserted that 83

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

learners arrive at school “deeply and permanently technology enhanced” (p. 2). Prensky (2010) argued that teachers must merge their knowledge of pedagogy, academic content, and technology to create an engaging learning environment. Digital pedagogy is less about content than it is about problem solving. It highlights the way that the teacher and children interact with one another and the given academic task. Digital pedagogy provides an underlying framework that assumes that digital technology • • •

Is ubiquitous and pervasive; Provides both the teacher and the student with the power or capacity to make choices; Connects the teacher and the student to a larger context of learning beyond the classroom (Railean, Walker, Elçi, & Jackson, 2016).

Common Core, ESEA, and ISTE present a holistic picture of technology integration into classrooms. Throughout Common Core (2012), technology, media, and digital literacy are emphasized as tools that assist students in learning with through higher-order thinking skills. Common Core requires that students learn creatively and collaboratively. It pushes educators to create classrooms where problem-solving and critical thinking are hallmarks of the instructional strategy. From 2012 through 2015, United States policy makers and educators underwent a rapid process for outlining the strategic vision of educational technology for K-12 classrooms. Following this strategic development, preservice teacher education must review curricula to determine if it meets the standards set forth by Common Core, ISTE, and ESEA. In particular, preservice teacher education must understand preservice teachers’ attitudes and competencies toward instructional design and technology use. It must develop an enhanced instructional and philosophical approach that identifies the opportunities and challenges for educational technology integration, using national strategic plans and digital pedagogy as frameworks. Finally, it must integrate research-based strategies into preservice teacher education to ensure appropriate and exceptional levels of training for preservice teacher candidates.

Understanding the Framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) One prominent model in preservice teacher education is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). TPACK presents the intersections of content, pedagogy, and technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Within the TPACK model, no one component is the underlying, primary strategy. Rather, each component presents intersections that create a transactional relationship that is interdependent. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the TPACK model. Content Knowledge (CK) refers to the academic subject being taught. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) refers to a teacher’s understanding of the methods of teaching and the teaching environment. The intersection of these two elements, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), addresses the conditions that promote learning and the connections between curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy (Koehler, Mishra, & Cain, 2013). Technology Knowledge (TK) refers to the application of technology for productivity. The intersections of TK with CK and PK are critical to understanding the TPACK model and how it relates to preservice teacher education. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) addresses the manner in which technology and content influence and constrain one another (Koehler, Mishra, & Cain, 2013). TCK provides

84

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

Figure 1. The TPACK Framework and its knowledge components

Image source: http://tpack.org. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org

the framework for asking critical questions regarding whether technology integration will enhance or hinder knowledge acquisition. It requires that teachers understand how to use technology applications effectively and how to assess the overall effectiveness of the technology application. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) integrates a lens of digital pedagogy. TPK focuses on the concept of technology use versus integration within classroom settings. It rejects technology as a stand-alone component in a classroom. It asks teachers to integrate technology into the fabric of teaching and learning. It emphasizes that teachers must understand effective pedagogy that can be enhanced and supported by technology. When the three components intersect, TPACK provides a framework for understanding effective teaching with technology. It synthesizes technology, digital pedagogy, theories of epistemology, and constructivist approaches to knowledge acquisition. The TPACK model is helpful in outlining preservice teacher education, particularly its focus on themes of educational technology as it relates to CK and PK. TPACK forces questions about best practices in preservice teacher education programs, such as • •

Should educational technology be a stand-alone course offering or integrated throughout all education coursework? When preservice teachers demonstrate higher levels of technology use, do they incorporate it into curriculum and assessment planning?

85

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

• •

Do preservice teachers and teacher educators demonstrate competence in instructional design that utilizes new technologies? How should practicum placements and modeling opportunities be designed in both traditional and online instructional settings?

This research report provides an overview of recommendations for preservice teacher education in the area of educational technology. It utilizes TPACK as the underlying pedagogical framework and contextualizes ISTE, Common Core and ESEA recommendations that impact preservice teacher education curricula. A review of the research literature points to emerging themes for considerations in preservice teacher education designs: confidence and beliefs about technology in classrooms, effective learning models, technology use versus technology integration, faculty training, and mentor classrooms.

CONFIDENCE AND BELIEFS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS In 2001, Marc Prensky coined the terms “digital immigrants” and “digital natives”. They refer to the divide that exists between generations of technology users. Digital immigrants are characterized as being born before the widespread adaptation of technology, prior to 1980. Digital immigrants were not exposed to technology adaptation at an early age and have learned to use technology with an “accent” (Prensky, 2001). Prensky pointed toward workplace practices of digital immigrants that demonstrate those “accents”. For example, digital immigrants print out a document to edit, rather than to edit directly on a computer screen. For Prensky (2001), digital immigrant teachers approach pedagogy in traditional ways. They view content and pedagogy as integrated units. On the other hand, they believe that technology is an add-on component and not essential to the teaching and learning process. Digital pedagogy may be an uncommon language for digital immigrants because adaptation of technology was learned over and above traditional practice, rather than considered traditional practice in and of itself. The National Center for Education Statistics is the primary federal entity in the United States that collects and analyzes data related to education in the United States and other nations. Its 2011-2012 Schools and Staffing Survey (2013) outlines the average ages of teachers across a variety of school settings. Data in Table 1 suggests that the current teaching population is on the cusp of the digital native and digital immigrant divide. Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, and O’Connor (2003) presented research results from a three-year study that began in 2001. It surveyed twenty-two school districts in Massachusetts about the use of technology

Table 1. Average age of teachers in the United States (2011-2012) School Type

Average Teacher Age

Traditional Public

43

Public Charter

37

Private

44

Data Source: The National Center for Education Statistics (2013)

86

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

by teachers. The teachers surveyed largely represented digital immigrants. Six themes emerged from the study: • • • • • •

Teachers used technology for preparation of lessons; Teachers used technology for delivery of instruction; Teachers directed student use of technology; Teachers used technology for special education and accommodations; Teachers used e-mail for communication; Teachers used technology to record grades.

The themes suggest a strong pattern. Teachers in 2001-2003 used technology for instructional delivery and workplace organization. However, students did not use technology for learning. The study revealed that teachers with less than six years of experience were more likely to believe that the use of technology harmed some aspects of student learning such as research and writing skills (Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003). Similar results were demonstrated in a research study conducted by Barron, Kemker, Harmes, and Kalaydjian (2003). The study took place in a large school district where teacher instructional modes were analyzed in relationship to technology integration. While some technology integration was found among digital immigrant teachers, it varied across disciplines and grade levels. The primary theme emerging from that study suggested that teachers used technology for communication and workplace organization. Digital pedagogy and TK, in combination with PK and CK, were missing from frameworks in 2001 and 2003. These are the teachers that are serving as mentors and role models in current preservice teacher education. The teachers offered strong reflections of the intersections of pedagogy and content and may have offered a developing understanding of technology integration through their own professional development paths. They approached technology integration from a late-adapter approach. They may not have presented strong TK, but they offered preservice teachers an in-depth approach to PCK. Digital natives make up the current preservice teacher education population. Digital natives, people born after 1980, have interacted with technology since childhood. Technology use is integrated into the fabric of their daily lives. As a result, technology is integrated into their modes of knowledge acquisition. According to Prensky (2001), digital natives search and receive information quickly, can multi-task, prefer graphical representations before textual information, can hyperlink and synthesize information in a non-linear format, and learn through community and connectedness. Digital natives do not understand technology as a tool. Rather, they understand technology as foundational (Prensky, 2013) to the learning process. In a study of fourth, eighth, and eleventh grade students, Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, and O’Connor (2003) concluded that students demonstrated strong beliefs about the positive impact of technology on their learning. The students in the study represented digital natives. Yet, crossed with Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, and O’Connor’s study of technology use by teachers, little correlation was found between the teachers’ teaching preferences and the students’ learning preferences. The TPACK framework requires extensive overlap and integration. Digital natives identify meaningful learning activities as those that are hands-on, involve group work, promote engaged discussion, and explore digital resources (Goldenberg, 2011). Digital pedagogy, therefore, encompasses extensive CK integrated with TK. Results from recent research and surveys point toward digital natives’ definition of technology and how it relates toward preservice teacher education. In general, digital natives enter preservice teacher 87

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

education with a limited understanding of the scope of technology integration. While they use technology in their daily lives, they are unsure of how it can be used to support content and pedagogy (Rehmat & Bailey, 2014; Mouza & Karchmer-Klein, 2013). Their TK is moderate to advanced, while their CK and PK are beginner to moderate. Prensky (2001) elaborated on content knowledge. He referred to the on-going inclusion of “legacy” content, which includes reading, writing, arithmetic, logical thinking, etc. in curricula. He advocated for the inclusion of “future” content that is digital and technological. Prensky (2013) argues that educators should not require digital natives to adapt to the past, rather that educators should adapt and integrate 21st century ways. The classrooms of digital natives should focus on student-led engagement through group work, projects, and case studies (Prensky, 2013). The foundational experiences of digital natives reflect the need to shift toward a TPACK model in preservice teacher education. Digital pedagogy is a crucial element toward the integration of CK, PK and TK. Teacher attitude toward and acceptance of digital pedagogy is essential to sustained and effective integration over time. School buildings across the country are host to teachers representing both digital natives and digital immigrants. They offer a diverse mix of expertise in CK, TK, and PK. Preservice teacher education must identify mentor teachers and classrooms that actively engage in the TPACK model and offer opportunities for self-reflection on digital pedagogy. Charbonneau-Howdy (2015) reflects that “…sustained modeling of the use of technology had positive implications for both the participants’ evolving teacher identities as well as their teaching approaches” (p. 245). Preservice teacher education must measure epistemologies of preservice teachers over time to understand the integration of TPACK into teaching and learning methodologies (Charbonneau-Gowdy, 2015; Rehmat & Bailey, 2014; Mouza & Karchmer-Klein, 2013; Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012). A 2011 study of secondary mathematics teachers’ perceptions about the nature of technology and its role in mathematics education revealed that preservice teachers hold strong beliefs that technology offers only input and output opportunities, whereas humans offer the five senses. While they believe that technology in learning could make instruction more efficient, they view the technology as external to the learning process (Chen, 2011). According to Chen, (2011) the study participants align with Instrumental Theory, understanding technology as external to the learners’ cognitive process and used to assist and augment instruction (2011). Preservice teacher education must adapt Substantive Theory in its approach to educational technology. Substantive Theory calls for the understanding of technology as integrated into a learning experience (Chen, 2011). Technology mediates and structures the learning environment to enhance instruction, as suggested within the TPACK model. It does not replace human interaction, but offers opportunities to support, augment and develop interactions within a classroom.

Digital Pedagogy and the Common Core Launched in 2009, the Common Core State Standards Initiative garnered participation from forty-eight states. As of August 2015, forty-two states retain full participation in the initiative. The Common Core State Standards (2012) establish clear, consistent guidelines for what every student in the United States should know and be able to do in Math and English Language Arts from Kindergarten through Grade 12. They prompt reevaluation of individual state curriculum maps and frameworks. They require extensive professional development for teachers. They provide preservice teacher education with a vehicle

88

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

to determine the extent to which preservice teaching methods courses align with Common Core and digital pedagogy. A close look at the Common Core State Standards, especially in English Language Arts, reveals that digital media and literacy are integrated throughout all strands to encourage critical thinking and classroom engagement. Therefore, a substantive approach to preservice teacher education is logical because new teachers need to be able to integrate technology tools, Common Core content, and effective pedagogy. The use of digital tools within the Writing strand is thread throughout Grades 1 through 12. The tools are not prescribed by the Common Core English Language Arts Standards (2012). Rather, teachers choose the tools most appropriate for classrooms and individual learners. Within the Writing strand, technology integration is scaffolded within the context of literacy development. Table 2 outlines a progression within the Writing strand, highlighting technology integration with the literacy skill.

Table 2. Common Core writing strand and technology integration Grade

Common Core Writing Strand

1

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.1.6 Writing guidance and support from adults, use a variety of digital tools to produce and publish writing, including in collaboration with peers.

2

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.2.6 With guidance and support from adults, use a variety of digital tools to produce and publish writing, including in collaboration with peers.

3

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.3.6 With guidance and support from adults, use technology to produce and publish writing (using keyboarding skills) as well as to interact and collaborate with others.

4

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.4.6 With some guidance and support from adults, use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of one page in a single sitting.

5

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.5.6 With some guidance and support from adults, use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of two pages in a single sitting.

6

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.6.6 Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of three pages in a single sitting.

7

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.7.6 Use technology, including the Internet, to product and publish writing and link to and cite sources as well as to interact and collaborate with others, including linking to and citing sources.

8

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.8.6 Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and present the relationships between information and ideas efficiently as well as to interact and collaborate with others.

9-10

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.9-10.6 Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products, taking advantage of technology’s capacity to link to other information and to display information flexibility and dynamically.

11-12

CCSS.ELA-LITERACE.W.11-12.6 Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or share writing products in response to ongoing feedback, including new arguments or information.

Source: Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012)

89

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

An understanding of TPACK is essential to preservice teacher education English Language Arts methods courses. Twenty-first century skills require that students move beyond information retrieval and toward open-ended research, reflection, and synthesis (Mouza & Karchmar-Klein, 2013). The Writing strand presents a growing acceptance that students should be narrating and sharing their learning through forms of media beyond traditional pencil and paper. The Writing strand clearly demonstrates that preservice teacher education must emphasize the CK of written literacy skills, the PK of age and cognitively appropriate application of teaching methods, and the TK of appropriate collaborative writing tools, research formats, and web-based applications. TK runs throughout the Speaking and Listening strand of the Common Core State English Language Arts Standards (2012). Similar to the Writing strand, technology use is scaffolded through the progression of grade levels and is integrated fully into the content standards. Table 3 outlines a progression within the Speaking and Listening strand, highlighting the technology integration with content. Within the Speaking and Listening strand, TK is a crucial component to contextualizing PK. The CK of Speaking and Listening assumes that students will synthesize twenty-first century skills with effective presentation styles. They demonstrate a deep connection to the direct application of higher Table 3. Common Core speaking and listening strand and technology integration Grade

Common Core Writing Strand

2

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.2.5 Create audio recordings of stories or poems; add drawings or other visual displays to stories or recounts of experiences when appropriate to clarify ideas, thoughts, and feelings.

3

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.3.5 Create engaging audio recordings of stories or poems that demonstrate fluid reading at an understandable pace; add visual displays when appropriate to emphasize or enhance certain facts or details.

4

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.4.5 Add audio recordings and visual displays to presentations when appropriate to enhance the development of main ideas or themes.

5

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.5.5 Include multimedia components (e.g., graphics, sound) and visual displays in presentations when appropriate to enhance the development of main ideas or themes.

6

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.6.5 Include multimedia components (e.g., graphics, images, music, sound) and visual displays in presentations to clarify information.

7

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.7.5 Include multimedia components and visual displays in presentations to clarify claims and findings and emphasize salient points.

8

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.8.5 Integrate multimedia and visual displays into presentations to clarify information, strengthen claims and evidence, and add interest.

9-10

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.5 Make strategic use of digital media (e.g., textual, graphical, audio, visual, and interactive elements) in presentations to enhance understanding of findings, reasoning, and evidence and to add interest.

11-12

CCSS.ELA-LITERACE.SL.11-12.5 Make strategic use of digital media (e.g., textual, graphical, audio, visual, and interactive elements) in presentations to enhance understanding of findings, reasoning, and evidence and to add interest.

Source: Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012)

90

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

order thinking skills. Preservice teacher education must incorporate systematic curriculum that offers preservice teachers an integrated approach to teaching strategies, instructional planning, and technology integration (Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012). TK is a key element of the Math Strand in the Common Core State Standards (2012). It is integral to understanding mathematical content and provides the underlying framework for mathematical pedagogy. As in the English Language Arts strands, technology is scaffolded throughout the grade levels and allows for both teachers and children to choose technology appropriate for their environments. The Common Core State Standards (2012) refer to “mathematically proficient students” as those that are familiar with technological tools and make sound decisions about which tools are helpful in solving mathematical problems. “Mathematically proficient students” recognize the limitations that technology may present and integrate other non-technology-based strategies in problem-solving activities. The Math strand points to the integration of paper and pencil, concrete models, rulers, protractors, calculators, spreadsheets, computer algebra systems, statistical packages, dynamic geometry software, and relevant digital content located on websites. The challenge for preservice teacher education is to create math methods coursework that aligns with substantive theory as outlined by Chen (2011). The use of mathematical tools must be integral to the learning process. Technology is not external to the cognitive process of the student. The student’s choice of technology rests in the decision-making process led by metacognition. Within the Math strand, students must reflect on their own learning as it relates to problem-solving to make important decisions about the use of technology tools. Substantive Theory is woven throughout TPACK, making deep connections between mathematical CK, PK that contextualizes technology, and TK that demonstrates the opportunities and limitations that technologies present.

EFFECTIVE LEARNING MODELS The design of the learning model for preservice teacher education is important. A study, conducted in Osahawa, Canada, identifies four learning strategies (collaboration, using authentic tasks, formal instruction and exploratory learning) to determine how preservice teachers learned to use technology (Kay, 2011). It draws connections between those learning strategies and the design of preservice teacher education. The preservice teachers studied did not take a stand-alone technology course; technology was integrated into each of their preservice courses (Kay, 2011). Study results indicate that preservice teachers learn technology best through collaborative learning strategies and authentic tasks. In particular, preservice teachers use collaborative learning strategies when exploring generalized applications such as the World Wide Web and presentation software. They use authentic tasks to learn more advanced software such as ChemSketch and Geometer’s Sketchpad. The study concludes that neither exploratory learning nor formal instruction correlated with technological proficiency (Kay, 2011). The study provides valuable insight into the design of preservice teacher education. The study suggests that preservice teacher education should not approach educational technology as a stand-alone component that teaches how to operate equipment and software. As new equipment and software develop rapidly, this approach makes sense. This study provides convincing data to argue that preservice teacher education must utilize collaborative and authentic learning tasks to integrate equipment and software into an overall understanding of curriculum development and instructional design. 91

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

The results of this study align with the recommendations from ISTE in regards to student learning outcomes and teacher competencies. ISTE outlines essential conditions necessary to leverage technology for learning (2016). The following essential conditions link to recommendations found in the Oshawa, Canada study: •

•

• •

Skilled personnel model technology use throughout the educational system. They seek on-going professional development to enhance technology skills. Educational systems implement hiring practices and policies that reflect the significance of technology skills, alongside content and pedagogical knowledge, in teacher candidates (ISTE, 2016). Ongoing professional learning is offered regularly within the educational system. It highlights individual professional learning plans that include time for planning, creating, and reflecting on what educators have learned about the teaching process (ISTE, 2016). Reflections are not isolated to how well an educator has learned a new technology. Rather, reflections include the entire teaching and learning process, suggesting an authentic approach to professional learning. Technology use is woven into curriculum frameworks. It matches the desired learning outcomes and serves as integral to the success of student learning (ISTE, 2016). Student-centered learning is a hallmark characteristic of the educational system. Technologypowered pedagogy is applied and used to increase access and differentiation (ISTE, 2016).

A study, conducted in Ghent, Belgium, focuse on the extent to which preservice teachers believed that they received the necessary support and training in order to integrate technology into classroom activities (Tondeur, Braak, Siddiq, & Scherer, 2015). It suggests that technology integration should be woven into the entire preservice teacher training. It indicates that preservice teacher training programs should form strong partnerships with mentor classrooms so that preservice teachers have opportunities to observe and practice technology integration and complete authentic tasks toward their own understanding of curriculum development. Finally, the study questions if teacher educators have the knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy to teach technology integration to preservice teachers. It recommends that teacher educators self-reflect about on-going professional development in the area of educational technology (Tondeur, Braak, Siddiq, & Scherer, 2015). This study links to prior research regarding the (a) technological skill levels between digital native and digital immigrants, and (b) preservice teacher skill and confidence toward technology integration. It suggests that the roles of preservice and teacher educators are connected, and that without thoughtful placements and classroom practicum experiences, neither group will develop the self-reflective skills to integrate technology effectively (Tondeur, Braak, Siddiq, & Scherer, 2015). A primary theme that emerges in research literature about preservice teachers identifies the need to differentiate understanding about technology use versus technology integration. Preservice teachers demonstrate high levels of technical fluency, the ability to use technology for practical purposes, but low levels of technology integration, the ability to use those tools as an integral process for learning and assessment (Kimmons, Miller, Amador, Desjardins, & Hall, 2015; Kennedy & Archambault, 2012; Chen, 2011; Kumar & Vigil, 2011; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003). According to Kimmons, Miller, Amador, Desjardins and Hall (2015), while “…preservice teachers may exhibit confidence in their abilities to integrate technology into teaching, they may actually only do so in ways that have no intended impact on student learning and classroom culture…” (p. 825).

92

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

Technology integration is a highlight in ISTE and ESEA. Teachers must use technology for assessments, blended learning, online instruction, creative learning experiences, and digital citizenship. Knowing how to operate emerging technology is not enough. Preservice teachers must determine if technology integration will replace previous practice, amplify current practice or transfer practice into something altogether new (Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber, 2006). They must understand instructional design and how CK, PK, and TK can work simultaneously to benefit the learning environment. Preservice teachers must develop an overarching digital pedagogy. They must be able to determine if specific technologies can support learning for all students and provide assessment data to influence classroom inputs and outputs. Current research reflects that preservice teacher self-assessments regarding technological competencies and technological applications do not do not connect to critical thinking about technology in educational contexts (Kimmons, Miller, Amador, Desjardins, & Hall, 2015). TK is moderate to high. CK and PK are low. In order to reach the benchmarks outlined in ESEA, ISTE, and Common Core, preservice teacher education must guide learning with the context of digital pedagogy and the TPACK framework. Modeling authentic learning and assessment are essential components to preservice teacher education.

FACULTY TRAINING Faculty comfort level and training with technology integration are critical components to the success of preservice teachers. A 2013 study in Australia looked at models of support for preservice teachers’ understandings of technology integration from faculty at one university. Faculty interviews revealed that they were uncomfortable “asking simple questions” about technology integration amongst each other because there was a sense of trust that they should already know the answers to those questions (Bower, Highfield, Furney, & Mowbray, 2013). Added to this sense of assumed knowledge was the reality of not knowing how to use newer technology tools (Bower, Highfield, Furney, & Mowbray, 2013). Ongoing professional development requires sustained effort over time and such sustained effort requires commitment from institutions of higher education to purchase newer technologies for faculty to learn, experiment with, and utilize within instruction. The Australian model evaluated the addition of two part-time “tech officers”, or instructional designers, into the faculty team. The role of the “tech officers” was to provide on-going professional development for faculty and serve as a resource to preservice teachers who wanted and/or needed to explore the crossroads between educational technology and pedagogy. The model proved successful, garnering highly positive feedback from both faculty and students regarding understandings of technology integration with pedagogy, and explorations of newer technologies in environments that foster collegial questions and answers. The study provided the groundwork to hire a permanent, full-time “tech officer” for preservice teacher education. The Australian study is consistent with ISTE’s essential conditions. ISTE (2016) points toward technical support as an essential condition for the success of technology integration. It identifies the need for sufficient infrastructure to support ideal levels of tech use, access to technology specialists, and diversified responsibility for technology use, implementation and support. The Australian model offers a case study focused on the the effectiveness of technical support for faculty training. A similar model in preservice teacher education in the United States may prove successful in strengthening digital pedagogies of both faculty and preservice teachers. 93

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

Preservice Teacher Education Infrastructure If TPACK is assumed to become a standard model in preservice teacher education, than program infrastructures will require a dynamic change in both budget and pedagogy. First and foremost, educational technology cannot be viewed as a skill-based concept. Rather, it must be seen as integrated fully into pedagogy that supports knowledge acquisition. Charbonneau-Gowdy (2015) examines the the limited modeling of teaching with technology in preservice teacher education. Her research identifies that technology modeling is characterized by PowerPoint presentations, audio files, textbook multimedia, YouTube videos, and movies. These technology formats reinforce content via passive interactions. They did not promote a connection to digital pedagogy, nor did they enhance higher order thinking skills. Her observations lead to questions about preservice teacher education infrastructure: • •

Does preservice teacher education maintain educational technology budgets to support the purchase of and training with advanced multimedia platforms? Does preservice teacher education align with ISTE’s essential conditions?

The Australian study (Bower, Highfield, Furney, & Mowbray, 2013) offers infrastructure improvements that may help to address teacher educator gaps in access to and training with advanced multimedia to support the TPACK framework. Hofer and Grandgenett (2012) explore the integrated nature of educational technology and content specific teaching. They argue that the two areas must be intertwined to model TPACK and that higher order thinking skills must be emphasized. This represents the primary shift from understanding technology as a tool toward conceptualizing technology as essential to teaching and learning content. They argue that preservice teacher education must intentionally measure preservice teacher growth in TPACK development throughout all coursework, suggesting that TPACK integrate into courses beyond methods and practicum. That intentional measurement requires preservice teacher reflection and metacognition in regards to developing understandings of the overlap of CK, PK, and TK. Kay’s Canadian study offers infrastructure improvements that contextualize educational technology within content methods. In addition, that study focuses on understanding the role of authentic assessment in preservice teacher education and offers a unique framework for preservice teachers to practice authentic assessment as learners.

Knowledge Gaps in Preservice Teacher Education In 2009 and 2010, Ottenbreit-Leftwich et. al. (2012) completed a nation-wide study of preservice teacher education. Specifically, they sought to identify the knowledge and practical gaps between preservice teacher education and workplace applications. Several themes emerged from the study, providing insight into how preservice teacher education aligned or misaligned with the realities of the profession. Teacher educators identify that preservice teachers must be introduced to the use of technology for classroom preparation and for teaching specific content identified in curriculum standards (OttenbreitLeftwich et al., 2012). This clearly indicates a lack of alignment with TPACK in preservice teacher education during the time of this study. On the other hand, teachers identify the most important topic as the integration of technology to support higher-order thinking with students (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). Within the teachers’ framework is an underlying assumption that TK links to CK and PK. This 94

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

means the needs of the workplace were not reflected in the training ground for that workplace. In other words, it was not taught sufficiently in preservice teachereducation. In order to fulfill this gap, preservice teacher education must develop an integrated approach to technology. Teacher educators identify technology as supportive of classroom preparation, typically involving searching for free resources, creating class materials, and creating lesson plans (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). These responses are indicative of a lack of PK integration in preservice teacher education. On the other hand, teachers identify technology as a facilitator for collaborative student learning, engagement, and assessment (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). The practical classroom experience necessitates an integrated approach to digital pedagogy. Preservice teacher education must evaluate the extent to which its course offerings, mission, and vision align with TPACK to ensure a stronger connection between preservice teacher education and workplace expectations. Preservice teacher education must identify gaps in knowledge and applications between mentor classrooms and K-12 classrooms within the contexts of ESEA, ISTE, Common Core, and TPACK. The authentic technology skills that preservice teachers learn must be meaningful to their teaching practice and must link to a solid foundation experienced through methods coursework and mentor classrooms. This will prepare them for the realities of the twenty-first century classroom and the learning styles of digital natives. Hew and Brush (2007) outline effective technology training for teachers that includes technology skills and experiences within an educational context, opportunities for hands-on work with technology resources, and consistency with authentic instruction and assessment. Hew and Brush’s (2007) outline proves relevant to preservice teacher education and ISTE’s essential conditions.

Mentor Classrooms As seen in the results of the research studies reviewed, there is a need for mentor classrooms where preservice teachers can observe and practice technology integration with students (Tondeur, Braak, Siddiq, & Scherer, 2015; Kumar & Vigil, 2011; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003). Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer and O’Connor (2003) indicated that field observations in mentor classrooms provide opportunities for preservice teachers to understand how teachers use technology to support instructional objectives, and how children use technology to support learning activities. They maintained that preservice teacher beliefs regarding the value of technology in education changed for the better when they are exposed to effective mentor classrooms and to new technologies, especially when they see how much the children benefit. Kumar and Vigil (2011) point out that preservice teachers must observe and experience mentor classrooms that use technology in teaching and learning, not just with planning and reporting. Enhanced exposure to new technologies and instructional design may provide opportunities for preservice teachers to understand how to create educational projects that integrate the active use of digital content. Finally, Tondeur, Braak, Siddiq, and Scherer (2015) argue that preservice teacher education should form strong partnerships with mentor classrooms so that preservice teachers have opportunities to observe and practice technology integration, and complete authentic tasks toward their own understanding of curriculum development. Charbonneau-Gowday (2015) cautions that mentor classrooms may not be receptive to technology integration and may not allow preservice teachers the opportunity to experiment with technology during practice teaching sessions. This incongruence may be the result of the mentor teacher’s lack of understanding of TPACK or reflective of a school’s limited hardware and software resources. CharbonneauGowday (2015) notes that longitudinal data of preservice teachers who entered the workforce reveals 95

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

that technology integration in content and pedagogy was not sustained over time. The study participants who entered the workplace reverted to the use of twentieth century tools such as PowerPoint and videos. Charbonneau-Gowday (2015) provides a powerful lesson for preservice teacher education in the selection of mentor classrooms that promote preservice teacher experimentation with digital pedagogy. Mouza and Karchmer-Klein (2013) present enhanced recommendations for mentor classroom placements and experiments. They suggest a case development approach that aligns with TPACK. In this approach, preservice teachers move through four stages of the development of digital pedagogy within the context of the realities of the mentor classroom: • • • •

Preservice teachers inventory available technologies in the mentor classroom. Preservice teachers identify or design a technology-integrated lesson plan to be implemented in the mentor classroom and discuss that plan with the mentor teacher. Preservice teachers facilitate the technology-integrated lesson plan and collect relevant student artifacts. Preservice teachers analyze and reflect on the technology-integrated lesson plan, incorporating ideas about workplace realities, student artifacts, mentor teacher feedback, and authentic assessment.

In this model, preservice teachers must demonstrate a solid foundation in all knowledge areas of TPACK. They must also adapt their approaches to the realities of mentor classrooms, especially with available hardware and software resources. Finally, they garner the buy-in and support of the mentor teacher through inclusion in the development and reflection process.

Virtual Mentor Classrooms Of note in ESEA is mention of blended and online instruction in K-12 education. As of 2012, all fifty states and the District of Columbia offer some form of K-12 online learning. Some states have passed laws requiring or recommending that students complete at least one online learning experience by the time they graduate from high school (Archambault, 2011). This data lends itself to consider the role of virtual mentor classrooms where preservice teachers can observe and practice teaching in online and hybrid environments, as opposed to strictly face-to-face environments. According to Kennedy and Archambault (2012), as of 2012, “only 1.3% of teacher education programs are addressing the need to prepare educators for settings other than the traditional brick and mortar classrooms” (p. 195) and “…just 13% of programs indicated that they were currently planning such an experience” (p. 195). The study points to models in Florida, South Dakota and North Dakota that recognize the need to offer virtual field practicums. However, there is no uniformity in those designs. Kennedy and Archambault (2012)argue that “preservice teachers need a solid foundation in online pedagogy”, which may be different than a traditional brick and mortar classroom. They urge preservice teacher education to require field placements in virtual classrooms. Wilkins et. al. (2014) examine virtual mentor classrooms in preservice teacher education in New York. The researchers point out that, as of 2013, New York State did not require specific training to teach online K-12 courses, nor did it have a state-level certification for those who did this work. As of 2013, states that included a state-level certification were Michigan, New Mexico, Alabama, and Idaho. The researchers piloted virtual school field placements to understand how to prepare preservice teachers to 96

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

teach online. They were concerned with the skills, knowledge, and experiences that distinguish online from face-to-face teaching environments. In the field placements, preservice teachers worked virtually with mentor teachers, communicated regularly with students, provided assessment and feedback and assessment on discussion boards and individual student work, and monitored issues such as student behavior, postings and course progress. The students doing their field placements did not have the opportunity to plan technology-integrated lessons. They were already programmed by the hosting company or designed by the mentor teacher. Study participants indicated that placements in virtual mentor classrooms provided opportunities to communicate regularly with students and understand the application of differentiation and academic support. They also commented that the technical aspects of online instruction were distinct from faceto-face instruction and that their traditional preservice teacher education had not prepared them fully for an online environment. Significant future research is needed in preservice teacher education for virtual K-12 classrooms. Preservice teachers trained in TPACK must be provided opportunities to translate TPACK into virtual environments. However, given that state-level certification is not standard across the United States and little uniformity exists in virtual teacher training, virtual field placements may offer a limited scope for understanding how to create student-led and inquiry based methods of digital pedagogy. Preservice teacher education must offer opportunities for practice in both face-to-face and virtual environments that require preservice teachers to reflect upon the similarities and differences in teaching and learning, as well as offer opportunities to deepen the application of TPACK within different learning platforms.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRE-SERVICE TEACHER LICENSING PROGRAMS Educational technology should be integrated throughout all education coursework and not remain as a stand-alone course. The Writing strands of Common Core emphasize the use of collaborative authoring, multimedia tools, and internet applications as essential elements to knowledge acquisition. Inherent in those strands is a recognition that reading and writing literacy is non-linear. Emerging literacy theories assume that children enter into literacy instruction having already used reading, writing, and digital literacies through their exposure to print and digital media prior to starting formal school instruction. Preservice teacher education must consider the role of educational technology in understanding literacy development. Preservice teachers must experience collaborative authoring, multimedia tools, and internet applications within their own preservice teacher education so that they have opportunities to reflect upon their own learning experiences. Educational technology and methods in English Language Arts instruction are not separate. They are deeply connected to the TPACK framework. As seen in multiple research studies (Tondeur, Braak, Siddiq, & Scherer, 2015; Kumar & Vigil, 2011; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer and O’Connor, 2003), preservice teacher education should adopt a Substantive Theory of approach to educational technology. Technology offers opportunities to support, augment, and develop interactions within a classroom. A substantive approach recognizes and integrates the technological preferences of digital natives by offering access to twenty first century skills contextualized within content. For example, a ninth grade English class will read a Shakespearean work. The Common Core Reading Literature standard (2012) states that students will “analyze how complex characters (e.g., those with multiple or conflicting motivations) develop over the course of a text, interact with other characters, and advance the plot or develop the theme.” An example of a substantive approach might require that 97

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

a ninth grade student mimic a complex Shakespearean character in a social networking environment (Amaral, 2011), requiring the student to embed the characters’ motivations and conflicts into the social profile. The class might work collaboratively to retell the story through social media interactions, requiring students to obtain a deep understanding of event sequencing and themes. Preservice teacher education that offers a substantive approach provides rich opportunities to move education beyond the traditional four classroom walls and into virtual spaces common to the experiences of digital natives. Programs should not assume that digital native preservice teachers intuitively understand how technology impacts teaching and learning. While digital natives offer moderate to advanced levels of TK, they enter preservice teacher education with beginning understandings of CK and PK. The connection between technology, content, and pedagogy should be modeled throughout preservice teacher education. For example, preservice teachers may have used Kahoot, an online collaborative learning game, proficiently in their own K-12 learning experiences. They may be able to understand easily and quickly how to set up a new Kahoot. However, they may not be able to to create and align a Kahoot with knowledge acquisition. For example, if asked to create a Kahoot about the American Revolution for a fifth grade mentor classroom, the preservice teacher is forced to make decisions about the choice of image, wording of question, and options for answers within the game. To be effective, each element must be shaped by a deep understanding of content and pedagogy. While the TK to create the Kahoot exists for the preservice teacher, the connections to CK and PK require intentional development. Therefore, preservice teachers must be offered coursework and mentor opportunities where they will learn, observe, and practice the skills needed to combine CK, PK, and TK. Learning models should emphasize collaborative and authentic learning, linking preservice teacher performance tasks to technology and to real-life situations. Kay’s (2007) Australian study provides evidence to why this shift is needed. He points out that exploratory and formal instruction of educational technology is ineffective in preservice teacher education. As the one-to-one laptop and/or tablet initiative is common throughout districts in the United States, preservice teachers must understand how laptops, tablets, and other forms of mobile technologies are used to support CK and PK. Of course preservice teachers need an understanding of how to operate hardware. The real connection to TPACK occurs when the operational procedures sit in the background of the teaching and learning environment and the content takes center stage. The practice of learning with laptop, tablet, and mobile technologies must be modeled in preservice teacher education so that there is a deeper connection to content and pedagogy. Digital pedagogies must be modeled and experienced in collaborative and authentic ways. When supported by “tech officers”, faculty trainings on emerging technologies, supported by “tech officers,” offer learning teams that encourage questions and exploration for faculty and preservice teachers. Preservice teacher education funding must include annual budgets for emerging technologies and personnel who support an environment where faculty and preservice teacher explore and adapt to educational technologies. The emergence of augmented reality is a prime area for preservice teacher education exploration. While products such as Google Cardboard and Oculus Rift are emerging slowly in K-12 classrooms, their drop in price may make 3-D modeling and augmented reality an interesting option for technology integration. Preservice teacher education must consider how to train faculty on the use of augmented reality products so that the deeper connections to CK and PK will be explored with preservice teachers. This requires financial support to purchase emerging technologies and support on-going professional development for teacher educators. Mentor classrooms that encompass brick and mortar, hybrid and fully online environments are critical for preservice teachers to observe and practice authentic tasks. Mentor classrooms must be led by 98

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

teachers who are using and reflecting on the TPACK framework. They must be supportive of preservice teacher practice with technology integration. Additional research is needed in this area to best understand how to develop effective mentor classrooms and how to measure TPACK understandings throughout preservice teacher education. The facilitation of effective virtual practicums requires extensive research and field testing. ESEA, ISTE, Common Core, and TPACK offer extraordinary opportunities for the design and redesign of preservice teacher education. Each initiative holds an underlying assumption that twenty-first century skills coordinate with technology use. They emphasize digital pedagogy that allows digital natives to thrive in teaching and learning environments. Therefore, preservice teacher education must look within its programs for alignment with TPACK that ensures that technology, content and pedagogy are intertwined, with no one area having greater importance.

REFERENCES Amaral, M. (2011). Lesson Plan: Using facebook profiles for character analysis. Retrieved from http:// www.teach4real.com/2011/03/28/facebook-profiles-character-analysis/ Archambault, L. M. (2011). The practitioner’s perspective on teacher education: Preparing for the k-12 online classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 73–91. Barron, A., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on technology in k-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the national technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 744–755. doi:10.1080/15391523.2003.10782398 Bower, M., Highfield, K., Furney, P., & Mowbray, L. (2013). Supporting pre-service teachers technology-enabled learning design thinking through whole of programme transformation. Educational Media International, 50(1), 39–50. doi:10.1080/09523987.2013.777183 Charbonneau-Gowdy, P. (2015). It takes a community to develop a teacher: Testing a new teacher education model for promoting ICT in classroom teaching practices chile. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(4), 237–249. Chen, R. (2011). Preservice mathematics teachers ambiguous views of technology. School Science and Mathematics, 111(2), 56–67. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2010.00061.x Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). About the standards. Retrieved from http://www. corestandards.org/about-the-standards/ Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). English language arts standards. Retrieved from http:// www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/ Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Math standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/ Croxall, B., & Koh, A. (2013). Digital pedagogy? A digital pedagogy unconference. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.briancroxall.net/digitalpedagogy/what-is-digital-pedagogy/

99

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

Goldenberg, L. B. (2011). What students really want in science class. Science Teacher (Normal, Ill.), 78(6), 52–55. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into k-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5 Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: A longitudinal study of preservice teachers in a secondary M.A.Ed. program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 83–106. doi:10.1080/15391523.2012.10782598 Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT—replacement, amplification, and transformation—framework. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2006 (pp. 1616–1620). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Curriculum framework. Retrieved from http:// www.iste.org/standards/tools-resources/essential-conditions/curriculum-framework International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Essential conditions. Retrieved from http:// www.iste.org/standards/tools-resources/essential-conditions International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for- teachers International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Ongoing professional learning. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/tools-resources/essential-conditions/ongoing-professional-learning International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Skilled personnel. Retrieved from http:// www.iste.org/standards/tools-resources/essential-conditions/skilled-personnel International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Student-centered learning. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/tools-resources/essential-conditions/student-centered-learning Kay, R. (2007). A formative analysis of how preservice teachers learn to use technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 366–383. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00222.x Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in k-12 online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185–200. doi:10.1177/0022487111433651 Kimmons, R., Miller, B., Amador, J., Desjardins, C., & Hall, C. (2015). Technology integration coursework and finding meaning in pre-service teachers reflective practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 809–829. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9394-5 Koehlher, M., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

100

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

Mouza, C., & Karchmer-Klein, R. (2013). Promoting and assessing pre-service teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in the context of case development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 127–152. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.b Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Brush, T. A., Strycker, J., Gronseth, S., Roman, T., Abaci, S., & Plucker, J. (2012). Preparation versus practice: How do teacher education programs and practicing teachers align in their use of technology to support teaching and learning? Computers & Education, 59(2), 399–411. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.014 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Retrieved from http:/www.marcprensky.com/ writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital %20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Prensky, M. (2013, August 10). Digital natives [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=jRR76Mz9NII Railean, E., Walker, W., Elçi, A., & Jackson, L. (2016). Handbook of research on applied learning theory and design in modern education (Advances in educational technologies and instructional design). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9634-1 Rehmat, A. P., & Bailey, J. M. (2014). Technology integration in a science classroom: Preservice teachers perceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 744–755. doi:10.1007/s10956014-9507-7 Russell, M., Bebell, D., ODwyer, L., & OConnor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310. doi:10.1177/0022487103255985 Russell, M., O’Brien, E., Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. (2003). Students’ beliefs, access, and use of computers in school and at home. Boston: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College. Tondeur, J., Braak, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2015). Time for a new approach to prepare future teachers for educational technology use: Its meaning and measurement. Computers & Education, 94, 134–150. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.009 United States Department of Education. (2015). Every child succeeds act; Reauthorized elementary and secondary education act. (114th Congress S. 1177). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. United States Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school teachers. In United States: Results from the 2011–12 schools and staffing survey. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013314.pdf Wilkens, C., Eckdahl, K., Morone, M., Cook, V., Giblin, T., & Coon, J. (2014). Communication, community and disconnection: Pre-service teachers in virtual school field experiences. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(2), 143–157. doi:10.2190/ET.43.2.c

101

 Technology Integration in Preservice Teacher Education Programs

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Common Core State Standards Initiative: A curriculum framework for grades K-12 that establishes guidelines for what every child in the United States should know and be able to do in Math and English Language Arts. Digital Immigrant: A term used to describe an individual born before the widespread adaptation of technology, prior to 1980. Digital Native: A term used to describe an individual born after the widespread adaptation of technology, after 1980. Digital Pedagogy: The belief that digital technology enhances the experience of education because it is ubiquitous and pervasive, provides the teacher and student with choice, and connects the teacher and student to a context of learning beyond a typical classroom. Elementary and Secondary Education Act: A federal education law, originally enacted in 1965, that emphasizes equal access to education, high standards and accountability. International Society for Technology in Education: A nonprofit organization that promotes the integration of technology in education through standards, essential conditions and professional development. Preservice Teacher Education: The education and training pathway undertaken by individuals interested in entering the teaching profession. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): An educational framework that outlines the intersections and interactions of Technology, Pedagogy, and Content in teaching and learning.

102

103

Chapter 6

Developing Digital Literacy:

Preparing Next-Generation Elementary Education Literacy Teachers Carolyn Haviland Obel-Omia Rhode Island College, USA

ABSTRACT Teacher education programs are increasingly responsible for preparing teachers who use technology fluently across curricula. Future teachers must define literacy more broadly than they have in the past to include digital modes of reading and writing. Experience with digital tools in literacy methodology courses provides opportunities for teacher candidates to reflect critically on these tools, preparing teachers to use technology to its advantage in elementary school classrooms. This chapter describes four digital practices designed to engage teacher candidates in participating in and reflecting on authentic reading and writing to develop next-generation literacy teachers. These practices include examples of activities that can be adapted to both teacher preparation and elementary education classrooms.

INTRODUCTION I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not in preparation for future learning. – John Dewey Dewey’s (1897, p. 78) words are relevant to teacher education because programs that engage prospective teachers in living- reading and writing- create teachers who are guided by their own love of literacy learning. For elementary education teacher candidates to become teachers who inspire students’ love of and facility for literacy, they require experience interacting with the breadth of extant literacies. New teachers entering classrooms with an understanding of the possibilities of digital literacy experiences are prepared to share these opportunities with students, combined with being open to new ways of using technology that arise with technological advances. This chapter presents evidence for a need for teacher education programs that incorporate technology into language arts instruction, provides examples of practices designed to do so, and considers inherent benefits and challenges. The digital practices were DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch006

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Developing Digital Literacy

chosen to engage preservice teachers in participating in rich, interactive reading and writing experiences, forming “communities of practice,” (Wenger, 1998), each of which can be modified for elementary school classrooms.

BACKGROUND A critical component of the English Language Arts Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) is its underpinning in new literacies. In this framework, literacy is defined as the ability to not only read and write text, but also participate fluently in a variety of media (Gee, 2012; Knobel & Lankshear, 2014). The term new literacies was introduced in 1993 to describe how definitions of literacy, and what it means to be literate, were changing with advances in technology (Buckingham, 1993). Knobel and Lankshear (2014) distinguish traditional and new literacies: As social practices mediated by digital technologies, new literacies differ fundamentally from conventional print literacies on the basis that their inscriptions are rendered in pixels on screens rather than by impressions on paper, by means of digital code rather than material analogue means. Consequently, “new” kinds of texts are seamlessly multimodal rather than involving distinct processes for different modes (text, image, sound). (p. 98) Similarly, multiliteracies was used by a group of literacy researchers in New Hampshire in 1994 to expand the definition of literacy to include production and comprehension of new kinds of texts, especially digital varieties (Anstey & Bull, 2006; New London Group, 1996). Although the notion that people are literate in different ways in disparate contexts existed prior to the introduction of the term, multiliteracy referred primarily to literate practices afforded by new technologies. New literacy and multiliteracy carry the same connotation. For the purposes of this chapter, new literacies refers to skills and practices necessary for comprehension and production of digital texts. These texts include images, videos, blogs, wikis, online forums, online gaming, various social media sites, etc. This expanded view of literacy has important implications for elementary education teachers, and by extension, preservice teachers. Reading requires the ability to draw meaning from information presented in multiple formats in addition to books, to include social media forums and blogs, and beyond text, to include images and videos. Writing looks and feels different too since the process is more collaborative, interactive, and context-specific in a digital context. Multiple authors frequently collaborate on texts, and audiences extend far beyond the walls of a classroom. Whereas publishing originally meant reading a final copy of writing to a class from an author’s chair, it now means sharing ideas widely on websites, blogs, and social media. Recent definitions of language arts add viewing and visually representing to the original four: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. In elementary school classrooms and beyond, critical literacy skills when viewing and visually representing are becoming increasingly important. Elementary school students need skills to navigate the digital world, and participate in and contribute to that world. New literacies describe “ways in which meaning-making practices are evolving under contemporary conditions that include, but are in no way limited to, technological changes associated with the rise and proliferation of digital electronics” (Knobel & Lankshear, 2014, p. 97). Even if reading and writing remain primary

104

 Developing Digital Literacy

means of teaching and assessing students in elementary school, preparation of students for college and career requires facility with new literacy forums such as online discussions and social media. Awareness of the influence of these technological changes to education shapes core standards, specifically the English Language Arts standards. The CCSS website states, “skills related to media use (both critical analysis and production of media) are integrated throughout the standards” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). College- and career-ready students are expected to “employ technology thoughtfully to enhance their reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language use. They are familiar with the strengths and limitations of various technological tools and mediums and can select and use those best suited to their communication goals” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards suggest students will be able to “integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse media and formats, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words” (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.7). This anchor standard is woven throughout gradelevel reading standards in grades 4 through 12, requiring that students at each level consider how visual and multimedia presentations of material contribute to meaning. Regarding speaking and listening, students are expected to “make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and enhance understanding of presentations” (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.SL.5). References to technology also appear in the writing standards: “Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others” (CCSS.ELA-Literacy. CCRA.W.6). The standards expect that technology is used to support collaboration and critical thinking in literacy classrooms (Stafford, 2012). For future educators to prepare students to be digitally literate, they also must be fluent with technology as a means of reading and writing in multiple formats. Since students will be required to read and write multimedia texts (Hutchinson & Colwell, 2014; Nichols, 2012), it follows that the same facilities be required in new teachers, and grounding of these skills in elementary school is critical. Although most contemporary elementary education undergraduates are digital natives, the speed with which technology advances underscores the need for instruction in digital tools in teacher-preparation courses. Merely participating in a technological world is no guarantee of the ability to teach necessary communication skills to students. Preservice teachers might have facility using technology for a variety of social and communicative purposes, but they are likely to have had fewer experiences with technology for educational purposes (Redman & Trapani, 2012; Schneider, 2015). Without opportunities for critical reflection on the use of digital tools in literacy instruction, preservice teachers may not be equipped to evaluate, select, or modify tools for their use in their classrooms. In addition to stand-alone courses in educational technology, teacher preparation programs increasingly integrate technology into their methodology courses to teach future teachers developmentally appropriate pedagogies for building digital literacy skills. Learning how to read and write in a digital world requires participation and reflection. Increased familiarity with technological tools by teachers affords greater opportunities for collaboration between students, teachers, and schools. Evidence of the benefits of digital literacy tools in all aspects of literacy instruction is rapidly expanding (Berson & Berson, 2013; Brown, 2016; Bruce & Chiu, 2015, Hutchinson & Colwell, 2014). A variety of tools continue to be developed, including assistive technology to aid with the reading and writing process, child-friendly search engines providing access to the internet to support the research process, computer based literacy assessments, and more. The focus of this chapter is on literacy tools

105

 Developing Digital Literacy

that provide opportunities for collaboration and communication, fostering a community of readers and writers, and thus motivating users as engaged readers and writers. Literacy methods courses have long identified the value of students using their own experiences with literacy as a means of understanding the influence of specific literacy practices on their development as readers and writers (Bukor, 2015; Edwards, 2009). Engaging prospective teachers in uncovering and analyzing their own experiences with literacy is an important step during development of a professional teacher identity, and is a frequent component of preservice teacher education (Edwards, 2009). Thus, teachers of reading and writing must be readers and writers themselves, and participants in dialogic contexts about those activities. They need to read children’s and adult literature that interests, educates, entertains, and inspires them. They need to write regularly and visibly to demonstrate to students their choices and challenges during their own writing processes. Most importantly, they need to be participants in a community of readers and writers. The charge to teachers to become more fluent digitally, combined with the value of teacher candidates reflecting on their literacy experiences, leads to the recommendation that prospective teachers use technology when developing, reflecting on, and sharing their literacy practices. Such experiences provide teachers opportunities to reflect critically on technology, situating them as reflective practitioners of both literacy and technology.

INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY INTO TEACHER EDUCATION Issues and Challenges Few argue against preparing teachers to use technology to support development of motivated, engaged participants in reading and writing communities of elementary school classrooms. Research continues to call for improved instruction of educational technology in teacher preparation programs (Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Cydis, 2015; Morrison-Love, 2014; Schneider, 2015). The challenge comes from preparing teacher candidates to be critical users of technology. Since education increasingly relies on technology, and digital contexts for literacy continue to emerge and evolve, identifying the right tools for a teaching context and understanding how to adapt that tool for pedagogy present challenges to prospective teachers. Teaching a few tools to teacher candidates as they progress through schools of education is insufficient to prepare them to use technology in meaningful, authentic ways in literacy classrooms. They must instead experience technology, combined with opportunities for critical reflection on those tools. Issues also exist concerning the role of literacy methodology courses in teacher-preparation programs. How do we balance teaching the skills of reading with the dispositions and practices of lifelong, joyful readers? How much do preservice teachers read or write? What opportunities exist in teacher education programs for preservice teachers to continue to develop as readers and writers, and engage in reading and writing communities in preparation for creating them among elementary education students? Other considerations are important during integration of technology in teacher preparation programs, and in elementary schools; cost, equity, and technical support must be overcome for a successful program. When teacher candidates experience technology in college classrooms, these issues arise, leading to authentic discussions of how to address obstacles in elementary school classrooms. With the rapid proliferation of digital tools in literacy instruction comes a call for caution. Some researchers have described the cyclical nature of technological reform, in which policymakers are quick

106

 Developing Digital Literacy

to embrace new technologies for classroom use, but when these innovations are not immediately successful, they are swiftly replaced by newer tools (Cuban & Jandric, 2015). Teachers must continually strive to learn the latest innovation within this cycle. Concerns regarding excessive screen time, exposure to inappropriate content, and lack of privacy are important considerations as teachers select which technologies to use and how to use them in their classrooms (Ernest, et al., 2014).

Motivating Readers and Writers through Technology This chapter introduces four practices that engage prospective elementary teachers in using digital tools to analyze their past, present, and future experiences with literacy. Each requires preservice teachers to develop technological fluency and understand expectations and requirements for a particular digital tool. Knowledge of how to use a tool alone is insufficient to ensure incorporation into a teacher candidate’s practice. For technology to become integral to practice, it must serve authentic purposes in a classroom, and candidates need opportunities to reflect critically on its value. In a traditional print-based world, reading and writing in particular genres require understanding of the rules of each genre, enabling a participant to use “genre as mentor” (Himley, 1991). Digital genres such as blogging, participating in online discussion boards, and creating videos also have expectations a fluent user needs to understand for participation. A user needs to examine it critically like any other genre. As is frequently the case during teacher preparation, the practices presented here also serve as models for activities that can be adapted to the elementary school classroom. Prospective teachers engage in the same activities in which they will engage with their students. The four practices were drawn from the author’s experience as a teacher educator, each adapted from ideas in the literature and the teacher education community to meet the needs of the author’s preservice students in literacy methodology courses. For technology to be useful, it must be situated within a specific teaching and learning context, addressing the needs of its users. These practices represent four examples of types of activities in which preservice teachers can engage, and each can be adapted to a variety of teaching contexts. All four focus on motivating students to read and write, and developing positive habits around reading. Each practice represents an example of a larger category of technology tools encompassing a variety of practices. These categories are digital storytelling, online discussions, blogs, and social media. The body of ideas for use of technology in a literacy classroom is increasingly expanding, and these ideas are presented to serve as useful models for adaptation to disparate contexts. Although the categories encompass many tools used to develop motivated readers and writers in a classroom, it is not an exhaustive list; teachers are continually experimenting with new ways to integrate technology into literacy classrooms.

Digital Literacy Stories The literacy autobiography has long been a staple of elementary teacher education. When new teachers understand how their experiences with literacy, both in and out of school, shaped their pedagogical philosophy, they can purposefully create a classroom culture around literacy that draws on the best of those experiences. When teacher candidates reflect on positive literacy experiences from their own classroom experiences such as those during which they chose their own topics for writing or collaborated on writing or reading activities with classmates, they are able to provide opportunities for their own

107

 Developing Digital Literacy

students to engage in similar motivating literacy experiences. Investigating negative experiences also has value. Reflecting on what it was about round-robin reading groups that led to dislike and avoidance of reading, or how assigned topics of little interest to students resulted in uninspired writing, are valuable considerations, with implications for one’s own teaching. Traditionally, the literacy autobiography takes the form of a written essay. However, new literacies offer new means of presentation. Before the arrival of Instagram, Snapchat, and other image-based forms of social media, the image offered potential for a depth of communication that written text cannot capture. Kress (2003) described this revolution over a decade ago: Language-as-speech will remain the major mode of communication; language-as-writing will increasingly be displaced by image in many domains of public communication, though writing will remain the preferred mode of the political and cultural elites. The combined effects on writing of the dominance of the mode of image and of the medium of the screen will produce deep changes in the forms and functions of writing. This in turn will have profound effects on human, cognitive/affective, cultural and bodily engagement with the world, and on the forms and shapes of knowledge. The world told is different from the world shown. (p. 1) This description of the value of image is even more apt in 2016, since “viewing” has achieved the status of the more traditional language arts of reading and writing. That an emoji received the distinction of “word” of the year 2015 from Oxford Dictionaries is evidence of the image’s displacement of the written word. The digital video genre allows for composition through presentation of visual, moving images. Digital video or digital storytelling is becoming increasingly common in elementary school classrooms (Bruce & Chiu, 2015; Husbye et al., 2012; Nichols, 2012; Shelby-Caffey, Ubeda, & Jenkins, 2014) because of the possibilities it offers for innovative composition. The Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives (DALN) (2015) catalogued hundreds of literacy narratives—written, audio-, or video-recorded—that can be used as a resource for teachers, students, and writers. The practice described here, the Digital Literacy Story, is one example of the genre specific to teacher education in literacy methodology courses. The Digital Literacy Story assignment allows teacher candidates to show influences on their development as readers and writers. They are expected to create narratives about their literacy experiences using images, video, text, and music. Teacher candidates create multimodal presentations using platforms such as Microsoft PowerPoint, iMovie, or Picflix to tell the stories of their literacy journeys—past, present, and future. Candidates are given a rubric, including criteria such as length of presentation, narration, and creativity, measured by use of music or video. They are encouraged to try new presentation software, and share ideas and scaffold one another’s skills. The goal is for each student to create a presentation that represents her/his journey as a literate person. The presentations created by students in the author’s courses include a rich variety of images and video, especially photographs of books, certificates, letters, and images or video of the students engaged in reading, writing, or teaching literacy. Students included videos of themselves reading aloud to their own children or teaching reading, along with photographs of books that were meaningful to them as children and elementary, middle, and high school students. To support the candidates’ critical use of technology, students reflected on use of the tool in both discussion and writing. The students reflected on the content of the literacy stories, their experiences with the technology, and the interaction between them. They considered how presenting stories digitally was different from writing them. Candidates noted the power of images, video, and sound when expressing ideas. One visually impaired candidate created a presentation that was narrated from the perspective 108

 Developing Digital Literacy

of the auto-reader he hears when listening to text. His movie presented his literacy story in a way that gave his classmates insights into his experiences with reading that a traditional presentation would not have. Another candidate presented the story of her connection with her father after separating from him at a young age, by having words appear on the screen telling that story, while images of books and letters represented their relationship, and music captured the emotion of the story. While some candidates described feelings of greater anxiety regarding creating the presentations digitally because they had less experience expressing ideas using technology than with writing, opportunities to learn from one another offset these concerns. Several candidates discussed greater motivations for creating digital presentations, and their beliefs that their students would also be motivated more by an opportunity to express ideas through images and video. By creating digital literacy stories, teacher candidates develop abilities to present their stories in a multimodal presentation, serving both as a valuable teaching tool and a model for an elementary classroom activity.

“What are You Reading?” Online Discussion Engaging teacher candidates in developing their literacy stories requires them to process some of their experiences with literacy. It is also critical that teachers continue to develop as readers and writers throughout their lives. Unfortunately, research suggests that the reading habits and attitudes of prospective elementary education teachers are often not those we wish students to emulate. Prospective teachers frequently admit to reading only that which is required. Limited time likely contributes to this phenomenon, but an admitted dislike of reading plays a part too. Reading for efferent purposes—to take away a message rather than for aesthetic purposes, to enjoy the experience—is the typical work of a college student (Gebhard, 2006; Rosenblatt, 1978; Sanders, 2012). Thus, it is the responsibility of a teacher educator to build up aesthetic reading sensibilities in students. One effective method for doing so is to build social interactions into the reading experience. When students talk about the books they are reading in literature-circle or book-club formats, engagement increases. The opportunity to talk, to express one’s feelings and ideas about a book, is a powerful incentive. A culture of a reading club develops; students recommend books to one another based on their growing knowledge of the reading preferences of classmates. Classroom discussions have a different look in the new literacies framework. Engaging students in classroom discussions of content across a curriculum is a skill taught and evaluated across teacher education programs. Moving discussions online adds a new dimension. During asynchronous discussions, students have more time and space to contribute to a conversation than they do during face-to-face discussions. There is value to these online discussions in both college and elementary school classrooms. Teachers note the benefits of engaging elementary grade students in online discussions: This nonjudgmental method of discourse makes it safe to walk away, reflect, consider how a comment is being viewed by your group mates, and then focus one’s thinking or ask for clarification. This process is democratic, allowing students who are marginalized in the classroom to interject their ideas into the conversation. (Koopman, 2010, p. 25) In college or elementary school classrooms, online discussions allow conversations that might not have otherwise occurred, given limited instructional time. Given a prompt or discussion question, students are instructed to respond to a question and then to one another’s responses. These online discussions, while 109

 Developing Digital Literacy

prompted by the teacher, are a space for student-directed conversations. When used in both college and elementary school classrooms, teachers note that discussions tend to be directed by students (Koopman, 2010). Perhaps the less-salient presence of a teacher allows greater student engagement. The practice discussed here is an example of engaging in online discussions concerning literature. During a semester, teacher candidates are required to participate in an online discussion board in which they read books, essays, or articles, post reviews and recommendations, and respond to one another. The reading material is meant to fall into the category of reading for pleasure. Students can write about a novel they are enjoying or an essay they read in a print or online magazine. In the author’s version of this assignment, students are required to post at least eight times during the semester, initiating a thread with a review of a book at least twice, and responding to threads from classmates at least six times. Not only does this discussion require candidates to engage in an online reading workshop, which necessitates reading and writing at regular intervals, it also builds a reading community in the classroom. Candidates frequently read texts recommended by one another, and the reading preferences of individuals and groups become evident. Teacher candidates posted reviews and recommendations for a range of books, including novels, children’s literature, and nonfiction, frequently connected to education such as Teach Like your Hair’s on Fire by Rafe Esquith (2007) and Black Ants and Buddhists by Mary Cowhey (2006). The candidates wrote to one another with specific recommendations, with statements such as “Marissa, I know you’ll love this book,” and “I found another great picture book about math for elementary school children!” In their critical examination of this practice, the candidates reflected on the content—the books they read, the online discussion tool, and how using the online discussion tool affected their reading habits. They found that the requirement to post provided an initial incentive to read, but as the semester continued, they found motivation for reading through conversations with classmates. They also reflected on adaptations of this tool for the elementary school classroom, proposing ways of engaging students in online book groups or literature circles. Becoming proficient with the online discussion board genre requires clear communication and dialogue skills. Candidates learned how to express their ideas clearly, and connect and respond to classmates. This transferable skill will serve them as professional teachers in supporting online and face-to-face discussions with students

Blog Reviews of Book Award Finalists Preservice teachers need to not only develop reading habits of books written for adults, but also read widely in children’s literature. Familiarity with the classics and contemporary books across a variety of genres is important to help elementary school students develop a passion for reading. To recommend books that will interest and inspire students, elementary school teachers need to be well read in children’s literature. A digital genre that provides opportunities for teachers to communicate their thoughts in writing for a specific audience is the blog or wiki. Blogs are personal websites or webpages for regular presentation of an author’s opinions or ideas. Wikis are similar to blogs, but they allow visitors to add or change content, encouraging greater interaction and collaboration. These digital genres have enormous potential to emphasize the social-interactive nature of writing. Authors can share their ideas widely and regularly, participating in a conversation with readers beyond the confines of a classroom. Numerous examples of elementary school teachers using blogging in their writing classrooms exist (Lacina & Griffith, 2012; McGrail & Davis, 2011; Swanson & Legutko, 2008). Researchers find that blogging enhances student

110

 Developing Digital Literacy

writing by making it more audience-centered, collaborative, and motivating. McGrail and Davis (2011) underscore the critical role of the teacher in fostering blogging classroom experiences: The blogging teacher in this research understood how to orchestrate such interactions in her classroom. She knew how to use the blogging technology not only to tap into the students’ desire to write, but also in deciding how to develop activities and solutions to foster their growth as writers and communicators with the larger audience within the blogging community. This knowledge subsequently nurtured these bloggers’ growth as writers and communicators. (p. 432) Prospective teachers need to be prepared to take on this role. The emergence of blogs in the classroom creates new opportunities for publication. Blog authors share ideas and opinions in an online version of a persuasive essay. As with any type of persuasive writing, understanding the content is necessary to provide evidence for one’s claims. Developing familiarity with the genre of blogging is a valuable skill for preservice teachers. Blogging is an important tool for teachers as a means of communicating their views and philosophies to a variety of audiences, including students, parents, and the school community. In an assignment that develops blogging skills in the context of children’s literature, teacher candidates in reading methods courses are assigned to create blogs that review award-winning children’s literature. Teacher candidates are presented with book award finalist titles for the Caldecott, Newbery, Children’s Book, Coretta Scott King, or other awards, and are required to read the books and create a blog reviewing each, voting for their choice of winner based on award criteria, and defending their choices. This assignment involves participation in children’s literature, with a clear purpose: evaluate the quality of a specified number of children’s books to determine a winner. Participation in this forum requires reading quality children’s literature and developing writing skills in genres related to opinions/editorials, book reviews, and persuasion. For example, in the author’s classroom, teacher candidates read Newbery award winners and honorees The Crossover by Kwame Alexander (2014), El Deafo by Cece Bell (2014), and Brown Girl Dreaming by Jacqueline Woodson (2014), and blogged about their top choices. To defend their choices for a winner, students were required to read the books carefully, with consideration of the Newbery criteria and appeal to elementary-aged readers. Issues of diversity in children’s literature, authenticity, and the author’s craft were addressed on the blogs. Face-to-face classroom conversations about the books were enhanced by blog postings. During critical reflections on the assignment, candidates wrote and spoke about the content of the books, the experience of blogging, and how the genre supported their development as readers and writers. As with online discussions, they found that the practice offered valuable opportunities for authentic writing, and they were motivated by the dialogic nature of the writing. Stover, Yearta and Sease (2014) present another version of this practice in their description of a study of pre-service teachers blogging directly with fifth graders about literature.

Participating in Goodreads The goal of teacher educators and teachers alike is to provide authentic experiences for students, which must consist of engaging in real-world types of communication. Participating in social media forums is one means of engaging in public discourse that exists outside the walls of a classroom. Bringing experiences with social media into a classroom has great potential for meeting such purposes as motivating

111

 Developing Digital Literacy

students to contribute to a larger conversation, and teaching students to develop their senses of audience. Goodreads.com, a social media site devoted to readers exchanging book recommendations and reviews, offers a space for development of a reader community. Elementary school classrooms have growing experiences with social media sites, in which teachers create classroom-based, social-media-like experiences for students. In a teacher preparation classroom, candidates create Goodreads accounts and friend the professor and classmates, creating a group of friends open to all invitees. The site offers recommendations based on a user’s ratings of books he/she has read, and as a user reads and reviews books, the reviews are shared with friends, providing more opportunities for recommendations. Participants create virtual shelves of books that can be shared with others—books to read and recommend to other students. This practice, like online discussions and blogs, encourages reading outside of the college classroom while creating an online book discussion group. During reflections on this activity, teacher candidates contemplated the authenticity of the assignment. To several, it did not feel like a typical college assignment because of the informal genre of commenting on social media forums. While writing reviews, they viewed their audiences as Goodreads friends rather than their professor and classmates. The genre of book review felt more authentic because they were reviewing books for other interested readers, instead of for a particular audience of evaluators.1 Candidates stated that they appreciated the social media forum as one with which they were familiar in social contexts. Some teacher candidates questioned the feasibility of using social media in a classroom, considering potential privacy issues of involvement on sites such as Twitter and Facebook. During discussions, they emphasized the value of keeping social media communities closed, and with specific pedagogical purposes. The reflections echoed those of preservice teachers at another institution that used a version of Twitter. They found that it was engaging and motivating, but further support might be needed to guarantee technical facility and access to all students (Redman & Trapani, 2012). Other classroom-friendly forms of social media exist, such as Padlet, similar to Pinterest, and TodaysMeet, similar to Twitter (Williams, Scott & Simone, 2015).

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: PREPARING REFLECTIVE PRACTIONERS How do teacher educators answer the call to prepare students to use educational technology in literacy classrooms? Integrating technology into course content, providing technical support, and offering opportunities for reflection are key to teacher preparation in this area (Cydis, 2015; Gronseth et al., 2010). To prepare prospective teachers to integrate technology into literacy curricula, it is necessary to give them opportunities for authentic, integrated experiences to use technology in their classrooms. Equally important, candidates require multiple opportunities to reflect on the use of each tool, and consider its value in an elementary school classroom. As candidates reflect on the question “who am I as a reader and writer?,” they also reflect on the question “who am I as a user of technology in the classroom?” While teacher candidates reflected on the four practices described here in the author’s literacy methodology courses, themes that surfaced are applicable to the range of technologies they might use in their classrooms. Two interrelated themes address the value of the use of digital tools in the classroom—motivation and social interaction—and three themes recognize challenges that need to be overcome for use of technology to be effective—unequal access to technology, varying familiarity with types of technology, and diversity of needs in literacy classrooms. Examining these themes reveals that the tools used are 112

 Developing Digital Literacy

less important than the process by which they are introduced into teacher preparation classroom, and the opportunities for reflection on those tools.

The Motivational Power of Technology Each digital literacy practice has a traditional precursor. Teacher candidates have long written literacy autobiographies and reviews of children’s literature, and participated in face-to-face discussions or conversations with audiences of classmates and friends. Moving each of these practices to a digital context appears to pique students’ interest and motivation. Use of technology provides an inherent source of motivation to teacher candidates who engage in the types of digital practices described here. Using these technologies in teacher education represents something new to many teacher candidates, and the innovative nature of the format is motivating to them. The digital literacy story provides an illustration of how teacher candidates were especially enthusiastic about presenting stories using video and music. They reported that the innovative format provides opportunities for creativity that a written essay alone does not. Elementary school students are also likely to be motivated to participate in communities of literacy practices when the process provides an opportunity to experiment with new kinds of technology. The opportunity for familiarity or expertise with technologies that are part of the adult world have the potential to be especially inviting to elementary school students, who are motivated to participate in the grown-up world of technology.

Opportunities for Social Interaction through Technology Underlying each of the digital literacy practices is social interaction. Whether engaged in creating digital stories, online discussions, blogging, or social media, the presentation of ideas about reading and writing is interactive and collaborative. These technologies raze boundaries that used to exist between a reader and text, and a writer and audience. Wilhelm (2014) argues that the traditional transmission model of education is no longer relevant within this new framework; “this model of teaching and learning is all about cultures of collaboration: between teachers and students, students and students, and students and the wider environment, including the digital environment” (p. 58). Digital literacy tools create authentic audiences for teacher candidates. They write to share thoughts and ideas about their experiences with reading with one another. Engaging in these communications creates bonds. Classmates identify as part of a reading or writing community. Opportunities for social interaction are, like the technology itself, inherently motivating. When college or elementary school students reach out to one another and participate in a meaningful dialogue about literacy, they are inspired to continue to develop as a reader and writer to remain part of that community. In the case of the “what are you reading?” discussion board, for example, teacher candidates are motivated to read books recommended to them by peers because they formed connections with one another. The interactive component of digital literacy changes the dynamic in the classroom from lecture to workshop. The classroom becomes a community of practice, in which all participants engage in authentic literacy acts.

Access and Equity Equally valuable to reflecting on the benefits of these practices is examining challenges to using technology in a classroom. Using each of these tools shined a light on potential obstacles to their use in 113

 Developing Digital Literacy

teacher-preparation college classrooms and elementary school classrooms. Questions of access and equity are likely to arise. In the teacher candidates’ reflections, they wondered about issues of access to these technologies. Would their future students have opportunities to use laptops, smart phones, and the Internet? Recent studies suggest that although the answer is generally yes—most young people today have access to computers and the Internet somewhere in their lives—inequities continue in these types of educational experiences with technology in which different groups of young people are engaged (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) describe a new digital divide, in which there exists “a differential ability to use new media to critically evaluate information, analyze, and interpret data, attack complex problems, test innovative solutions, manage multifaceted projects, collaborate with others in knowledge production, and communicate effectively to diverse audiences” (p. 213). This differential also exists in the teacher education classroom. Although teacher candidates in the author’s literacy courses owned smartphones and laptops, they came to class with disparate skills and knowledge regarding technology. This was especially evident in the case of the digital literacy stories. Some teacher candidates had experience creating movies using a variety of programs and apps, and others had knowledge only of Microsoft PowerPoint. Considerations of access and experience were critical to a successful experience.

Technical Support Diversity concerning familiarity with types of technology in the classroom raised the issue of the necessity of technology instruction in the classroom. It was insufficient to tell teacher candidates to create an iMovie. They needed to see models and have tutorials with peers and/or the teacher. Teacher candidates who experience the challenge of using new technologies in their teacher preparation programs realize the challenges that exist for their students, and build in opportunities for technical instruction and support. Students require instructions on how to use materials for any learning activity. We would not give students an assignment to create a clay bowl using a pottery wheel without teaching them how to operate the wheel. In the case of technology, students at both the teacher education and elementary school level need modeling, scaffolding, and troubleshooting support when they are using new digital tools in the literacy classroom. In some cases, teachers find that elementary school students are the experts with some technology, and can support less-experienced peers, or, in some cases, the teacher.

Matching the Tool to the Need The number of available digital tools that can be used in a literacy classroom can be overwhelming. Activities such as those described in this chapter can be adapted, modified, and revised endlessly. Candidates frequently raised the challenge of identifying the best tools for a pedagogical purpose. The Common Core State Standards English and Language Arts goals for elementary grade students provide a good starting point. With a literacy standard as a guidepost, teachers set objectives for their students. With these objectives in mind, a teacher can consider which tools best serve a purpose. For example, to address the standard CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.4.4: “Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development and organization are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience” (National Governors

114

 Developing Digital Literacy

Association, Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) teachers might seek a digital tool that requires students to write to a particular audience. Blogging or participating in online discussions, for example, requires understanding of how audiences shape writing and are useful tools to serve this purpose.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Continued work into incorporating technology into teacher preparation programs in literacy courses is needed. Rapid proliferation of digital tools that can be used to engage students in literacy practices through technology creates a need for examination in this area. Creation of sites for consolidation of tools and ideas among teachers would aid in sharing of the multiplicity of ideas. The practices described here offer ways to use technology with teacher candidates within literacy methodology courses. In these contexts, preservice teachers engage with one another in communicative and collaborative activities related to literacy, thus forming a reading and writing community within the teacher education program. An important next step taking place across teacher education programs is to engage teacher candidates with elementary grade students in these and similar practices. Teacher candidates and elementary school students sharing their digital literacy stories with one another builds joint teacher-student communities, similar to the type new teachers will seek to develop in their classrooms. Interacting in spaces such as online discussions, blogs, and social media forums with elementary school students affords teacher candidates opportunities to develop deeper understanding of the developmental levels of their future students. Incorporating other authentic audiences such as families into these assignments will also provide opportunities to develop modes of communication with important stakeholders during a child’s education.

CONCLUSION The need for elementary teacher candidates to develop next-generation literacy skills is clear. Elementary education cannot ignore changes to technology that influence all aspects of students’ lives. Closing the classroom door to these innovations is not the answer. Instead, teacher educators and classroom teachers need to find ways to incorporate digital modes of communication into literacy instruction. Incorporating technology into literacy methods courses allows teachers to develop these skills, enhancing their teaching and providing models for students. The practices described here allow teacher educators and beginning teachers to adapt these practices to their classrooms. Teachers who develop their own new literacies are likely to embrace future digital opportunities for literacy development. Ultimately, the goal of incorporating new technologies into teacher education is to help beginning teachers become critical consumers of technology. When teachers experiment with a tool and reflect critically on its use in the classroom, their use of the technology in future classrooms is authentic and serves real purposes. As technology continues to change how elementary school teachers are prepared and how elementary students are taught, teachers who hold new-literacy perspectives are positioned to prepare students for participation and engagement in future communities.

115

 Developing Digital Literacy

REFERENCES Alexander, K. (2014). The crossover. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Bell, C. (2014). El Deafo. New York, NY: Abrams Books. Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2013). Getting to the core: Using digital resources to enhance contentbased literacy in the Social Studies. Social Education, 77(2), 102–106. Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599–621. Brown, S. (2016). Young readers transactions with interactive digital texts using e-readers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(1), 42–56. doi:10.1080/02568543.2015.1105887 Bruce, D. L., & Chiu, M. M. (2015). Composing with new technology: Teacher reflections on learning digital video. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 272–287. doi:10.1177/0022487115574291 Buckingham, D. (1993, Summer). Towards new literacies: Information technology, English and media education. English and Media Magazine, 20-25. Bukor, E. (2015). Exploring teacher identity from a holistic perspective: Reconstructing and reconnecting personal and professional selves. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(3), 305–327. do i:10.1080/13540602.2014.953818 Cowhey, M. (2006). Black ants and Buddhists: Thinking critically and teaching differently in the primary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Cuban, L., & Jandric, P. (2015). The dubious promise of educational technologies: Historical patterns and future challenges. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(3-4), 425–439. doi:10.1177/2042753015579978 Cydis, S. (2015). Authentic instruction and technology literacy. Journal of Learning Design, 8(1), 68–78. doi:10.5204/jld.v8i1.222 Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. New York, NY: Kellogg & Company. Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives (DALN). (2015). Retrieved from: http://daln.osu.edu Edwards, D. (2009). Tracing literacy journeys: The use of the literacy autobiography in preservice teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 51–61. doi:10.14221/ajte.2009v34n4.6 Ernest, J.M., Causey, C., Newton, A.B., Sharkins, K., Summerlin, J., & Albaiz, N. (n.d.). Extending the global dialogue about media, technology, screen time, and young children. Childhood Education, 90(3), 182-191. Esquith, R. (2007). Teach like your hair’s on fire: The methods and madness inside Room 56. New York, NY: Penguin.

116

 Developing Digital Literacy

Gebhard, S. (2006). The lost boys (and girls): Readers in Neverland. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(5), 454–463. doi:10.1177/0022487106294087 Gee, J. P. (2012). The old and the new in the new digital literacies. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 418–420. doi:10.1080/00131725.2012.708622 Gronseth, S., Brush, T., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Strycher, J., Abaci, S., Easterling, W., & van Leusen, P. et al. (2010). Equipping the next generation of teachers: Technology preparation and practice. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 30–36. doi:10.1080/21532974.2010.10784654 Himley, M. (1991). Shared territory: Understanding children’s writing as works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Husbye, N. E., Buchholz, B., Coggin, L., Powell, C. W., & Wohlwend, K. E. (2012). Critical lessons and playful literacies: Digital media in PK-2 classrooms. Language Arts, 90(2), 82–92. Hutchinson, A. C., & Colwell, J. (2014). The potential of digital technologies to support literacy instruction relevant to the Common Core State Standards. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 147–156. doi:10.1002/jaal.335 Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 2(58), 97–101. doi:10.1002/jaal.314 Koopman, B. L. (2010-2011). From Socrates to Wikis: Using online forums to deepen discussions. Phi Betta Kappan, 92(4), 24–27. doi:10.1177/003172171009200405 Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203164754 Lacina, J., & Griffith, R. (2012). Blogging as a means of crafting writing. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 316–320. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01128 McGrail, E., & Davis, A. (2011). The influence of classroom blogging on elementary student writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(4), 415–437. doi:10.1080/02568543.2011.605205 Meyer, R. (1993, December). Preservice teachers’ literacy autobiographies and teacher development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC. Morrison-Love, D. (2014). Promoting transfer and an integrated understanding for pre-service teachers of technology. Global Education Review, 1(4), 15–36. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u Nichols, M. (2012). Using digital video production to meet the Common Core Standards. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 22, 52–55.

117

 Developing Digital Literacy

Redman, C., & Trapani, F. (2012, December). Experiencing new technology: Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceptions and reflections upon the affordances of social media. Paper presented at the Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney, Australia. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of literacy work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Sanders, A. (2012). Rosenblatt’s presence in the new literacies research. Talking Points, 24(1), 2–6. Schneider, J. J. (2015). iText but iDont teach with it: An essay on illiteracy in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 37(2), 120–137. doi:10.1080/01626620.2014.969850 Shelby-Caffey, C., Ubeda, E., & Jenkins, B. (2014). Digital storytelling use revisited: An educators use of an innovative literacy practice. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 191–199. doi:10.1002/trtr.1273 Stafford, D. (2012). Blending technology into the common core standards. Middle Level Leader Archives. National Association of Secondary School Principals. Retrieved from http://www.nassp.org Stover, K., Yearta, L. S., & Sease, R. (2014). Experience is the best tool for teachers: Blogging to provide preservice educators with authentic teaching opportunities. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 10(2), 99–117. Swanson, K. N., & Legutko, R. S. (2008). The effect of book blogging on the motivation of third grade students. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/?id=ED506515 Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932 Wilhelm, J. (2014). Moving toward collaborative cultures: Remixing classroom participation. Voices from the Middle, 21(4), 58–60. Williams, L., Scott, K., & Simone, D. (2015). #Socialnetworks: Making nonfiction trend in your classroom. The Reading Teacher, 69(2), 181–188. doi:10.1002/trtr.1357 Woodson, J. (2014). Brown girl dreaming. New York, NY: Penguin.

ENDNOTES 1



118

Teacher candidates were not graded on their reviews; the assignment was a pass-fail component of a literacy course.

119

Chapter 7

The Effect of TechnologyEnhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education Ramadan Eyyam Eastern Mediterranean University, Turkey

ABSTRACT This study examined whether technology-enhanced classrooms enhanced students’ learning despite their various dominant intelligences and learning styles. For this purpose, a comprehensive investigation was used to verify whether and in what ways students benefit from technology-enhanced classrooms. As the research design, a cross-implementation experimental method was developed for the study by the researcher. Lesson plans and materials were prepared for English and mathematics subjects considering Gagne’s nine events of instruction and Bloom’s taxonomy. The Technology-enhanced Classroom Perception Scale and a standardized open-ended interview were prepared to examine the perceptions of both students and teachers. In the end, some interesting differences were found between the treatment and control groups, although they were not significant. One of the most important reasons for this might be the positive attitudes of English teachers in general but negative attitudes of mathematics teachers towards technology-enhanced classroom.

INTRODUCTION In the new millennium, technology has become a sine qua non of our lives. Technology has two significant characteristics: It constantly develops and it influences all areas of life, including education. In line with these characteristics, those on the positive side of the digital divide have immediate access to the latest educational information, entertainment, social media, world news, and other types of technological advances. As such, the entire world is at these people’s fingertips. Yet, those who are on the negative side of the digital divide fall further behind, thus widening the gap further.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch007

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

Technology is the most effective opportunity provider as far as education is concerned. While the developed world has access to the “information highway,” developing countries have limited and varying levels of access. Another significant issue is the countries’ attitudes towards “new” technology. Developed countries keep up with “new” technology naturally, whereas developing countries progress more slowly. Although in North Cyprus the integration of “new” technology into people’s everyday lives is very fast, evidence shows that technology has not been widely adopted in the basic (national) education system due to the difficulties caused by bureaucracy (“KKTC’de Akıllı Telefon Kullanımı Yüzde 44’e Yükseldi”, 2015; “KKTC’de 2015 Yılı Sonu Itibarıyla Mobil Telefon Abonesi Rakamı Inanılmaz!”, 2016). In North Cyprus national education is based on a central system under the direction and supervision of the Ministry of National Education (MNE). It is governed by laws, and all educational organizations and schools are under the scrutiny of the Ministry. In North Cyprus the education system is changing continuously in an effort to bring standards up to par with developed nations. The national education system was last examined in 2005 during the 4th National Education Council Meeting. The importance of technology integration was emphasized, and it was decided that major modifications would be required in order to meet the current and future needs of society. This new system defines ideal learners as: Individuals who are well adapted to the information age, with a developed ability to think, understand, and solve problems, a profound sense of personal responsibility; who have acquired a variety of skills; who are attached to democratic values, open to change and to new ideas, deeply conscious of their own culture and able to interpret different cultures, capable of contributing contemporary civilization and to generate knowledge and technology; and can aptly use computer technology. (MNE Brochure, 2005, p. 6) The vision and mission of the new education system were carefully modernized; thus, the emphasis on learners increased thanks to the ever-growing importance of technology in the current era and the new generation’s exposure to it. In order to realize a learning environment where all students in a classroom benefit from instruction and learn as much as possible, the various needs and expectations of students were considered. These were related to students’ learning styles, learning pace, background knowledge, learning experiences, levels of motivation, abilities to understand, ages, needs and interests, and socio-economic statuses. In order to raise standards and implement innovations from education systems around the world, it is essential to employ various tools, such as learner-centered, cooperative, and constructivist learning approaches and to use technology in the classroom. It is also important to consider individual differences, encourage conceptual and real-life-based learning, and to help students become creative and skilled. In addition to these necessities, the real needs of society, what is expected in the future, and the place society aims to have in the world should all be taken into consideration to offer a better education to students. Teachers should be trained and supplied with the necessary skills, information, aids, and equipment needed to provide a better education. Considering the facts mentioned above, students who are currently enrolled in the North Cyprus Basic Education System cannot get the utmost benefit from it. Therefore, this study examines whether technology-enhanced classrooms facilitate students’ learning despite their various dominant intelligences and learning styles. For this purpose, a very comprehensive investigation and inquiry is utilized to verify whether and in what ways students benefit from technology-enhanced classrooms. 120

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

BACKGROUND This study is theoretically based on three areas: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) (Gardner, 1983), instructional technology, and instructional design. In this section these areas are discussed via reviewing the related literature.

Theory of Multiple Intelligences Considering learners’ differences and the importance of the process, Howard Gardner’s (1983) theory suggests a more individualized way to help students. Drawing on cognitive science, developmental psychology, and neuroscience, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences postulates that each intelligence consists of separate skills or abilities (Kagan & Kagan, 1998; Viens & Kallenbach, 2004). In Frames of Mind, Gardner (1983) defines intelligence as “the ability to solve problems or to create products that are valued within one or more cultural settings” and identifies seven types of intelligence: verbal-linguistic, logicalmathematical, visual-spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, and musical-rhythmic (p. 60). He added naturalistic intelligence in 1999 (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000; McKenzie, 2005) and existential intelligence in 2009 (Gardner, 2010), bringing the total to nine. Gardner suggests that biological and cultural factors have a strong effect on shaping intelligences (Baum, Viens & Slatin, 2005). Armstrong (1999) identified three major factors that determine whether each intelligence develops: biological legacy, personal life history, and cultural and historical background. • • •

An individual’s biological legacy includes genetically inherited factors, gender, and possible injuries to the brain before, during, and after birth. Personal life history includes experiences with family members, teachers, friends, relatives, and peers. Cultural and historical background is described as the time and place an individual is born and brought up, as well as the nature and state of cultural and historical developments and changes in different domains in his/her society.

Using the concept of multiple intelligences helps teachers plan their instruction and use one or more of the other intelligences, in addition to the more commonly recognized ones, verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical, to actualize students’ learning (Kagan & Kagan, 1998). In this way, students can use their different intelligences, benefit more from instruction, and be more successful than when taught in the classical way (Armstrong, 2000). A number of other factors stimulate or hold back the development of intelligence: 1. Access to Resources or Mentors: Having or lacking opportunities in an environment that improves an intelligence type will affect the student no matter how much potential he/she has. 2. Historical-Cultural Factors: Intelligences valued in the society where the individual lives tend to be developed more while others are ignored, even though individuals have great potential in those. 3. Geographic Factors: These favor the intelligences that are more useful in a particular location, so they become more developed.

121

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

4. Familial Factors: They include the family’s desires and plans, especially parents’, considering they guide or manage an individual’s abilities and interests. 5. Situational Factors: They depend on the setting where an individual is born and raised (Armstrong, 2000). As mentioned above, the theory of MI details a number of factors that affect the development of intelligences (Kagan & Kagan, 1998) from heredity to the family and from geography to the culture at large. Various intelligences can therefore flourish where convenient settings and opportunities are provided (Gardner, 1993). Howard Gardner’s pioneering theory was summarized in four main points by Armstrong (2000) to emphasize its rationale: A. B. C. D.

Each person possesses all intelligences. Most people can develop each intelligence to an adequate level of competency. Intelligences usually work together in complex ways. There are many ways to be intelligent within each category. (pp. 8-9)

The theory of MI changed the categorization of people as either “smart” or “not smart,” in the traditional perspective on intelligence. In Gardner’s (1991) view, individuals are to be considered intelligent when they create a product or use problem-solving skills to find an effective solution to a problem in their daily or professional lives, as opposed to the emphasis on mathematical and/or verbal abilities. The MI focuses on individual differences. Thus, treating individuals equally, evaluating them with the same criteria, and teaching them in only one way would be both unjust and ineffective. The nine intelligence types can be defined as follows (Kagan & Kagan, 1998): 1. Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence refers to the ability to use words of a wide variety of purposes, like instructions, word games, foreign languages, spelling, discussion, humor, grammar, debates, persuasion, poetry, public speech, creative writing, reading, storytelling, metaphors, similes, abstract reasoning, and prose writing (Armstrong, 2003; Lazear, 2003; Silver et al., 2000). 2. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence refers to the abilities of calculation, thinking critically, discovering patterns, seeing connections between separate pieces of information, establishing cause-andeffect relationships, and sequencing (Coan, 2006; Silver et al., 2000), as well as mathematics, logic, inductive reasoning, and problem-solving (Chapman, 1993; Lazear, 2003; McKenzie, 2005). 3. Visual-Spatial Intelligence is the ability to perceive, create, and re-create pictures and images, both externally and internally, pretend, pay attention to details, represent ideas with graphs, charts, maps, and tables (Lazear, 2003; McKenzie, 2005; Silver et al., 2000). 4. Musical-Rhythmic Intelligence means understanding, appreciating, and forming ideas with music (Chapman, 1993). 5. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence is used to describe the abilities related to physical activities and one’s own body (Chapman, 1993; Silver et al., 2000). 6. Interpersonal Intelligence means being naturally social, friendly, and outgoing, that is, with little or no effort (Armstrong, 2003; Lazear, 2003).

122

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

7. Intrapersonal Intelligence concerns one’s own feelings, values, and attitudes (Armstrong, 2003; Coan, 2006) and involves knowing one’s own feelings, range of emotions, and thinking processes (Lazear, 2003). 8. Naturalist Intelligence refers to the ability to notice patterns, features, anomalies, and hierarchies; to recognize, classify, and categorize objects and living things; to cook (Armstrong, 2003; Lazear, 2003); as well as to appreciate and understand the environment (Chapman, 1993; McKenzie, 2005; Silver et al., 2000). 9. Existential Intelligence is the ability to see oneself in the big picture. People with this intelligent have the ability to question and define values, understand processes, search for meaning, summarize, synthesize (McKenzie, 2005), and view daily experience from a limitless point of view (Kagan & Kagan, 1998). The traditional view of intelligence, which mainly focused on verbal and mathematical abilities, limited what education could offer to students, since the education systems around the world had been established on these two abilities (Armstrong, 1999; Kagan & Kagan, 1998). This view has recently been changed and the pluralistic view of intelligence has been gaining acceptance in the field of education. The traditional paradigm of instruction has been challenged by Gardner’s theory and the education system has begun fostering multiple intelligences through opportunities for more than one way of learning (Kagan & Kagan, 1998). More students can now benefit from instruction and better learning is achieved in schools (Hoerr, 2000), as “Gardner’s theory provides a framework for a metamorphosis at all levels of learning” (Chapman, 1993, p. 9). Most existing education systems are based on the assumption that everyone can learn the same things in the same way, so one method or approach is sufficient to achieve instruction. However, all people do not have the same interests and abilities, nor do they learn in the same way. Learning through their strengths can be a powerful form of instruction that results not in under-achieving students but in confident learners who believe in their abilities (Arnold, 2007). The dimensions each individual brings to the classroom make them unique and the best instruction caters to these students in a way that will be useful to them (Lazear, 1999; Silver et al., 2000). Kornhaber, Fierros, and Veenema (2004) state that “education is most likely to be successful if it pays attention to the individual differences in the course of fashioning of curriculum pedagogy and assessment” (p. 2). Education is more meaningful for more students when the subjects are presented in more than one or two ways (Baum et al., 2005; Chen, Moran & Gardner, 2009; Gardner, 1991; Kagan & Kagan, 1998; Lazear, 2000). It is also crucially important not to focus on certain intelligences and neglect the other types once students’ more developed intelligences have been identified. Gardner simply advocates that each subject can be taught in more than one way and, using creativity, teachers can apply some of these paths to each lesson for improved learning and understanding (Armstrong, 2000; Hoerr, 2000). Thus, the identification of students’ MI profiles is vital: “As long as the learning profiles of the learners are identified and the curriculum, the materials and the ways of teaching are adapted to them, there will be harmony between the way of teaching and learning” (Dedeoğlu, 2006, p. 46).

123

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

Educational or Instructional Technology For a better, more effective education, in addition to considering students’ multiple intelligences, the use of technology helps teachers overcome various classroom challenges more easily. The integration of technology is called either educational or instructional technology. These two terms have often been equated with each other and seldom differentiated. For instance, educational technology is defined as “a combination of the processes and tools involved in addressing educational needs and problems, with an emphasis on applying the most current tools: computers and other electronic technologies” and instructional technology as “the subset of educational technology that deals directly with teaching and learning applications (as opposed to educational administrative applications)” (Roblyer, 2006, p. 9). Smaldino, Russell, Heinich, and Molenda (2005), Picciano (2006), Barron, Ivers, Lilavois, and Wells (2006), and Stewart, Schifter, and Selverian (2010) state that relevant technology use in class has a positive influence on students’ achievement as technology and teaching-learning processes work hand-in-hand to facilitate effective transfer of knowledge. In addition, instructional technologies increase communication and interactivity (Ivers, 2009; Norton & Wiburg, 2003; Picciano, 2006; Schacter & Fagnano, 1999; Stewart et al., 2010). The technology-enhanced classroom helps instructors supply instant feedback, initiate student learning and teamwork, and assist synergy. It also enables personalized learning (Cennamo, Ross & Ertmer, 2010; Hefzallah, 2004; Norton & Sprague, 2001). As technology plays an increasingly important role in various aspects of life (Norton & Wiburg, 2003), “the integration of technology into school curricula is no longer a luxury; it is a means of survival in a future that will be driven and supported by technology” (Barron et al., 2006). Students in this technological era have different needs and goals than students in the past (Jonassen, Howland, Marra, & Crismond, 2008). If their experiences with technology in the real world are ignored in schools, this could lead them to consider instruction as irrelevant (Norton & Wiburg, 2003; Whitehead, Jensen, & Boschee, 2003). Jonassen et al. (2008) also claim that, if this discrepancy is not recognized, the way in which students perceive, value, and use technology, a fundamental aspect of today’s instruction, will be ignored and students will face inappropriate, uninteresting, even meaningless learning experiences. In addition, students have better opportunities for success when they are offered instruction in a variety of formats (Gardner, 1983). Since new technologies have become an integral part of youngsters’ lives (Dudeney & Hockly, 2007; Grabe & Grabe, 2007), “without technology in the classroom, can our young people get the twenty-first century education they deserve” (Gura & Percy, 2005, p. 5)? Many examples of new technology, such as blogs, mobile phones, mp4 players, digital cameras, and social networking sites, influence children and teenagers outside school as much as they affect adult lifestyles (Dudeney & Hockly, 2007; Holleis, Schmidt, Drewes, Attarer, & Dollinger, 2010; Jonassen et al., 2008), but students still use traditional tools and media at school. Technology has to be integrated effectively in order to create new kinds of learning experiences (Cennamo et al., 2010). The verb integrate means “to combine two or more things to make a whole; when we integrate technologies into instruction, we make them an integral part of the teaching and learning process” (Cennamo et al., 2010, p. 17). Consequently, technology integration needs to be adjusted in a number of ways, including the resources used, the roles teachers and students perform, and the nature of the instructional activities (Cennamo et al., 2010). Technology integration into the curriculum is not a simple task; it is a difficult and complex process (Norton & Sprague, 2001). Although teachers tend to use the existing simple, durable, flexible, and 124

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

responsive curricula in educational practice (Norton & Sprague, 2001), they need to remember that while simply adding technology into education is easy, the more crucial part is redesigning the learning environment and the relationship between students and teachers (November, 2010). When technology is used as an engager and facilitator of thinking, instead of a mere vehicle of delivery, it can enhance meaningful learning (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Marra, 2003). Both teachers and students are consequently required to be involved in continuous learning, which necessitates several dimensions of instruction, namely, the curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, technology, and the culture of learning. Research on technology integration into education has shown that it does have a positive influence on students’ learning, understanding, exploration, achievement, collaboration, and motivation when implemented in the classroom (Barron et al., 2006; Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007; Schacter, 1999; Whitehead et al., 2003). The only condition for such success is the clear expression of learning goals before implementation (Pitler et al., 2007). Reksten (2000) highlights the importance of having a workable, practical, and effective action plan for successful technology integration. When it refers to student expectations and outcomes, such an action plan would lead to the achievement of the desired learning outcomes. For optimal integration of technology, Cennamo et al. (2010) point out that teachers need to be able to identify which technological tools are needed, specify how they will be used, and use them appropriately, as well as enable students to use them in learning. Cennamo et al. (2010) also highlight that “the main aim of technology integration in education is the inclusion of relevant technologies as integral and natural contributors to the entire educational process” (p. 10). Technology can be limited in itself, but, when it is employed in skillful hands, it can “open new possibilities and enrich learning regardless of grade levels” (Picciano, 2006, p. 57). Egbert (2007) points out that the integration of technology helps students see instruction as more useful, meaningful, enjoyable, and interesting, as they “discover ways to do what they already do more efficiently, more effectively, more interestingly, or in new and innovative ways” (p. 3). Innovative technologies can create a better environment for learning, and instruction can be more focused on students with less effort on the part of teachers (Holleis et al., 2010). New technologies like multimedia programs allow increased interaction between students and learning materials (Hefzallah, 2004). Another advantage of these learning technologies is that teachers can design interactive learning environments to foster education equality, as these environments are flexible and rich in resources and provide exciting and appropriate learning experiences to all students, whether they are slow or fast learners (Hefzallah, 2004). In other words, instructional technologies can provide all students equal opportunities to learn according to their needs, pace, abilities, and learning styles (Hefzallah, 2004). Furthermore, technology integration promotes meaningful learning (Tomei, 2005) in ways that were not possible with traditional educational tools (Cennamo et al., 2010; Hefzallah, 2004; Wiske et al., 2005). Students become more active in their involvement in learning and expand their personal understanding (Tomei, 2005) as new technologies support interaction (Wiske et al., 2005). They also structure flexible, interactive, interdisciplinary, and up-to-date learning environments, which are essential for effective learning (Hefzallah, 2004). Instructional technology is employed to transform learning and teaching practices in many significant ways. Technology use in the classroom may support cooperative learning, encourages peer teaching, and allows room for learner diversity, increased motivation, and performance, as well as positive attitudes toward learning (Ivers, 2009). Technology can also be an essential tool for classroom management (Frei, 125

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

Gammill & Irons, 2007), as teachers can prepare their classrooms more quickly. In addition, research indicates that technology use can be beneficial for teachers’ lesson preparation (Frei, Gammill & Irons, 2007; Whitehead et al., 2003). Technological developments have a massive impact on education. Instructional technology, which basically means integrating technology into the teaching-learning process, has changed both teachers’ and students’ roles. Teachers, who were the authority and controllers in the past, have become facilitators and guides as students construct their own knowledge. Students, who were only passive listeners in the past, have become active participants who take control of their own learning. Students are able to learn whenever and wherever they want at their own pace and in their own style. This notion is supported by the constructivist paradigm. Hence, the combination of these two crucial elements fits well in the classroom (Amarin & Ghishan, 2013). It should not be forgotten that using technology in class is never enough to guarantee quality education; instead, how technology is used should be a focus, and this can be achieved via constructivism, as Juniu (2006) points out: “According to constructivist theory, various technologies may be used to promote learning” (p. 69). Instructional technology is also very effective in achieving learning goals and objectives. Moreover, instructional technology provides the opportunity for alternative pedagogical models that result in the construction of new knowledge.

Instructional Design Beginning with Bruner in 1964, scholars of instructional design moved from the behavioral learning theory (stimulus-response-reinforcement) to the cognitive, thus changing the definition of instructional design and shifting the focus to theories of learning and to developing models that link the theories with the design of instruction (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2005). Gagné’s (1985)The Conditions of Learning was a groundbreaking work in the history of instructional design and still guides theorists and professionals within the conditions-of-learning framework (Ragan & Smith, 1996). In the mid-1970s, Gagné and Briggs defined a set of essential steps for instructional system development: “The system must be designed for the individual, it should include immediate and long-range phases, it should substantially affect individual development, and it must be based on knowledge of how people learn” (Tennyson, 2005, p. 224). According to Gagné and Briggs (1979), outcomes of instructional theory are divided into five categories, namely, verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills, and attitudes. Gagné, Wager, Golas, and Keller (2005) define instruction as “a whole range of activities a teacher uses to engage students” (p. 2). Teachers or trainers can best help students learn when instruction is implemented in the teaching-learning process and the principles of instructional design are taken into account. As a result of an instruction, teachers intend for students to learn certain topics and concepts, which are called learning objectives. Gagné et al. (2005) assume that instructional design must be focused on the process of learning rather than on the process of teaching. Learning must be intentional instead of incidental. Carefully setting instructional objectives and learning outcomes affects the design process directly. They also believe that numerous factors, such as students’ determination, time allowed, and the aptitude of both students and teachers, affect learning, as it is a complex process. It is similarly explained that all instructional design models can be applied at different levels as long as the fundamental principles are kept the same. Moreover, the understanding of how learning occurs is the concept behind the design process, and learner involvement is crucial. Instructional design is a process that includes sub-processes that are related, 126

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

plural, and recognizable, and the design of learning activities and materials is based on the manner of instruction and learning conditions appropriate to the desired outcomes. An instructional system, as defined by Gagné et al. (2005), is the organization of resources and procedures that enable learning, and the focus of such a system can vary from students to technical training. The systematic planning of instruction uses “various forms of information, data, and theoretical principles as input at each stage” within “a process of stating goals, selecting or developing instructional interventions, and using feedback from learners to improve the instruction” (Gagné et al., 2005, p. 12). Even though there is not a single best design, these specific steps have to be followed: 1. Determine the purposes of instruction. 2. Goals of instruction may be translated into a framework for a curriculum and for the individual courses contained in it. 3. The course objectives are then analyzed and major units of instruction are identified. 4. The determination of the types of capabilities to be learned and the inference of necessary learning conditions for them allow the planning of the sequences of lessons. 5. Lessons are further broken down into events and/or learning activities. 6. The additional element required for completion of instructional design is a set of procedures for assessment of what students have learned. 7. The design of lessons and courses, with their accompanying techniques of assessing learning outcomes, makes the planning of the entire systems possible. 8. Finally, attention must be paid to the evaluation of the instructional effort (Gagné et al., 2005, pp. 13-14). Instructional design theory, in short, aims to answer two essential questions: “What methods should be used in the design of instruction and when should each be used?” (Reigeluth, 1987, pp. 1-2). Instructional design is concerned with understanding, improving, and applying methods of instruction. Its objective is to determine the optimal method of instruction in order to yield the desired outcomes in terms of student knowledge and skills (Reigeluth, 1983, 1987). Learning about instructional design is necessary because students’ educational and intellectual needs should be met (Reigeluth, 1983). Teachers may not be able to dedicate sufficient time and effort to each student due to ineffective methods of instruction. Thus, the more effective instructional resources are, the freer teachers would be to focus on students in different ways: emotionally, socially, psychologically, and morally (Reigeluth, 1983). As technology in particular and societies in general change, education becomes increasingly important, leading to a growing need for more effective, efficient, interesting, and appealing methods of instruction (Reigeluth, 1983, 1987). The MI, instructional technology, and instructional design are the theoretical frameworks on which this study is based. They were taken into careful consideration during the preparation of the lesson plans and materials necessary for this research.

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER An examination of current education systems around the world immediately reveals that developed countries have already started integrating technology into education and instructional technology is 127

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

widely used in the classroom because it is believed to affect students’ progress positively. This research, therefore, focuses on technology integration in middle school education in North Cyprus.

Issues, Controversies, Problems Currently in North Cyprus students are educated in a system based on rote learning (Çağıltay & Bichelmeyer, 2000; Cankoy, 2010; Cankoy & Tut, 2005; Öngün, 2012; Öztürkler, 2014; Yalvaç, 2012; “21. Yüzyılın Öğretmeni”, 2013; Zeki, 2013), whether the schools are governmental or private. Many of the suggestions about MI, the use of technology, and student-centered education mentioned earlier have not been implemented in the majority of North Cyprus schools. The new system, designed in 2005, is still not used effectively in most of the schools in North Cyprus. Educational technology, viewed as an inseparable part of education, has been introduced into the new North Cyprus education system, but the implementation of that technology has not occurred as planned. The main reason for the failure to implement the reforms could be that the Ministry forced the program to be carried out without preparing the necessary groundwork; or it could be that the majority of teachers do not believe in it; or not enough information and/or training were/was provided to the people who are to put the system into practice. Moreover, the schools were not sufficiently provided with the equipment that would constitute the infrastructure of this initiative. Further and importantly, no written national standards for integrating instructional technology into schools exist. If the new educational system is worthwhile, despite all the factors that can prevent it from being applied effectively, the constraints mentioned above have to be considered first. In addition, the new applications and how students are currently perceived by the teachers need to be questioned in the new student-centered system. At the time this research project was planned, the situation was not promising. There was very limited technology integration into classrooms and, worse, no budget to purchase technological tools, although the government was motivated to supply such equipment to all schools. Also, teachers were not willing to integrate technology into their teaching. Therefore, this study aims to educate and motivate teachers and show them the realities of technology integration so that they will be convinced of the necessity of using technology in education and overcome their fears of using it. As a number of studies (Ivers, 2009; Barron et al., 2006; Pitler et al., 2007; Schacter, 1999; Whitehead et al., 2003) show, technologyenhanced classrooms both motivate students and have a positive effect on the teaching-learning process.

Research Design An experimental research design was adopted in this work. It is “the most powerful quantitative research method for establishing cause-and-effect relationships between two or more variables” (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007, p. 379). In its simple form, two groups are formed, that is a control group and an experimental group; subjects in the experimental group receive treatment, while those in the control group do not. The members of both groups are administered the same pretest and posttest (Gall et al., 2007; Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Wiersma & Jurs, 2005) at the beginning and at the end of the experiment. Since the research was conducted following the cross-implementation method, all students became members of the experimental group in one stage. Indeed, this experimental technique divides the study into two stages. The subjects in the control group in the first stage of the experiment become the members of the experimental group in the second stage. Likewise, the participants in the experimental group in 128

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

the first stage become members of the control group in the latter stage. In this way, all participants are involved in both experimental and control groups, which results in having two identical clusters. The steps of this design can be summarized as Figure 1 and 2 show.

Sampling Procedure and Participants of the Study The context of this experimental study is a private middle school in North Cyprus. This school was chosen because it is inside the campus where the research was developed. Also, as it is a private school and English is the language of instruction, both students and teachers were carefully selected. At the beginning of each academic year an entrance exam is administered to select and admit clever and hardworking students. The students whose exam results are at a certain level and above are accepted to study at this school. Thus, the academic level of the participants in the research is above average. English lessons were conducted by English teachers who graduated from an English Language Teaching department Figure 1. Phase 1 of the cross-implementation experimental method

Figure 2. Phase 2 of the cross-implementation experimental method

129

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

and mathematics lessons were held by mathematics teachers who were graduates from Mathematics Teaching departments. As to their qualifications and years of experience, they all had similar background and certifications, so it is possible to say that they all were at the same level of expertise in teaching. The targeted population for the study was entirely composed by 7th grade students. The reason this age was targeted is that the 6th grade is the year in which students start their middle school and the 8th grade is the exit level. The first and the last years of middle school education might have caused some adaptation problems which might have affected the results of the research. The 82 students in the 7th grade, 48 males and 34 females and all aged 13, were involved in the study without making any changes or reassignment of the classes. Among the subjects these students were taught, English and mathematics were chosen to form the control and experimental groups. There were several reasons for this choice. Firstly, these two subjects are the basics in the grade where the study took place. Secondly, one of these subjects is linguistic and the other one is numeric. In addition, the researcher can be considered an expert in the field of English, while for mathematics lessons he was guided by an expert in the field. For English lessons, students were grouped according to their English scores in the academic reports of the previous year and placed into five classes of 15. At the beginning of the research, two classes were selected as the control group and the other three classes became the experimental group. In the middle of the experiment the classes in the control group became the experimental group and the classes in the experimental group became the control group. At the beginning of the academic year no streaming had been applied to mathematics lessons by the school administration. Therefore, students were placed into four different classes randomly. Thus, two of these classes were randomly set as the experimental group and the other two classes were selected as the control group. In the second half of the study, the classes in the experimental group became the control group and the classes in the control group became the experimental group.

Instruments Used in the Study This section details the instruments that were used in this study. These are: 1. Multiple Intelligence Inventory The Turkish version of the MI Inventory was used in order to determine each student’s dominant intelligence type/s. There were ten items for each intelligence type, except for musical intelligence, which had eleven. The original version of the MI Inventory was constructed by McKenzie in 2005 in English. As the target participants of the study were Turkish-speaking students, the inventory was translated into Turkish in order to prevent any language-related problems. The original inventory was translated into Turkish by two native English speakers and the translation was examined by three language experts. Subsequently, it was translated back into English by two different native English speakers to see whether there were any translation problems or meaning gaps. After necessary adjustments, the inventory was finalized in a comprehensible and attractive way. The final Turkish version was given in a different school to a different group of students of the same age as the target population in order to collect their feedback on the comprehensiveness of it. Teachers at the school where the study took place were asked to evaluate the face

130

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

validity of the final version. Lastly, with the aim of checking the language, the inventory was given to a Turkish language teacher of students of the same age. Eventually, a few further amendments were made. The inventory was then piloted with a group of students of the same age in a different school (a private middle school) in order to see if its reliability value as a whole and the reliability of each component fulfilled the requirements of the research. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) values for the inventory indicated that the reliability was good, both overall (.91) and for each component (.85 for logical-mathematical, .78 for naturalist, .77 for verbal-linguistic, visual-spatial, and existentialist, .71 for musical, .70 for interpersonal, .59 for bodily-kinesthetic, and .43 for intrapersonal). 2. Lesson Plans Particularly Designed and Prepared for Both the Control and Experimental Groups The lesson plans and materials provided to the teachers considered Gagné’s nine events of instruction and, if necessary, Bloom’s taxonomy. Robert Gagné emphasizes the use of nine events of instruction to establish the necessary conditions of learning, both internal and external. As an internal process, learning is enhanced by events of instruction, which are considered to be external support (Gagné, 1985; Smith & Ragan, 2005). According to Gagné’s theory, the processes of learning are activated internally and the outcome of one process is the input of another. Hence, if an educator plans the lesson on this view, students can find their own ways to understand the given topic. In this study, Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction theory was used to design the lessons. For each subject, each lesson was planned for both the control and experimental groups according to their specified objectives, which are important in identifying the intended cognitive outcomes, to determine effective instructional activities and to design appropriate assessment tasks. The purpose was to focus teaching and testing on narrow, day-to-day slices of learning in fairly specific content areas. After the researcher and course teachers decided on the units to be covered over the treatment period, the researcher analyzed the topics and specified the objectives of each lesson for both English and mathematics, which were then discussed with course teachers to reach a consensus. Before the treatment started, the researcher had meetings with the course teachers to explain the rationale behind the lesson plan, objectives, and the importance of implementing each stage exactly as it was written into the lesson plan. The course teachers were asked not to make any changes during the implementation. In the control groups, the class teachers were also instructed to exclude any technologyintegrated activities, such as listening and role-playing activities. In the lesson plans for the experimental groups, the materials were prepared prior to instruction and described in detail, and the teachers were instructed at every step of the course. For the technologybased materials prepared, the necessary support was given to the course instructors whenever needed. The course instructors for the experimental groups met before the course started and were shown how to use the necessary technological equipment. In contrast, while the control groups were also provided with lesson plans and specified objectives, the course teachers were asked to continue presenting their lessons in the traditional way. For the English lessons, PowerPoint presentations were created to be used during the presentation stage. In addition, handouts and homework sheets were made available to the subject teachers. Colorful and attractive flashcards, role-playing materials, cardboards, drawings, and posters were prepared to be used in the experimental groups. In the PowerPoint presentations, more colorful, animated, audiosupported, and visually rich materials and texts were chosen. 131

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

For the mathematics lesson, two experts from the Department of Mathematics contributed to the preparation of the materials, handouts, cardboards, and posters; PowerPoint slides were designed with particular care to ensure students’ active participation and to enhance their learning. Everything was based on visualization and students’ active participation, which could be considered the main advantages of technology implementation. 3. The Pretests and Posttests for English and Mathematics Lessons During the study, two pretests and two posttests were prepared with the help of an expert. The participants (students) were asked to take the pretest before the experiment started and the posttest at the end of the experiment to evaluate their achievements. The tests for English consisted of 30 multiple-choice items, 20 in vocabulary and 10 in language features, all on topics that students were expected to learn over the course of the lesson. For each item there were three distractors in addition to the correct answer. The pretest was also given at the end of the treatment period as a posttest. When groups were swapped, another test covering the new topics was used as the second pretest and posttest. The tests for English were prepared by the researcher, as he has taught English for more than 19 years, has a number of qualifications (including a Master’s Degree in English Language Teaching), and experience in testing and curriculum design; subsequently, the tests were checked by a native English speaker to ensure the same difficulty, complexity, and structure. The tests for mathematics consisted of 10 open-ended questions used to assess student competency of the geometry topics taught. Two pretests and posttests were prepared by the course teachers according to the objectives of the lessons and later approved as being identical in terms of structure and level of difficulty and complexity by three mathematicians with several years of experience in teaching mathematics. In fact, the posttest had the same questions, albeit with minor changes, as the pretest. 4. Technology-Enhanced Classroom Perception Scale (TECPS) for Students After the treatment period, the TECPS, prepared by the researcher, was administered by the class teachers to all students who participated in the study. The scale consisted of 11 items and the students were asked to state their opinions on a three-point scale as “Yes,” “Indecisive,” or “No.” 5. Standardized Open-Ended Interview with Teachers To obtain English and mathematics course teachers’ feedback on various aspects of technology integration in class, a standardized open-ended interview of eight questions was administered at the end of the treatment period. The questions were related to different aspects of the technology-enhanced classroom (i.e., the effects of technology-enhanced classrooms on teaching, on classroom management, and on learning, and reasons for having lessons in technology-enhanced classrooms). Both English and mathematics teachers were interviewed.

132

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study examined the overall effect of technology-enhanced classrooms on 7th grade students’ progress in English and mathematics lessons. The results revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups in English lessons. Similarly, although the mean of progress scores for mathematics lessons held with technology was greater than the mean of progress scores for the lessons held without technology, again, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups. There may, however, be a number of explanations for these results, the main one being the limited length of the experiment. The first half of the experiment in English lasted 20 contact hours. Then, the groups were swapped – control groups became experiment groups and vice versa. The second half of the experiments ended when the second set of 20 contact hours was completed. Similarly, for the mathematics lessons the first half of the experiment lasted 20 contact hours and the following 20 lessons were the second half of the experiments after the groups were exchanged. Neither the teachers nor the students had experienced any similar lessons before. Moreover, the researcher was allowed only three units to conduct the experiment. Although, the lessons were prepared in detail and implemented with care, the instruction period was too short to allow both students and teachers to become accustomed to working with technology in the classroom. Hence, it may be the case that the experiment ended before they developed a taste for lessons where technology is used or otherwise adapted themselves to them. The results should, however, not be ignored for being limited to a short period of time, as the same experiment over a longer period would likely have yielded different results. Another explanation may be the medium of instruction in the school. As it was English, this might have affected particularly English lessons and helped students acquire more English than anticipated before the experiment was conducted. In addition, especially in mathematics lessons, it seems that technology was not used efficiently or appropriately by the teachers. Due to certain restrictions, colorful and attractive PowerPoint slides were the only technological tool used in mathematics lessons. The analysis of their opinions clearly reflects this lack of involvement, which affected the study results negatively. In the research, a computer and a data projector were selected as the main technological tools to use Microsoft PowerPoint. Thus, the lack of readiness on the part of the teachers may be another factor to explain the less-than-significant differences in the results. Reksten (2000) identifies the critical prerequisite for successful technology implementation as the preparation of teachers and other members of the school community, since neglecting this stage results in resistance by teachers. Secondly, the study examined the effect of technology-enhanced classrooms on 7th grade students’ progress with respect to gender and found that the mean of progress scores for the male students was greater than the mean of progress scores for female students in English lessons. Once again, the difference was negligible. Similarly, although this time the mean of progress scores for female students was greater, again the results were not statistically significant in mathematics lessons. These results can be explained by the technological era the participants live in. In today’s world, students are “digital natives” who become familiar with technology soon after birth and learn to use many technological tools very easily and at a very young age, regardless of their gender. Thus, the results obtained in this research are by no means surprising. It is therefore possible to conclude that the students of today have become so

133

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

familiar with technology that gender differences are no longer an aspect to be examined with respect to the effect of technology implementation in classes. Thirdly, the study examined the effect of technology-enhanced classrooms on 7th grade male and female students’ progress in English and mathematics lessons. The mean of progress scores for the lessons held without technology was found to be greater than the mean of progress scores for the lessons held with technology for male students in English. On the other hand, in the mathematics lessons, the results for male students showed that the mean of progress scores for the lessons held with technology was greater than the mean of progress scores for the lessons held without technology. For female students, however, the mean of progress scores for the lessons held without technology was greater than the mean of progress scores for those held with technology in both English and mathematics lessons. In all four cases, the differences were not statistically significant. This result can be ascribed to several negative factors. Although students in the technological era are tech savvy, the students involved in this study had never been exposed to technology-integrated lessons. Thus, no difference was found when male and female students’ progress scores were compared for lessons where technology was used and those where it was not. Fourthly, the study analyzed the effect of technology-enhanced classrooms on students’ progress in English and mathematics lessons after controlling students’ MI profiles. The bivariate correlation analysis yielded no significant correlation in English lessons, so no regression model was formed. On the other hand, three intelligence types—kinesthetic, verbal, and logical—were found to have statistically significant correlations in mathematics lessons. These intelligences and technology-enhanced classrooms were therefore identified as predictors of students’ progress scores. After the linear stepwise regression analysis, the following equation for progress scores was formulated: Progress scores of students = 3.836 + (-.391) (kinesthetic) + (.213) (verbal) + (.287) (logical) In the English lessons, no effect of either technology-enhanced classrooms or intelligence types was found. It is generally accepted that language learning is different from learning in other subjects and 2 + 2 does not always equal 4 in languages. In addition, since the medium of instruction is English at the school where the experiment was conducted, students acquire the target language unconsciously. In mathematics, the learning process is quite different from the process in learning languages. This subject often has to be taught by someone else and there are strict rules and formulae to find a single solution. By definition, the logical-mathematical intelligence is the crucial type students need to develop for success in mathematics. Similarly, as shapes, formulae, lines, and drawings are involved in geometry, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is also needed. The conducted experiments required the students to cut shapes and make geometrical shapes with their bodies and hands. Verbal-linguistic intelligence might not seem to be connected to mathematics at first, as this type of intelligence is mainly related to language and has a clearer link with English lessons. However, the situation is different in North Cyprus, where, due to traditional teacher-centered instruction, students are dependent on what their teachers say in class. Therefore, verbal-linguistic intelligence is also a reasonable predictor of students’ achievement. Fifthly, the study examined the students’ perceptions on technology-enhanced classrooms in English and mathematics lessons by using the TECPS prepared by the researcher. The results revealed a significant

134

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

difference in the students’ perceptions towards the use of technology in English lessons. However, in mathematics lessons no statistically significant difference was found with regard to students’ perceptions. In English lessons, the students’ perceptions were found to be positive whereas they were undecided in mathematics lessons. The reasons for these results may include the various types of teaching aids used in English lessons, such as flashcards, pictures, animations, and colorful texts in different fonts, videos, and listening materials, that is to say, lessons were rich in visual and auditory stimuli. Also, students enjoyed these lessons and participated more as they thought the technology-integrated lessons were useful and effective. On the other hand, the students were not sure whether technology integration can ease the learning of difficult topics and make teachers show more interest in them. Another reason for students’ positive attitudes is that when what these children of the technological era have in their daily lives is brought into the classroom and integrated into their lessons, they naturally like it. In other words, this is what they expect. When students feel that learning occurs, the school becomes a venue for education, not a place of meaningless rote-learning. In the mathematics lessons, students could not decide whether they had a positive or negative attitude towards technology-enhanced classrooms. Technology integration was both new to them and quite intensive, which they were not accustomed to. For mathematics lessons, the experiment was implemented at the end of the semester because the head of the mathematics department suggested that technology could be implemented in the geometry lessons that covered triangles, quadrilaterals, and polygons, which were in the syllabus towards the end of the year. Thus, setting the experiment in that period may have been another factor negatively affecting students’ perceptions for mathematics lessons. When the teachers’ perceptions, aptitudes, and readiness are added to the list, students’ attitudes cannot really be expected to be positive. It is interesting that, even though students generally could not decide whether the effect of technologyenhanced classrooms was good or bad, their answers revealed that the majority believed they were more successful when technology was implemented. In fact, for mathematics lessons, one third of the students stated positive, one third negative, and one third indecisive attitudes towards technology-enhanced lessons. This might be due to the time constraints mentioned previously. If students had had the chance to get used to technology implementation, their attitudes might have become positive, as they did for the English lessons. Last but not least, the study investigated the teachers’ opinions on technology-enhanced classrooms in English and mathematics lessons. According to the results, English teachers tended to have positive attitudes in general, whereas mathematics teachers had negative attitudes towards technology-enhanced classrooms. With regard to the effects of technology-enhanced classrooms on teaching, teachers made very positive comments on the increase in the pace of lessons, having productive lessons, and richer teaching opportunities. Due to technical problems, lesson planning and productivity can also be negatively affected by technology-enhanced classrooms. The biggest challenge that technology implementation brings is the necessity for teachers to change their teaching approach, since teaching this way is very different from traditional instruction. The effects of technology on learning were perceived as being very positive by the teachers, who said that it really increases a number of desirable characteristics. However, this research also found that students got bored, which led to decreasing participation towards the end of lessons in technologyenhanced classrooms. Furthermore, particularly in mathematics classes, teachers pointed out that certain students developed a negative reaction to technology which, in turn, led to a decrease in their grades.

135

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

Yet, the teachers had negative attitudes themselves, a situation that was reflected in class and affected students’ perceptions, too. When classroom management was considered, the majority of the teachers said that classroom management was a problem. Technology boosts individual learning. Each student has his/her own pace. This leads to chaos in the classroom. As mentioned earlier, teaching in technology-enhanced classrooms is quite different, and once teachers become accustomed to it, they can feel confident in terms of classroom management. Therefore, it seems that the teachers felt they had lost control of their classes as the atmosphere changed.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Currently, there is technology in the daily lives of those involved in education, namely teachers, students, and administrators. Yet, in the educational settings (i.e., schools) technology is old fashioned. This demotivates all the stakeholders in education. It is the responsibility of higher administration, that is, the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education, to update schools with “new” technology in order to keep students and teachers motivated. In the author’s view, on the basis of this experience, any researcher working with other teachers should administer an attitude scale prior the experiment in order to identify their opinions on the experiment, as these could affect the success of the treatment. This study could be repeated with teachers whose opinions are positive towards technology-enhanced classrooms. In addition, in-service training sessions and workshops should be offered frequently in order to help teachers improve themselves and develop the technology-enhanced classroom. The author suggests that the research can be repeated in a public school where the medium of instruction is in Turkish and student profiles vary more widely along the socio-economic statuses of families. The research can be conducted in all schools around the country in order to get more valid data. In the future, a longitudinal study should be designed. The MNE should therefore be sensitive to the issue and consider having technology-enhanced classrooms in schools and providing the necessary equipment. If a study were conducted over one semester or one academic year, for instance, more valid results would be obtained. Although this study did indeed yield certain valid results, major changes cannot be expected to occur in such a short time. In this research, the school administration had selected three consecutive units in each subject. In order to minimize negative effects, the administration and the heads of department worked closely with the researcher. A variety of topics could be added in a future study and the experiment could be conducted at different times during the academic year. The results could then be compared with those of this research. The MNE could support the same kind of experiment, but as a longitudinal study. For instance, a pilot school could be selected and the experiment conducted for one year; another school, where traditional instruction would remain in place, could serve as the control group, and the results could then be compared. The results of the research that has already been carried out and those of the proposed longitudinal study could also be compared. Frequent in-service training programs are suggested as “the need to have teacher education programs that help teachers use the new tools became important” (Wentworth & Earle, 2003, p. 86). The teachers’ roles in the classroom also need to change with innovations and new learning environments.

136

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

CONCLUSION Instructional technology has long played an important role and has had positive effects on teaching. Both the literature and this study—the results may not be statistically significant, but traces can be observed when the results and the teachers’ and students’ responses are examined deeply—reveal that technology integration into education is essential. When technology is integrated into the classroom, students have the opportunity to see more colorful, attractive, authentic materials and to become more motivated and actively involved. In turn, this can increase students’ success rates in an environment that promotes permanent learning. As discussed earlier, the study reveals that students’ attitudes toward lessons with technology are quite positive and that technology increases students’ motivation. However, the length of the study was too limited to see the real effect of technology integration on student success. It could be argued that the student success rate would have been increased in the long run. If the “new” technological equipment were provided and classrooms in North Cyprus had access to modern technological devices, fast Internet access, and other facilities, students in this country would not fall behind the students of developed countries. Built-in systems were not available in the classrooms at the school where the study took place. This needs to change and a modern technological infrastructure should be put in place in all classes in every school. In today’s world, technology keeps changing. The number of online resources is increasing very rapidly. Students and teachers need to use updated technology and digital devices in their classrooms. Today’s question should not be how to integrate technology into the classroom, but how to effectively integrate updated technologies and digital devices into the classroom. Providing technology once and not upgrading it, which is the tendency of most administrators, does not usually serve its aim. Therefore, providing the latest technology in education might be more beneficial. The Ministry of Education should be aware that students and teachers should have the access to the latest technologies when they are in their classrooms, as these people have the latest technology in their daily lives, particularly in the context of North Cyprus. When the technology used in the classroom is slower and out-of-date, learning is impaired and students are demotivated. If the success of education depends on technology and teachers, it is necessary to make the users of the technology happy and motivated for continuous and proper use. Students and teachers should have the opportunity to reach all kinds of information rapidly and easily, which is the current situation around the world thanks to technological developments. Moreover, teachers and students should be given opportunities to use all types of instructional technology whenever they need. Accessing information as quickly as possible and being able to use it is an essential feature in today’s world. From an equal opportunity perspective, schools should have this efficient technological infrastructure. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the MNE examines the results of this and other related studies in order to determine a roadmap for the future of education in North Cyprus, so as to provide the country with a better, contemporary education system where graduates will be well-equipped and strong enough to compete with graduates of other countries. If a country wants to carve a place for itself in today’s world and compete with other countries, it is necessary for the authorities to integrate updated technology into their education programs effectively. The world is changing so rapidly that even one second is crucial. Now is the time to move forward with firm steps. The reason is that education must be provided to students not to prepare them to survive within their own society, but to prepare them to become members of the global village, that is, individuals who are able to stand on their own two feet.

137

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

REFERENCES 21 . Yüzyılın Öğretmeni. (2013, November 13). Kıbrıs Postası. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http:// www.kibrispostasi.com/index.php/cat/91/news/119975 Amarin, N. Z., & Ghishan, R. I. (2013). Learning with technology from a constructivist point of view. International Journal of Business, Humanities, and Technology, 3(1), 52–57. Armstrong, T. (1999). Seven kinds of smart: Identifying and developing your multiple intelligences. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc. Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (2nd ed.). Assocoation for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publishing. Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making the words come alive. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publishing. Arnold, E. (2007). The MI strategy bank: 800+ multiple intelligence strategies for the elementary classroom (2nd ed.). Chicago: Zephyr Press. Barron, A. E., Ivers, K. S., Lilavois, N., & Wells, J. A. (2006). Technologies for education: A practical guide (5th ed.). London: Libraries Unlimited. Baum, S., Viens, J., & Slatin, B. (2005). Multiple intelligences in the elementary classroom: A teacher’s toolkit. New York: Teachers College Press. Çağıltay, K., & Bichelmeyer, B. (2000). Differences in learning styles in different cultures: A qualitative study. ERIC Clearinghouse. Cankoy, O. (2010). Matematik öğretmenlerinin a0, 0! ve a÷ 0 ile ilgili konu temelli pedagojik alan bilgileri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 10(2), 729–769. Cankoy, O., & Tut, M. A. (2005). High-stakes testing and mathematics performance of fourth graders in North Cyprus. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 234–243. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.4.234-244 Cennamo, K. S., Ross, J. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. Wadsworth. Chapman, C. (1993). If the shoe fits...: How to develop multiple intelligences in the classroom (rev. ed.). SkyLight Training and Publishing, Inc. Chen, J. Q., Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple intelligences around the world. John Wiley & Sons. Coan, S. (Ed.). (2006). The best of multiple intelligences activities. Teacher Created Resources, Inc. Dedeoğlu, T. G. (2006). Application of multiple intelligences theory in state schools. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

138

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Ltd. Egbert, J. (2007). Supporting learning with technology: Essentials of classroom practice. PearsonMerrill/Prentice Hall. Frei, S., Gammill, A., & Irons, S. (2007). Integrating technology into the curriculum. Shell Education. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Thomson/Wadsworth. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children learn and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2010). Çoklu zeka kuramı–yaratıcılık–gelecek için beş akıl. In Proceedings of 1st International Conference of Living Theorists: Howard Gardner. (H. Kale, Trans.). Burdur, Turkey: Mehmet Akif Ersoy University. Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2007). Integrating technology for meaninful learning (5th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gura, M., & Percy, B. (2005). Recapturing technology for education: Keeping tomorrow in today’s classrooms. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Hefzallah, I. M. (2004). The new educational technologies and learning: Empowering teachers to teach and students to learn in the information age (2nd ed.). Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd. Hoerr, T. R. (2000). Becoming a multiple intelligences school. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publising. Holleis, P., Schmidt, A., Drewes, H., Attarer, R., & Dollinger, P. (2010). Taking teaching beyond the classroom: Pervasive computing technologies for the classroom of the future. In K. Mäkitalo-Siegl, J. Zottmann, F. Kaplan, & F. Fischer (Eds.), Classroom of the future: Orchestrating collaborative spaces (pp. 63–87). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Ivers, K. S. (2009). A teacher’s guide to using technology in the classroom (2nd ed.). Libraries Unlimited. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

139

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R. M., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). Pearson Education. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. Juniu, S. (2006). Use of technology for constructivist learning in a performance assessment class. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(1), 67–79. doi:10.1207/s15327841mpee1001_5 Kagan, M., & Kagan, S. (1998). Multiple intelligences: The complete MI book. Kagan Cooperative Learning. Kelly, M. G. (Ed.). (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers (1st ed.). Teacherline. KKTC’de 2015 Yılı Sonu Itibarıyla Mobil Telefon Abonesi Rakamı Inanılmaz ! (2016, March 15). Kuzey Postası. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from http://www.kuzeypostasi.com/gundem/kktcde-2015-yili-sonuitibariyla-mobil-telefon-abonesi-rakami-inanilmaz/30751 KKTC’de Akıllı Telefon Kullanımı Yüzde 44’e Yükseldi. (2015, January 16). Ada Haber. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from http://www.kibrisadahaber.com/kktcde-akilli-telefon-kullanimi-yuzde-44e-yukseldi.html Kornhaber, M., Fierros, E., & Veenema, S. (2004). Multiple intelligences: Best ideas from research and practice. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Lazear, D. (1999). Eight ways of knowing: Teaching for multiple intelligences (3rd ed.). Corwin Press. Lazear, D. (2000). The intelligent curriculum: Using multiple intelligences to develop your students’ full potential. Chicago: Zephyr Press. Lazear, D. (2003). Eight ways of teaching: The artistry of teaching with multiple intelligences (4th ed.). Corwin Press. McKenzie, W. L. (2005). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology (2nd ed.). ISTE Publications. MNE Brochure. (2005). Nicosia, Turkey: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Ministry of National Education. Norton, H., & Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Teaching with technology: Designing opportunities to learn (2nd ed.). Toronto: Thomson-Wadsworth. Norton, P., & Sprague, D. (2001). Technology for teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. November, A. (2010). Empowering students with technology (2nd ed.). London: Corwin Press. Öngün, M. (2012). Kuzey Kıbrıs’ta sisteme alternatif düşünmenin toplumsal ve ahlaki engellerini anlamak. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.alternatifim.org/2012/12/21/kuzey_kibrista_sisteme_alternatif_dusunmenin_toplumsal_ve_ahlaki_engellerini_anlamak_2 Öztürkler, Z. (2014). Çağdaş eğitim nedir? Haber KKTC. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from http://www. haberkktc.com/yazar/cagdas-egitim-nedir-3520.html

140

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

Picciano, A. G. (2006). Educational leadership and planning for technology (4th ed.). Pearson-Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ragan, T. J., & Smith, P. L. (1996). Conditions-based models for designing instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 541–569). New York: Macmillan. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (Vol. 1). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1987). Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reksten, L. E. (2000). Using technology to increase student learning. Corwin Press, Inc. Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching (4th ed.). Pearson-Merril/ Prentice Hall. Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. The American Psychologist, 54(3), 182–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182 PMID:10199218 Schacter, J., & Fagnano, C. (1999). Does computer technology improve student learning and achievement? How, when, and under what conditions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(4), 329–343. doi:10.2190/VQ8V-8VYB-RKFB-Y5RU Silver, H. F., Strong, R. W., & Perini, M. J. (2000). So each may learn: Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publishing. Smaldino, S. E., Russell, J. D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2005). Instructional technology and media for learning (8th ed.). Pearson Education. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Stewart, C. M., Schifter, C. C., & Selverian, M. E. M. (Eds.). (2010). Teaching and learning with technology: Beyond constructivism. New York: Taylor & Francis. Tennyson, R. D. (2005). Learning theories and instructional design: A historical perspective of the linking model. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. van Schaack, & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology (pp. 219–236). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Tomei, L. A. (2005). Taxonomy for the technology domain. Melbourne, Australia: Information Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-524-5 Viens, J., & Kallenbach, S. (2004). Multiple intelligences and adult literacy: A sourcebook for practitioners. New York: Teachers College Press. Wentworth, N., & Earle, R. (2003). Trends in computer uses as reported in computers in the schools. Computers in the Schools, 20(1-2), 77–90. doi:10.1300/J025v20n01_06

141

 The Effect of Technology-Enhanced Classrooms in Middle School Education

Whitehead, B. M., Jensen, D. F., & Boschee, F. (2003). Planning for technology: A guide for school administrators, technology coordinators, and curriculum leaders. Corwin Press Inc. Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2005). Research methods in education: An introduction (8th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Wiske, M. S., Franz, K. R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. Jossey-Bass. Yalvaç, M. (2012, January 28). KKTC Milli Eğitim Sistemi: Sorun Durumu ve Gelişim Önerileri-1. Haberdar Gazetesi. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://neu.edu.tr/docs/byam/byam_(1).pdf Zeki, C. P. (2013, May 11). Neden Öğrenci Merkezli Eğitim. Haber Kıbrıs. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.haberkibris.com/neden-ogrenci-merkezli-eğitim-2013-05-11.html

142

143

Chapter 8

Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow Oliver Dreon Millersville University, USA Jennifer Shettel Millersville University, USA Kevin M. Bower Penn Manor School District, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter examines the results from ongoing research of an authentic, problem-based learning (PBL) project. Embedded in an instructional technology course, the project was designed to help preservice teachers develop technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) necessary to successfully incorporate digital tools and applications in elementary classrooms (Harris, Mishra, & Koelher, 2009). The project partnered the preservice teachers with local elementary school classrooms where they served as instructional designers to develop digital media in support of a flipped classroom initiative. Results indicate that the semester-long PBL-based assignment significantly impacted the preservice teachers’ TPACK development in several critical areas and can serve as a model for advancing next generation teacher education. Overarching themes that emerged and recommendations for future research are offered as well.

INTRODUCTION Because they have grown up with unprecedented access to technology, many of today’s college students are frequently referred to as “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001). Since this generation of students has experienced a world where technology is infused in all facets of their lives, Prensky (2001) argues that this gives students a technological advantage over preceding generations and has changed how they DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch008

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow

access information and learn. Looking around any university campus, students can be seen carrying smartphones, laptops and tablet computers. Owning these tools, however, does not necessarily translate to knowing how to use technology for educational or pedagogical purposes. In fact, many researchers have challenged the concept of “digital natives” completely. Writing in the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Brown and Czerniewicz (2010) identify that opportunity and access are far better determinants of a person’s ability to use technology than age. While this research debunks a generational view of technological proficiency, it does provide some guidance for those individuals working to prepare next generation elementary teachers. For instance, Lei (2009) examined the beliefs, attitudes and technology expertise and experiences of preservice teachers. While the majority of the participants in Lei’s study reported using technology for social and communication purposes, only a small percentage had any expertise with digital tools for learning. To address this deficit, many teacher education programs incorporate training that focuses on the development of technical skills (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). The challenge with technical training, however, is that it does not prepare preservice teachers for the changing technological landscape they are likely to face in schools. As new technologies for learning are introduced, a preservice teacher’s skillset quickly becomes outdated. Examining this issue historically provides a critical lens for teacher educators. In 1996, Northrup and Little, writing in the Journal of Teacher Education, outlined a comprehensive list of “instructional technology benchmarks” that new teachers should possess. Their list included the following: Ability to operate a microcomputer system to include powering up the computer, installing programs, accessing programs in other drives, saving files to diskette, and deleting files within the context of a Macintosh, Windows, and DOS-based system. Ability to set up and operate peripherals such as scanners, laserdisc players, CD-ROM, modems, and printers. Ability to use productivity software to include word processors, spreadsheets, databases, desktop publishing, and graphics to perform basic administrative tasks such as mail merge, grading, and creating basic newsletters. Ability to integrate productivity software including word processors, spreadsheets, databases, desktop publishing, and graphics into a classroom curriculum assignment. Ability to use multimedia CD-ROM, laserdisc, and digital photography to access and store information. (p. 218) Building on this list, in 1998, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) published its first list of Technology Foundation standards for all teachers. This early rendering of the ISTE standards was broken into four main categories, including “basic technology operations and concepts; application of technology and instruction; professional and personal use of technology; and societal, ethical, and human impact of technology;” however, the predominant focus remained on the acquisition of technical skills rather than on the development of an understanding of how to leverage technologies to support instruction and learning. These original ISTE standards prompted teacher education programs to create courses that helped their teacher candidates develop proficiency to “use computer systems to run software; to access, generate and manipulate data; and to publish results. They also will evaluate performance of hardware and 144

 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow

software and apply basic troubleshooting strategies as needed” (Friske et al, 1996). While these initial technology benchmarks and standards helped to identify a baseline skill set of beginning teachers, they also helped to foster a “technocentric” view on instructional technology and preservice teachers’ development (Papert, 1987; Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009). Reflecting this view, a study conducted with 164 teacher education programs in 1997 found that while the vast majority of schools felt their teacher candidates could “successfully utilize a computer system,” they were concerned about candidates’ abilities to integrate technology into instruction (Bennett, 2000). This concern also reflected how instructional technology was taught to preservice teachers. In a 2007 study conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics, the majority of teacher education programs offered stand-alone educational technology courses for their teacher candidates (Kleiner, Thomas & Lewis, 2007). This isolated instruction on educational technology promoted an “overemphasis on the design and features of the technologies rather than the learning that they can support” (Harris & Hofer, 2011, p. 227). This perspective limited how teacher candidates viewed technology integration. Arguing against the “technocentric” mode of teacher preparation, Earle (2002) writes: Integrating technology is not about technology—it is primarily about content and effective instructional practices. Technology involves the tools with which we deliver content and implement practices in better ways. Its focus must be on curriculum and learning. Integration is defined not by the amount or type of technology used, but by how and why it is used. (p. 8) To address this criticism, ISTE published a revised set of National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for teachers in 2008. In these standards, the focus shifted away from knowing how to use computers and software and instead identified the need for technology to be used to promote student learning and creativity as well as to foster more “digital-age learning experiences and assessments” (ISTE, 2008). The standards also focused on how technology could be used to support larger 21st Century Skills with students such as creativity, innovation, communication, collaboration, problem solving and critical thinking (Trilling & Fadel, 2009; ISTE, 2008). Missing from these standards, however, was a focus on how these strategies could be taught to preservice teachers. Clearly, isolated instructional technology courses that emphasize the design and features of technologies will not successfully prepare teacher candidates to meet these standards.

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER To address the changing technological landscape in education, new models for preservice teacher technology preparation are needed. Rather than simply providing a survey course of the wide range of technologies that are currently available, teacher education programs must broaden the instructional lens beyond the knowledge of digital tools to ensure that teacher candidates view educational technology as a means “to facilitate learning and improve performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Robinson, Molenda, & Rezabek, 2008, p.16). To accomplish this, it is clear that teacher candidates need a strong foundational knowledge of the technologies that are available to support student learning. Beyond technological knowledge, however, Harris, Mishra and Koelher (2009) argue that preservice teachers need to develop technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Built upon work by Shulman (1986), TPACK encompasses a teacher’s understanding of the pedagogi145

 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow

Figure 1. The components of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2008)

cal techniques that allow technologies to be integrated appropriately into classroom environments to teach content in unique and differentiated manners. TPACK as a body of knowledge, however, is not an isolated entity. It is formed through the development and intersection of other bodies of knowledge (content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, technological knowledge) critical for a teacher’s success (See Figure 1). Looking across these knowledge types and their intersections, it becomes apparent that preservice teachers need to know more than just how to use computers or design webpages to effectively incorporate technology into classroom environments. Instead, successful technology integration requires “teachers to go beyond their knowledge of particular disciplines, technologies, and pedagogical techniques in isolation” and draw on “a contingent, flexible kind of knowledge that lies at the intersection of all three of these knowledge bases” (Mishra & Koehler, 2009) In the TPACK framework, the seven knowledge types include: 1. Technological Knowledge (TK): Technological knowledge refers to the knowledge of various technologies including software, interactive whiteboards and the Internet. 2. Content Knowledge (CK): Content knowledge refers to the knowledge of the subject matter that would be taught and how that content differs from other content areas. 3. Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): Pedagogical knowledge refers to the general processes of teaching and learning including assessment, student engagement, classroom management. 4. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): Based on Shulman (1986), PCK refers to the unique modes of delivery for different content areas which blends both subject matter and pedagogy. From a PCK perspective, a science teacher would need to employ different instructional strategies than a history teacher might. PCK is one of the reasons that many teacher preparation programs offer unique methods courses for different content areas.

146

 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow

5. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK): Technological content knowledge encompasses the knowledge of how technology can be used to represent subject matter and change how learners interact with concepts. For example, a math teacher would need to know specific technologies to foster students’ understanding of certain concepts in geometry. 6. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK): TPK refers to the knowledge of how technologies can be used for teaching and learning. For instance, TPK would relate to how the use of interactive whiteboards could impact instruction and student engagement. 7. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): TPACK refers to the knowledge needed to integrate technology to support instruction and student learning of content. TPACK as a knowledge area requires an “intuitive understanding of the complex interplay between the basic components (CK, PK, TK) by teaching content using appropriate pedagogical methods and technologies” (Schmidt, et al, 2009, p. 125). The development of TPACK allows teacher candidates to better understand how to leverage different technology to help students learn specific content areas. Typically, isolated instructional technology courses for preservice teachers focus on the development of technological knowledge (TK). While the development of TPACK requires that teacher candidates learn some technical knowledge, it also requires a shift in focus from a baseline list of technologies to developing an understanding of how technology “can be integrated successfully into content-based learning at different levels” (Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009). TPACK development, Mishra and Koehler argue, requires “a deep experiential understanding, developed through training and deliberate practice, of all the aspects of the TPACK framework and how they interact with each other” (2009). Instead of simply gaining experience with technology, teacher candidates must develop the complex understanding how technology can be leveraged strategically to help students learn content. Switching to TPACK-focused training for beginning teachers requires a change in the design of instructional technology courses. Harris and Hofer (2009) argue that increased opportunities for instructional planning through the use of “curriculum-focused, technology-enhanced learning activities” can help serve as building blocks for TPACK development. In their view, new teachers develop TPACK by “choosing learning goals, making practical pedagogical decisions about the nature of the learning experience, selecting and sequencing appropriate activity types to combine to form the learning experience, selecting formative and summative assessment strategies that will reveal what and how well students are learning and selecting tools and resources that will best help students to benefit from the learning experience being planned” (p.4088). To effectively develop TPACK, Koehler and Mishra (2005) promote a learning by design model which: …requires teachers to navigate the necessarily complex interplay between tools, artifacts, individuals and contexts. This allows teachers to explore the ill-structured domain of educational technology and develop flexible ways of thinking about technology, design and learning and, thus, develop Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. (p. 25). Koehler and Mishra argue that TPACK development requires that teacher candidates be engaged in the process of designing and developing educational technology. In response, Koh and Divaharan (2011) presented a “TPACK-developing instructional model” where preservice teachers developed technical proficiency, pedagogical modeling and application by designing interactive whiteboard lessons for their 147

 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow

elementary students. While their model helped to develop participants’ technological knowledge and technological pedagogical knowledge, other critical TPACK areas showed no growth. The authors suggested that “more emphasis on subject-focused pedagogical modeling, product critique and peer sharing” could better develop preservice teachers’ overall TPACK (p. 35). These authors also argued for more subject-based modeling because stand-alone, isolated instructional technology courses may not fully address pre-service teachers’ TPACK development needs. Building on Koh and Divaharan’s work, Lee and Kim (2014) proposed a TPACK-based instructional design model where teacher candidates developed technology-rich lesson plans for use in their educational technology class. In their manifestation of the learning by design model, Lee and Kim proposed a six stage IDDIRR model where teacher candidates were first introduced (I) to technologies and their use was demonstrated (D). After these beginning stages, the teacher candidates then moved into the design phases where they developed (D), implemented (I), reflected on (R) and revised (R) their lessons. While the IDDIRR model helped foster some TPACK development in participating teacher candidates, the authors argued for revising the model to enhance pedagogy by including more opportunities for teacher candidates to apply “their new knowledge and skills in actual settings” (Lee and Kim, 2014). The TPACK-developing instructional models proposed by Koehler and Mishra (2005), Koh and Divaharan (2011) and Lee and Kim (2014) formed the foundation for the project outlined here.

Problem-Based Learning To help preservice elementary teachers develop the attitudes, beliefs and expertise necessary to effectively select and use digital tools for learning, the instructional technology courses at our institution were redesigned to incorporate a semester-long problem-based classroom project. Problem-based learning (PBL) has roots that stretch back to Dewey, and is an approach that focuses on authentic learning. In this model, students work in collaborative groups on a long-term project that encompasses several learning goals (Thomas, 2000). In a learning setting that utilizes a PBL approach, students are not simply reading or learning about the subject matter, but rather they are learning while doing (Ozdamli, 2011; Savery, 2006). In a traditional technology integration course, preservice teachers are trained to use the latest technology tools with the hope that they can apply them to their practice. An imposed set of hurdles are often completed with little pertinence to problem solving. In contrast, in the Learning by Design approach, teachers focus on a problem of practice, and seek ways to use technology (and thereby learn about technology) to address the problem (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). Recognizing the overlap between the learning by design model proposed by Koehler and Mishra and the tenets of PBL, an ongoing problembased classroom project was seen as a powerful vehicle for developing TPACK in teacher candidates. While many variations of problem based learning exist, essential elements in a PBL approach include the following: introduction of an overarching question or problem to be solved, creation of collaborative groups that work together to solve the problem or parts of the problem, and the culmination of a final product or artifact that demonstrates the response to the initial problem (Blumfield, et.al.,1991; Ozdamli, 2011; Savery, 2006; Thomas, 2000). In addition, tasks that are connected to real-world issues and are interdisciplinary in nature, that provide a sense of closure, and that result in the development of authentic artifacts are more successful in a PBL approach (Blumfield, et. al., 1991). Each of the essential PBL elements map coherently with the TPACK-developing models explored earlier. In today’s world, students and teachers are saturated with massive amounts of on-demand content, and Web 2.0 tools are becoming ubiquitous in classrooms. Web 2.0 has the potential to create more 148

 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow

interactive and powerful learning environments in which learners become knowledge creators, producers, editors, and evaluators (Richardson, 2009). In many traditional technology integration courses, technology is often used to reinforce existing pedagogical practices. PBL-based experiences require a balance of consumption and creation with technology. A collection of published problems to implement with preservice elementary teachers for authentic hands-on, minds-on experiences is not in existence. It becomes an intellectual challenge to write problems that pique students’ curiosity, require analysis, and generally encourage learning. How students learn becomes as important as what they learn (White, 1995). PBL engages students in experiences to actively demonstrate their understanding and their ability to apply this understanding instead of acquiring facts. The ill-structured problem requires the preservice teachers to utilize 21st Century skills for success, and it eliminates the pre-established correct answer. At first, students may find this environment unsettling as they are asked to take responsibility of their learning. As the students work to resolve the problem, they are empowered to accept risk and become a self-directed learner. In addition to emphasizing learning by “doing,” PBL requires students to be metacognitively aware (Gijselaers, 1996). It is important for the students to articulate their thoughts as they develop effective problem solving skills. Another component of a PBL approach involves the role of the teacher. When used effectively in the college classroom, PBL redefines the role of the professor. Instead of the traditional role as lecturer or deliverer of information, the instructor now takes on the role of a coach or facilitator and plans instruction that is responsive to students’ needs to develop the optimal level of guidance. Utilizing a PBL approach requires an instructor who is willing to adapt a learner-centered approach to teaching and provide considerable amounts of scaffolding that may vary from group to group (Savery, 2006). Recognizing the wide differences in teacher candidates’ prior access with technology, adopting a PBL classroom project to develop TPACK would enable classroom instructors to better assess and support individual teacher candidate’s technical knowledge (TK) as they navigated the classroom project.

Flipped Classrooms To create a problem-based classroom project for our instructional technology courses, a technology-rich problem needed to be identified. The International Society for Technology in Education recommends that school administrators, teachers, and literacy leaders in 21st century schools should be expected to effectively use technology as they design, implement, and assess learning experiences for students (ISTE, 2008). Since several local schools were exploring the “flipped classroom model” as an instructional strategy for their elementary students, our college classes partnered with a neighboring district to support their students by developing the instructional media for the flipped classroom initiative. The flipped classroom model (FCM) was first introduced by Bergmann and Sams (2012), who used the term “flipping” to indicate a change in the traditional teaching-learning cycle. In the FCM, students learn key information outside of school and then apply that information inside school, thus inverting the traditional instruction-homework paradigm. The formal definition, according to the Flipped Learning Network, is: Flipped Learning is a pedagogical approach in which direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space, and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter, (http://flippedlearning.org//site/Default.aspx?PageID=92).

149

 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow

In a flipped classroom, students typically watch knowledge-building instructional videos outside of class to frontload content-rich information (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Then, when students come to class the next day, the classroom teacher or instructor uses a variety of active-learning strategies to engage students in higher-level thinking and build on the previously learned material from the instructional videos. In the PBL model described in this chapter, teacher candidates served as instructional designers and created the instructional videos that the elementary students would watch prior to the classroom lessons. While our PBL classroom project focused on the use of FCM with elementary students, much of the available research has examined the use and effectiveness of the FCM at the high school and college level classrooms. For instance, two frequently cited case studies include research conducted at Byron High School in Minnesota and Clintondale High School in Michigan. Both of these high schools have utilized the FCM across a variety of disciplines. Case study research conducted at the schools demonstrated an increase in test scores and a decrease in school-wide failure rates as well as a decline in discipline problems across all subgroups (Green, 2012). At the collegiate level, research examining the use of the flipped classroom model is even more prevalent. Frequently touted as a “promising practice,” articles on inverting the typical lecture-style approach to teaching can be seen across a wide range of disciplines such as counseling (Moran & Milsom, 2015), law (Sankoff, 2014), biology (Heybourne & Perrett, 2016) and veterinary science (Moffet & Mill, 2014) to name just a few. Results from these articles are mixed, with some researchers finding an increase in course pass rates and others finding no increase in academic improvement, but an increase in student perceptual data. Bergmann and Sams (2014) stipulate that the FCM needs to be studied more extensively across grade levels and disciplines. Along with their colleagues at the Flipped Learning Network (www.flippedlearning.org), they developed “The Four Pillars of F-L-I-P” as 1. 2. 3. 4.

Requiring a Flexible environment; Developing a Learning culture; Creating Intentional content; and Having the main content taught by a Professional educator.

Bergmann and Sams contend that unless all four pillars are firmly in place, the FCM is less likely to be successful. In the project described in this chapter, all four pillars were firmly in place. Elementary teachers are particularly skilled at their ability to be flexible in all areas of their teaching day. The learning culture had already been established by the professional educators, and the content of both the videos and the follow-up lessons was intentionally designed utilizing district curricular materials.

Course Design and Description of Project The project described here began with the assumption that the traditional focus on examining specific technologies within an isolated instructional technology course was resulting in preservice teachers viewing educational technology as “checking things off a list.” To reverse this thinking and have teacher candidates view technology as intimately interconnected with instructional strategies across all content areas, the focus of the class was changed to enable preservice teachers to focus on more transferrable 21st Century Skills by using tools to “solve instructional problems and make their own teaching more productive” (Lambert & Gong, 2010, p. 56). By adopting a PBL lesson where preservice teachers had to

150

 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow

create technologies to solve an authentic instructional problem, the instructors hoped that the preservice teachers would skills such as “critical thinking, problem solving, flexibility, and innovation” (Trilling and Fadel, 2009). To foster teacher candidates’ TPACK development, the project utilized an ADDIE-based instructional design model where university students had multiple opportunities to “analyze (A), design (D), develop (D), implement (I) and evaluate (E)” the impact of their work (Dick & Carey, 1996). Similar to the IDDIRR model that Lee and Kim (2014) proposed, the ADDIE instructional model scaffolded teacher candidates through the phases of the project. The discrete steps of the project helped to focus the preservice teachers and promoted sustained interaction with and feedback from the elementary classroom teachers. In the initial “analysis” phase of the project, the preservice teachers examined all of the variables that could impact the creation of their instructional videos. To complete their analysis, the elementary teachers first visited the college classrooms and shared critical curricular information with the preservice teachers. The elementary teachers outlined the content would be taught in the videos and how the lessons coordinated with the reading series they used. Later, the preservice teachers visited the elementary classrooms to gain critical contextual factors that could influence the design of the videos. The preservice teachers also observed the elementary teachers leading lessons with their students. Additionally, the preservice teachers observed elementary students in the classroom environment and informally assessed the students’ prior knowledge of the targeted content area. After completing an analysis of the content and the learners, the preservice teachers moved to the “design” phase of the project. In this phase, the preservice teachers identified the learning objectives of their videos and what methods they would employ to help the elementary students learn. Drawing on content taught earlier in the course, the preservice teachers developed in-depth design proposals to detail what videos they planned to create and the rationale for their instructional choices. These design proposals were shared with the elementary teachers for their feedback. The preservice teachers also created short “proof of concept” videos to serve as a test sample of their final videos. These “proof of concepts” were shared with the elementary students to assess their reactions to the planned delivery methods. The feedback from the elementary teachers and students informed the next instructional design phase. In the “development” phase, the preservice teachers utilized a variety of different technologies to create their instructional videos. The preservice teachers shared drafts with the elementary teachers who guided the revision and improvement of both the content delivery and methods of engagement in the videos. Besides creating videos, the preservice teachers also developed worksheets to engage students while they watched the videos. Once the videos and worksheets were completely revised and edited, the final versions were shared with the elementary students. This marked the beginning of the “implementation” phase of the project. In this phase, the elementary students watched the videos and completed the worksheets. The preservice teachers also returned to the schools to observe post-video lessons taught by the elementary teachers. In the final “evaluation” phase of the project, the elementary teachers shared anonymized assessment data from the students. To evaluate the project, the preservice teachers analyzed the data and made recommendations for the next iteration of the project. The elementary teachers returned to the college classroom where the preservice teachers gave formal presentations outlining areas for growth for the project. This information then fed into the next iteration of the project for the preservice teachers enrolled in the instructional technology course the following semester.

151

 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow

Table 1. Project phases aligned with TPACK areas of development Project phase

Timeframe

Major activities

TPACK areas of development

Preface

2 weeks

Examine concepts of multimedia principles, Universal Design for Learning, copyright laws, flipped learning and 21st Century Skills

PK, TK

Analysis

2 weeks

Analyze curriculum, student learning needs and instructional methods

CK, PK

Design

2 weeks

Synthesize introductory concepts as applied to learning environment and learners, Share proofs of concepts with students

TCK, TPK, TPACK

Development

4 weeks

Create videos and lessons that build student understanding

TK, TCK, TPK, TPACK

Implementation

2 weeks

Share videos and observe lessons modeled by elementary teachers

CK, PK

Evaluation

2 weeks

Examine student assessment data and make recommendations for project improvement

CK, PK,

Looking across the entire semester, each phase of the project fostered different development across the TPACK. By examining the activities within the semester-long project, the areas of TPACK development become clear.

Impact on Preservice Teachers’ TPACK To examine the impact on the preservice teachers’ TPACK development, the college students completed the Survey of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology developed by Schmidt et al. (2009). The survey contains 46 discrete Likert-style questions examining all seven knowledge types identified by Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009). For example, to assess participants’ technology knowledge, the survey asks participants to rate their ability to solve their own “technical problems” and their ability to “learn technology easily.” The survey has been widely used to study TPACK development in preservice teachers and its validity and reliability has been previously established (Schmidt et al, 2009). Considering these factors, the Survey of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology was an ideal tool to examine the knowledge development of the teacher candidates participating in our problem-based classroom project. A pre-test was given at the start of the semester before the project began. The post-test was given at the end of the semester after students had completed their final evaluation presentations with teachers. Across two semesters (Fall 2013 & Spring 2014), 55 students participated in the TPACK-developing project and completed the pre- and post-test surveys. Overall, the results indicate that there were significant increases between the participating preservice teachers pre- and post-test means for several of the TPACK areas. While technological knowledge (TK) growth was not significant, the change in the other six knowledge types showed some degree of significance. For instance, while the participants did not show an increase in knowing a lot of different technologies (TK), they did show a significant increase in their knowledge of using technology to teach (TPK). The participants also show significant growth in technological content knowledge (TCK) which demonstrates they have an understanding of how technology can be used to have learners interact with

152

 Preparing Next Generation Elementary Teachers for the Tools of Tomorrow

Table 2. T-test results for pre- and post-test mean score for TPACK subscales TPACK subscale

Pretest: M (SD)

Posttest: M (SD)

p value

TK (6 items)

3.49 (0.592)

3.62 (0.733)

0.072

CK     Mathematics     (3 items)     Literacy     (3 items)     Social Studies     (3 items)     Science     (3 items)

3.72 (0.717) 3.97 (0.615) 3.38 (0.767) 3.38 (0.598)

3.85 (0.652) 4.19 (0.513) 3.56 (0.740) 3.57 (0.696)

0.045* 0.007* 0.079 0.021*

PK (7 items)

3.86 (0.417)

4.10 (0.546)

0.000**

PCK (4 items)

3.57 (0.472)

3.86 (0.600)

0.000**

TCK (4 items)

3.1 (0.686)

3.86 (0.600)

0.000**

TPK (9 items)

3.64 (0.660)

4.17 (0.517)

0.000**

TPACK (4 items)

3.37 (0.453)

3.55 (0.502)

0.018*

*p Would [people] who listened on radio think a different person won (than a person who watched on TV)? #hsgovchat.”

Despite Curt’s engagement with Twitter, he does not push students to adopt this social medium as he has seen mixed reactions to Twitter from students in previous years. Yet his use aligns with his overall philosophy—helping students develop real world understandings of Twitter’s power: I think that it’s very appropriate, in a government class, to learn how Twitter works because Twitter has become a huge part of politics. . . . When a story breaks, it’s often framed, I think, early on by Twitter. I want my students to understand that Twitter is a very powerful tool in politics right now.

189

 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter

In general, technology has notably impacted Curt’s ability to teach in an adaptive manner that accommodates breaking news. Beyond bringing news directly into his classroom, Curt acknowledges that Twitter has shaped his practice. Recalling his first years teaching, when there was only one other government teacher in his school, he remarked, “Yeah, I think it’s just no question that . . . I was teaching much more in isolation.” Now, access to other government teachers as well as professionals in related fields, such as a law professor who recently began participating, has grown dramatically: When I look at the #hsgovchat hashtag, I’m basically entering a virtual faculty room of government teachers. . . . It keeps me on my toes, like being exposed to what’s going on. So it’s really about my own professional development in terms of being up to date. Although for Curt, “seeing what’s going on” does not always lead to change, even though he appreciates having his assumptions challenged: “It’s good for me to be challenged. I might not adopt [other Twitter users] ideas, but from time to time I will. So it’s just good for me to be exposed to that.” Being on Twitter and engaging with other government teachers represents Curt’s own form of learner-centered professional development. He chooses what content to engage with and adapts materials to his needs and practice. As a leader in the #hsgovchat community, he administered a member survey to assess the effectiveness and impact of the community. In response, the group has shifted toward a more studentcentered orientation, including more opportunities for students to participate in weekly chats and more guest moderators throughout the year. For Curt, Twitter offers a window to the world beyond his classroom and school, a genuine professional community that serves as a means to enrich course content as well as his teaching practice. While his love of the AP Government curriculum drives his teaching, Twitter and related technologies allow Curt to translate that love into an increasingly learner-centered classroom, where students connect what they learn in class to the world beyond.

Stacey Erikson: “Whose Story Are We Really Not Getting?” Asked to describe her teaching philosophy Stacey Erickson responds without hesitation: “Students are first and foremost, the priority.” As a U.S. History and Criminal Law teacher, this ever present priority informs her thinking about course content, pedagogy, and assessment and is manifest in her unwavering commitment to according students both voice and choice in her classroom (AUTHOR, 2005) while insisting on authenticity in every aspect of her teaching. In terms of voice, Stacey is unequivocal, “I focus a lot on student voice . . . throughout all of the work that I’ve done in education.” Elaborating, Stacey continued: [I]t’s really important for students to be able to speak individually for themselves in their education. But it’s also important for me to feel like I’m hearing students collectively in my classroom and it’s not just me regurgitating and giving them information. Inherent in her comment is a recognition of students as empowered partners in learning and valued members of a community that honors all voices (Doyle, 2011). Deeply believing that students’ desire content relevant to their lives, Stacey uses professional learning networks on Twitter to access relevant topics, resources, and activities. The previous school year offered a clear instance: 190

 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter

[R]elevant things were happening—from the Boston Marathon bombing case to Ferguson to protests to ‘Black Lives Matter’ . . . that were converging both in U.S. history and criminal law where you could highlight so many different examples of, “Okay, here’s the historical origin of this issue.” These examples offer a sense for Stacey’s social justice orientation and desire to not only honor student voice but to acknowledge historical and contemporary events, issues and figures often marginalized by mainstream media and textbooks, in essence, giving voice to historically silenced points of view: “What are we not reading about? What are we not hearing about? Whose story are we really not getting? And why is that?” Providing “space and time” for students to discuss events, issues, and individuals disenfranchised by mainstream media does mean that some aspects of her curriculum receive less coverage. In Stacey’s classes not only do students have a valued and validated voice but they are entrusted to make choices that impact their development as independent, competent, and reflective learners. By framing lessons to encourage choice, Stacey aims to promote student ownership of learning while preparing them for the rigor and responsibility of college academics. In some cases, “choice” transforms classroom dynamics, as students assume responsibility for other students’ learning (Schiro, 2013). With these goals in mind, this year she instituted “weekly seminars,” a day devoted to discussing collectively determined topics, when students choose an article, anecdote or news story related to the topic and facilitate related discussions. By entrusting students with these responsibilities, Stacey aims to equip them for college by enriching not only their discussion skills but imbuing them with a sense of responsibility for their own and others’ learning. For Stacey, voice and choice offer a means to ensure that students experience “meaningful learning” as well as personally and practically relevant outcomes. Indeed, these everyday, overarching objectives shape all other objectives in Stacey’s classes, leading her to pose questions on Twitter even experienced teachers find easy to avoid, such as: “What are [students] getting out of this that actually is relevant or makes sense to them or that they can make connections to?” In planning lessons Stacey considers such questions, leading her to be “much more intentional” about lesson content and pedagogy by according priority to student needs and interests. In her commitment to authenticity Stacey aims to prepare students for the challenges of college. As she recently tweeted, “Talking to former students reminds me how wide the preparedness gap between high school and college can be for many [students].” Because she teaches upperclassmen she seeks to equip students with “more authentic skills for their next steps in college” which includes taking ownership and responsibility of their learning. Feedback from respected colleagues as well as students has encouraged her to embrace learner-centered practices described above. According to Stacey, when “teachers who have been teaching for upwards of twenty-five years, people who you really respect, say that you’re like one of the top teachers in the department, you’re like, ‘Woo! That’s pretty cool!’” Not only has Stacey’s ascension as a highly effective teacher garnered praise from colleagues, but her use of Twitter to generate student-centered learning inspired two colleagues, the department chair and a first-year teacher, to create their own Twitter accounts. Feedback from students has also motivated Stacey’s student-centered approach. As she observed, students often say they looked forward to her class, that she “was the teacher they felt was really listening to them.” Along these lines, shortly after a recent class, a student wrote: “[@MsErikson] the seminar was fun today! Looking forward to more. Arguing against what you believe in is quite different!” Occasionally, student affirmations are reinforced by actions that confirm her impact. Recently, a former student tweeted, “Hey, I picked criminal law as my major because of your class.” Stacey replied, “That’s 191

 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter

awesome!” Stacey’s student-centered approach to teaching is supported by her students and feedback from her colleagues in school and on Twitter.

Michael Stevens: “Some Just Need a Different Canvas to Paint On” After teaching history for 20 years in three different schools and several alternative programs, including a prison, Michael began his first year as a social studies department chair in fall 2014. Continually seeking to personalize historical content for students, his interest in finding more effective and engaging approaches to teaching motivated his initial exploration of Twitter networks. Fully intending to seek out people, ideas, and resources that help him develop further as an educator, Michael’s use of Twitter has continued: “When it comes to professional development and Twitter, you have to go where you grow.” Michael’s appreciation for student-centered instruction began, largely from working in “alternative” high school contexts with disaffected students: [W]hat [students] are naturally interested in and their personal narrative of history . . . are my access points for connecting them with what goes on. . . . And they will customize [history] to their understanding of the world. And I can get so much more from them if they do that. Drawing on this notion, Michael strives to make his teaching relevant to students’ lives: [I] make a promise: If [students] can ever argue that the lesson I am teaching is meaningless and will never help them in their life, and I can’t prove that it does, I’ll stop class and they can have a free day. Initially, Michael “consumed” what Twitter offered: “[P]eople had stuff and I got on there and I was taking.” Over time, his orientation shifted—from gaining ideas and support for teaching to philosophical matters, like “due dates” and “learning objectives”: “[B]efore Twitter I was all about the due date. . . . [Now] I have students work on something three weeks old because they go back and they still care”. Michael’s assessments also shifted toward authentic, student-centered practices that offered explicit support for student achievement: [A]ssessment used to be. . . . chapter quizzes and unit tests. . . . If all we measure is how people test, then there is some beautiful kid who is really smart who will never test well and we are just telling them that they are stupid. And they’re not. They just need a different canvas to paint on. For Michael, teachers in his Twitter network helped initiate this shift: It’s so much easier for me to differentiate and to modify my plan based upon individual classroom needs, because I have such a wide variety of options. I feel like Twitter gave me decades worth of experience. In part, meaning and ownership of their work now comes from students knowing they will share their research with fellow students:

192

 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter

[W]hat I want my classrooms to do right now is not just create the learning. I want them to consume it. . . . It’s a community that created a meaningful product and consumed them. And then, if we are really awesome, the rest of the world can consume them too. In fact, his occurred for one student whose Youtube video, a dialogue between Adam Smith and Karl Marx, recently exceeded 100,000 views: [W]e are here two-and-a-half years later, and it just won’t stop. . . . [I]t’s not just the pinnacle when they share that’s awesome. . . . [M]y pinnacle is when years have passed and the work that happened in my class is still relevant. As he welcomes challenges to his thinking, seeing them as an opportunity for growth, it is interesting to follow how student resistance to a new project ultimately led to a better product: I did a project for my government class. . . . a “Three Branches of Government” project. And then one student . . . didn’t do it right. . . . But it was so much better than what I had asked them to do! So the next semester I did a “What Matters to Me” project and I had so much more involvement . . . . And then I told him I was changing the project to be what he did. And he was blown away. When asked, “How do you determine which ideas you find on Twitter that you will implement?” Michael described a free-wheeling approach to teaching and learning, with attention to student choice and voice balanced with respect for students’ well-being: I try everything I can. . . . [But] without some stability and order, it’s upsetting to students. So what you have to do is gauge your classes and determine what new things they can handle. . . . . I try as much as I can, so long as it doesn’t interfere with my students’ growth and comfort and security. Michael explicitly credits Twitter with “making me more student-centered,” allowing for student choice in how they learn and what they learn: [I]ndividual students can construct expressions of learning. . . . And I definitely think that when a student has to choose the mode of expression, that mode of expression is almost always catered to their personality. . . . So it’s student-centered in the work they produce. It’s student-centered in content delivery. But it’s also student-centered in differentiation. Eventually, Michael hopes to shift even more choice to students: “I’d really like to get to the point where I say, ‘Here’s the topics that we are doing. What would be a project that would demonstrate this learning objective?’ And then I want them to create the task.” Interestingly, Michael has adapted aspects of his Twitter experience and applied it to his current work as department chair: A coworker of mine at the start of this year said, “Michael, here is what you do differently that makes you a powerful addition to our staff . . . . You network more than anyone we’ve had work here” . . . . I took a process that works on Twitter and folded it into a personal process of networking.

193

 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter

As Michael readily admits, Twitter has enriched his professional growth, connecting him with online colleagues who provide resources and ideas, enriching how he conceptualizes teaching and learning toward increasingly student-centered approaches, offering a mechanism for motivating faculty in his department to accord students greater input into their lessons, and serving as a metaphor for understanding interactions within his new school setting.

DISCUSSION Twitter as a Learner-Centered Phenomenon Examining the interactive nature of the Twitter experience reveals that in many respects this social medium is an inherently student-centered learning phenomenon, allowing four social studies teachers to identify and interact with educators they selected and who shared similar interests at times of their choosing. In essence, educators experienced a learning environment that reflected many aspects of the student-centered teaching promoted in their classrooms—with an emphasis on choice, voice, and personal relevance. As common themes emerged among these participants, ordering those themes on a continuum revealed that student-centered learning looked different with different teachers, largely dependent on context, content, and teaching philosophy. For Rachel and Curt, the AP teachers, course content mediated both what they taught, with a sense of urgency to cover relevant content. Conversely, Stacy and Michael had considerable freedom with their curricula, allowing them to create more student-centered classrooms without the oversight common to core or advanced placement courses. Teachers also had differing goals for students’ learning, though all were committed to authentic instructional and assessment practices (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993). Rachel sought to maximize student achievement on the AP exam, thereby giving students a head start on their college education. Her student-centered practices were limited by restrictions on time and the teacher’s perceived role as conduit for learning: “I think that if you put [the learning] completely on the kids you are not going to get them to pass the test.” Curt had similarly high expectations but integrated Twitter into his teaching to provide students with a real world grasp of how the U.S. political system operates. In contrast, while Michael and Stacey intend to prepare students for higher education, they believe learning should have broader implications for students’ lives. Stacey regularly sacrificed content coverage to allow for conversations around topics that matter to students. For instance, she described a lesson on myths and misconceptions of Native Americans using the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins’ name as a forum for discussion: I wanted to make sure all of their opinions were heard. So, I had them post their ideas on [the class website] as a discussion . . . for homework, so that we can wrap it up tomorrow. For Michael, learning is an individual experience, so course content must connect to students’ lives. I used to think learning is lockstep. Everyone gets to the same place in the same way. And now I realize that learning is an intensely personal experience. . . . If you do not tie historical learning into your own personal historical narrative, you don’t really possess that history.

194

 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter

Each participant also sought feedback to inform future teaching, thereby revealing a commitment to understanding student needs and interests as critical to learner-centered lessons. Traditionally, Rachel relied on multiple-choice tests and essays to assess student learning though she recently included class discussions of study guides to illuminate areas of course content requiring additional attention. Curt engaged with students on Twitter where he observed their interactions with discussions and debates, using that understanding to adjust course content. He also sought feedback from Twitter colleagues to identify current issues and resources for classroom use. Stacey took a more direct approach, regularly asking students for feedback “in terms of the way we do things and in terms of the way that they are interacting with, not only the material and the way that it’s presented, but also each other.” Consequently, Stacey credits Twitter with her becoming a more reflective, learner-centered teacher: “I definitely evaluate a lot of things about my teaching practice that I probably wouldn’t have had it not been for Twitter.” Feedback from Twitter colleagues also proved valuable in her first years of teaching as she came to realize, “I guess I don’t suck.” Through using authentic assessments of varied sources Michael discerned students’ strengths and weaknesses with historical and political analysis. Complementing this skill, Michael credited Twitter with enriching his teaching repertoire, which translated into greater student-centered instruction: “I have way more instructional practices that yield a wider variety of educational outcomes. And I can be incredibly flexible for my students.” When teachers embrace student-centered learning practices they seem to end up knowing a great deal about students, and caring about them. By creating social support for student learning—monitoring online communications, promoting positive classroom interactions, and soliciting student feedback— these educators made students feel safe in their classrooms. When teachers know students as learners, they appreciate them as people. And students become engaged in their work.

Twitter, Empowerment, and New Networks In many respects Twitter has proven to be empowering for these social studies teachers. As seen in the case studies, they identified valued colleagues, received teaching resources, encountered new instructional practices, and had their professional skills validated—all of which enriched their teaching effectiveness and relations with students. Not only has Twitter been empowering but, to varying degrees, all four reached into multiple professional networks as a means to expand their impact and subsequently, the prominence of student-centered learning. Rachel directs and organizes #psychat and presents at national conferences with other #psychat members. She also contributes ideas and reflections on her teaching to a psychology teachers’ website while directly supporting novice psychology teachers who request assistance through Twitter. Because he sought a more extensive forum for expressing ideas, Curt created his own website for U.S. government teachers, #hsgovchat. This site allows him to reach out to other teachers and their students in an effort to learn from them and engage them with the real world of U.S. politics. Likewise, Stacey not only contributes to her online community but she has brought her department chair and firstyear colleague into the Twitter community. And Michael has been a longtime participant on various Twitter sites, a director of related professional development throughout the U.S., and he now aims to help his faculty embrace student-centered practices as well as Twitter-based opportunities. Through their work on Twitter, these teachers have enriched various professional networks, a noteworthy outcome given the power of networks to effect change through the communication they generate (Moolenar & Sleegers, 2010). In their comprehensive study of Dutch schools Moolenar and Sleegers (2010) spoke to this very idea: “[T]he extent to which organizations are able to innovate depends in 195

 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter

part on the social links with the organizational units, as well as the links outside the organization” (p. 97), precisely what all four participants enacted, links with school-based colleagues, online colleagues, and students. Now, as Moolenar and Sleegers found, there is a possibility of creating trusting relationships and laying a foundation for creativity and innovation: “It is this willingness to be vulnerable and engage in risk taking with multiple others in the organization that appears important for the creation of new knowledge and practices” (p. 111). And for these four educators, “new knowledge and practices” did emerge.

CONCLUSION Implications for Teacher Learning Over one hundred years ago, John Dewey challenged the traditional role of students in the classroom: “The child’s own instincts and powers furnish the material and give the starting point for all education” (1897, p. 77). Today, educators continue wrestling with the degree to which students should shape their own learning. Shifting teacher practice from a more traditional approach to one highlighting student voice and choice requires substantive and ongoing support. In these case studies teachers found a virtual community, Twitter, that embraced and promoted student-centered teaching, while in the process embodying this very learning style. Though the current emphasis on high-stakes, standardized assessments and mandated curricula present a challenge to advocates of student-centered learning, as this research suggests, educators may find that Twitter communities offer support they need to work toward a new vision for their students, their schools, and their own learning.

REFERENCES Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007028 Ayers, W., Klonsky, M., & Lyon, G. (Eds.). (2000). A simple justice: The challenge of small schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Beane, J. A. (2013). Common Core of a Different Sort: Putting Democracy at the Center of the Curriculum. Middle School Journal, 44(3), 6-14. Berger, R., Rugen, L., & Woodfin, L. (2014). Leaders of their own learning: Transforming schools through student-engaged assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: Educational triage and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268. doi:10.3102/00028312042002231 Carpenter, J., & Krutka, D. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 414–434. doi:10.1080/15391523.2014.925701 Cho, V., Ro, J., & Littenberg-Tobias, J. (2013). What Twitter will and will not do: Theorizing about teachers’ professional communities online. Learning Landscapes, 6(2), 45–62.

196

 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter

Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X031004003 Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77–80. Doyle, T. (2011). Learner-centered teaching: Putting the research on learning into practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Forte, A., Humphreys, M., & Park, T. (2012). Grassroots professional development: How teachers use Twitter.Proceedings of the Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, (pp. 106-113). Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor & Francis. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Giroux, H. A. (1996). Hollywood, race, and the demonization of youth: The “kids” are not “alright”. Educational Researcher, 25(2), 31–35. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hemmings, A. (2012). Urban high schools: Foundations and possibilities. New York: Routledge. Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572. doi:10.1177/0011000097254001 Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2005). Learning to lead in communities of practice. In Teacher leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lock, J. (2006). A new image: Online communities to facilitate teachers’ professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663–678. Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2014). Twitter as a tool to promote community among language teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(2), 187–212.

197

 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter

Margeson, A. (2015). High School English and Speech: People First, Things Second. In B. Nave (Ed.), Student-centered learning: Nine classrooms in action (pp. 179–201). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagned audience. New Media & Society, 20(10), 1–20. McCombs, B., & Whisler, J. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. London: Routledge. Moolenar, N. M., & Sleegers, J. C. (2010). Social networks, trust, and innovation: The role of relationships in supporting an innovative climate in Dutch schools. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 97–114). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Nave, B. (2015). Student-centered learning: Nine classrooms in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1993). Five Standards of Authentic Instruction. Educational Leadership, (April): 8–12. Noble, A., McQuillan, P., & Littenberg-Tobias, J. (2016). “A lifelong classroom”: Social studies educators’ engagement with professional learning networks on Twitter. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2(24), 187–213. Palmer, P. (1997). The heart of a teacher. Change, 29(November/December), 14–21. doi:10.1080/00091389709602343 Rallis, S. F. (1995). Creating learner-centered schools: Dreams and practices. Theory into Practice, 34(4), 224–229. doi:10.1080/00405849509543684 Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting “The Culture of the Schools and the Problem of Change”. New York: Teachers College Press. Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Los Angeles: Sage. Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Slavit, D., Nelson, T. H., & Deuel, A. (2013). Teacher groups conceptions and uses of student-learning data. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 8–21. doi:10.1177/0022487112445517 Smith Crocco, M., & Costigan, A. T. (2006). High-stakes teaching: Whats at stake for teachers (and students) in the age of accountability. New Educator, 2(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/15476880500486061 Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

198

 The Emergence of Student-Centered Teaching in Professional Learning Networks on Twitter

Stanton-Salazar, R., & Dornbusch, S. (1995). Social capital and the social reproduction of inequality: The formation of informational networks among Mexican-origin students. Sociology of Education, 68, 103–124. doi:10.2307/2112778 Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wesley, P. M. (2013). Investigating the Community of Practice of World Language Educators on Twitter. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 305–318. doi:10.1177/0022487113489032 Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Yin, R. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Authentic Assessment: The meaningful measure of student growth that includes student voice in the assessment process. Professional Development: Learning opportunities that expand teachers’ professional knowledge. Social Media: Computer-mediated websites and tools that allow users to communicate and produce information and products. Social Support for Learning: A classroom context developed by the teacher infused with mutual respect, where all students feel valued by their teacher and peers. Student-Centered Learning: Pedagogy that emphasizes the active role of the student in construction of the learning. Teacher-As-Coach: Teachers orientation that includes an awareness and commitment to students’ academic and emotional well-being. Teacher Networks: Formal or informal systems of teacher interactions by which teachers can communicate and collaborate with colleagues.

199

200

Chapter 11

Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children Charlene Marie Jones Wayne State University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter contains information found in literature surrounding online education in K-12 settings. It offers a description of the terminology, a brief history and evolution of online education, issues with the use of online education, and influences supporting online tool usage. Despite support for online tools in K-12 settings, empirical research shows discouraging results related to such usage. Considering this discrepancy, this chapter suggests that implementation of online tools be executed by an informed user. Thus, it is necessary to acquire a clear understanding of the terminology and characteristics of online tool delivery before implementation. Also, educators are to be aware of student’s and teacher’s learning and teaching experiences online to be able to offer an optimum educational setting. Being cognizant of participant’s exposure to online programs can provide helpful suggestions, like the importance of parental involvement, the relevance of socialization for learning, and the influence of literacy in promoting a stable foundation for successful implementation.

INTRODUCTION This chapter is relevant for stakeholders in K-12 online educational settings. The growth of terminology surrounding online education is synonymous with its rapid technological advances. Thus, to be informed users, stakeholders are to be familiar with how the terms relate to each other for the purpose of choosing appropriate online tools, or researching and comparing online tools. As a result, terms will be defined using descriptions found in the literature that will in turn be used to convey an understanding of the history, growth, interests, issues and recommendations encompassing online education. Efficient and effective implementation requires that stakeholders be knowledgeable about all information pertaining to online education. Hence, knowledge of online tool usage in daily activities does not guarantee an DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch011

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

effortless transition to teaching practices and learning modalities. The chapter focuses on this issue and others advocating for awareness of tools used in online education.

BACKGROUND Terms Associated with Online Learning Educators may be confused with online learning if they are unfamiliar with its common terms. Distance education is the overarching category that encapsulates terms prominent in the educational technological field. Its definition refers to technology being used to deliver content to support learning when a teacher is not physically present. Learner and teacher are separated by space and in some cases time (Southern Regional Education Board, 2012; Waters, Barbour, & Menchaca, 2014). Online learning refers to receiving digital content via the Internet to support learning. In this chapter, online learning will be interchangeably used with e-learning and virtual learning (Staker & Horn, 2012). K-12 online learning is derived from the term distance learning where the online practices are for elementary and secondary students (Waters et al., 2014). Online tools are either teacher-centered (where teachers have control over access – when, where, and what) or learner-centered (where a student controls access – when, where, and what) (Yusuf & Al-Banawi, 2013). These two types can be further enhanced with the terms synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous learning is planned or arranged access to content at a specific time. Synchronous learning can be arranged by the teacher. Supplemental online programs and tutorials are used as synchronous online tools (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Some online tools used for planned interaction are video chat, blogs, or e-mail. Barbour and Reeves (2009) provided the following example of using technological tools in a synchronous manner. Using a whiteboard, a teacher delivers a lecture-style lesson of content to students who do not have to be in the same room as the teacher. Students interact with the teacher and class by providing comments or questions using audio or text-based tools during the lesson delivery or at a specified time. Asynchronous learning implies anytime, anywhere access. It lends itself to being more learner-centered. Within this type of online use, asynchronous learning can be separated into dependent or independent categories. An independent asynchronous setting requires that students work alone. In most cases, students in this setting are not in a brick-and-mortar school structure; they could be at home or any place of their choosing. Dependent asynchronous tool use is when a student has access anytime, anywhere to content and information. However, a teacher of record (a teacher or manager responsible for monitoring the student’s learning on an academic task, usually associated with a performance measure) provides student support. The hybrid model suggested by Waters et al. (2014) is an example of a dependent asynchronous model, where a monitor or teacher interacts with students to provide assistance while the student controls anytime, anywhere access. This model fits within the blended learning model and could be situated in a brick-and-mortar school. Seen as combining the best of both online learning and traditional face-to-face learning, blended learning is an alternative model. This model has students attending a brick-and-mortar structure for courses with a teacher who delivers content using traditional face-to-face school practices with controlled content and delivery. Some of the time, students control time, place, and pace when they work asynchronously online (Southern Regional Education Board, 2012; Waters et al., 2014). Blended learning has the fol201

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

lowing four models: Rotation (Station, Lab, Flipped, and Individual), Flex, A-La-Carte, or Enriched Virtual (Staker & Horn, 2012). In this chapter, virtual schools and cyber schools will be used interchangeably, where both provide instruction via online learning using technological tools (Marsh, Carr-Chellman, & Sockman, 2009). Virtual schools are typically managed by school districts or state educational agencies. They provide online supplemental programs for students already in programs situated in brick-and-mortar structures. Cyber schools, also known as online charter schools, are governed by state charter school regulations and are publicly funded. Students in this type of school are not completing coursework in a brick-andmortar school setting; they are attending a full-time online school where all content is delivered online while students are at home or in a preferred location. This type of program uses primarily asynchronous methods, but some homeschooling and traditional schooling practices can be used (Waters et al., 2014). Barbour (2009) equates the cyber school experience with the original correspondence courses from the 19th century. Figure and Figure 2 show the terms described in this section as they relate to each other. Once again, knowing the terminology in the field of online learning is relevant to researching and choosing suitable online tools and programs for students and educators. Figure 2. Blended learning models

202

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

Figure 1. Types of educational delivery

History As early as the 19th century, students were learning from teachers who were not physically in the same space at the same time. Distance learning was employed when students were receiving an education by correspondence via mail (Russell, 2004; Barbour, 2009). With the advancement of telecommunication devices, options for distance learning increased. By the 20th century, distance learning was delivered to students via radio and television (Barbour, 2009; Russell, 2004). Virtual schools emerged at the end of the 20th century and were seen as schools that used “… online computers to provide some or all of a student’s education” (Russell, 2004, p. 3).

Expansion In 1997, the following two virtual schools emerged: Florida Virtual School (FLVS) and Virtual High School (VHS). After several years, virtual schools were established in Florida, Utah and New Mexico. Three more were pending in Michigan, Illinois, and Kentucky. By 2001, at least 14 states had or were planning virtual schools for approximately 40,000 to 50,000 students (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). During the same year, 30 states had more than 50 charter and public schools with online programs. From 2002–2003, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that “… 36 percent of all school districts in the U.S. had students participating in virtual learning of some kind and that a total of 325,000 students were enrolled in online learning courses and virtual schools” (Revenaugh, 2006, p. 63). Only 3% of the students enrolled in distance learning courses were elementary and middle school students, while 68% of the students were in high school (Revenaugh, 2006). In 2007, Picciano and Seamen (2012) estimated that there were approximately 700,000 students enrolled in an online course. “In 2009–2010, elementary and secondary students took approximately 1.8 million courses online” (Barth, Hull, & St Andrie, 2012, p. 1). Within a year, transition from individual

203

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

online courses to full-time online courses was significant enough to document growth. In 2010–2011, approximately 250,000 students enrolled in full-time virtual schools, an increase of 50,000 from the previous year. In November 2011, NCES reported that 55% of public school districts in the U.S. enrolled students in distance learning courses (Barth et al., 2012; Southern Regional Education Board, 2012). A 2011–2012 report from Evergreen Education Group estimated that nearly 275,000 students in the U.S. attended full-time online schools across 31 states and the District of Columbia (Hanover Research, 2013). As reported by Watson, Pape, Murin, Gemin, and Vashaw (2014), “…in its most recent report on the status of online schooling for the K-12 sector in the U.S., Evergreen Consulting predicted that growth of online charter schools was slowing” (Waters et al., 2014, p. 380). But despite the seemingly shifting trend of online schooling’s growth, there remains interest in its use in education.

Who is Interested? Why? Some of the entities advocating for states and districts to increase virtual offerings are the educational technological community, major education think tanks, school choice advocates, home school advocates, online learning providers, and software companies (Barth et al., 2012). The reasons for the push vary among interested groups. Online schooling advocates in Michigan, New Mexico, and Alabama require that students take an online course or have online experience in order to graduate from high school (Barbour, 2009; Barbour & Reeves, 2009). This type of requirement will not only increase the number of students taking an online course in high school, but it will also increase the number in lower grades since districts might consider introducing students earlier to prepare them for high school experiences. “The future growth of online learning enrollment will likely be in the elementary and in the middle school grades as students begin to take online courses earlier ... ” (Southern Regional Education Board, 2012, p. 7). This exposure to online courses can help to prepare students for the increased demand of technology use in education and in industry. Parents and students also show interests in online options. Some studies reveal that families choose virtual schools to accommodate children that are learning disabled, have health issues (Boss, 2011; Russell, 2004), live in rural areas (Barbour & Plough, 2009; Boss, 2011; Russell, 2004), have concerns with safety within traditional school settings, are employed, are athletes (Barbour & Plough, 2009; Boss, 2011), desire scheduling flexibility (Barbour & Plough, 2009; Boss 2011), or need more personal attention (Boss, 2011). Business-type influences can encourage schools and organizations to have interest in adopting online tools. As an example, in California, schools offering part-time online courses did not receive funding. To ensure a steady stream of funds Clovis Unified School District became a full-time online charter school (Waters, 2011). Once the school district created a full-time online school, funding sources provided monies for the school to offer the courses. In addition to funding incentives, some school districts have chosen to increase online course options due to the fast deployment and simple evaluation of the programs. Efficiency in activation and the potential for effective analysis are desired conditions for programs in organizations where the commencement and evaluation of programs are relevant (Yusuf & Al-Banawi, 2013). Another reason school districts promote online learning is to retain its student body. The more students enrolled in a school, the more likely those students will attend school on the very important “count days” where schools initially secure approximately 90% of their funding (Southern Regional Education Board,

204

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

2012). These schools have retained their student body by providing an online program conjointly with traditional face-to-face courses for students to advance, or take courses with low enrollment. Other schools maintain their student population by allowing failing students to take traditional faceto-face day-courses based on grade level. Then, these students make up previously failed courses during day or night school using an online program. The software accommodates various types of courses and does not rely on a highly-qualified instructor. In addition, if a student feels as if they cannot be successful in a traditional school setting, the school can provide students an option to remain in the district and enroll in an online program for all their courses. In this way, schools can minimize attrition and receive funding per student (Southern Regional Education Board, 2012). Russell (2004) offers other reasons online schooling will remain of interest. The first reason is globalization. Previously, students were given a paper bound textbook as a course resource. Now, students can access textbooks and an unlimited amount of information from anywhere in the world, at any time, online. The task of accessing and using an electronic textbook is analogous to daily use of technology for acquiring information in our lives. Technology has placed unlimited resources at our fingertips by the click of a button. It was inevitable that information acquisition would infiltrate education, allowing students the opportunity to access boundless material and information. Spatial and temporal boundaries melt away as the Internet brings information at your command. Accessing textbooks and additional resources online are skills expected from potential employees who live in an increasingly technological world (Russell, 2004). The second reason as to why online tool use is attractive is due to technological change (Russell, 2004). Information delivery is becoming faster. Infrastructures are equipped with updated equipment to increase band-width for faster connectivity. Communities are outfitted with fiber-optic cables to allow expansive, faster, and reliable access. Educators are inundated with commercials to switch to new providers that guarantee faster, more reliable internet service. School districts are upgrading buildings to grant schools the prospect of being able to participate in the technological revolution. In education, teachers and students will be able to quickly download a greater amount of data. This leads to the third influence for online tool use: internet capabilities becoming the norm (Russell, 2004). Plugging-in has become more affordable, easier, required, and expected. For example, standardized testing is being accessed and completed by students via the internet. Many schools are using electronic grade and attendance books for information acquisition and dissemination of student activity. With more people connecting to the internet, more reasons to do so will develop. Imagination, creativity and innovation will pave the way for the internet being necessarily accessible. A fourth reason for the growth of online tools is economic rationalism (Russell, 2004). This rationale allows for functions of a school to be run like a business. Time, information, access, funds, and other resources as commodities can be maximized given the proper resource. The internet and other online tools allow organizations to be smart consumers. In the corporation sector, mass training via the internet has been favored for allowing institutions, like banks, to save time and money (Yusuf & Al-Banawi, 2013). A fifth reason for the spread of online tool use is the fact that learning in a setting using online tools is a post-secondary education model (Russell, 2004). The demand to appease college readiness standards and prepare students for 21st-century jobs (globalization) is echoed throughout society from industry, philanthropists, educators, politicians, and the Common Core State Standards. In K-12 schools, online usage can provide an alternative for those with a negative perception of traditional face-to-face schools (Russell, 2004). If traditional face-to-face schools are seen as violent, or ineffective, the use of online

205

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

tools can provide students a preferred location or curriculum that is presumed to be more collegiate, orderly, and efficient.

Discouraging Results Promoters of high-quality online schools warn schools and those pushing for online use not to be too eager (Waters et al., 2014). “Good technology, curriculum, and accountability systems require significant investment” (Revenaugh, 2006, p. 64). The following items help to create a successful online program: a building infrastructure that is able to withstand multiple online users; schools with enough equipment; curriculum appropriate for the learner; and a school with the ability to measure the effectiveness of an online program. Cost savings, generating money, satisfying accountability requirements, society’s demand for individualism, and convenience should not shroud the need for proper teacher preparation in online settings. Teachers must have proper training to help them transition from traditional face-to-face settings to online settings (Revenaugh, 2006). As reported by Waters et al. (2014), audit reports of Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Arizona school systems showed that students reading proficiency dropped from 58% to 51% when moved from a traditional face-to-face school to an online charter school. Waters et al. (2014) cited an article from the New York Times that stated 60% of the students in an online charter school were behind in math. In the same school, 50% were behind in reading, as compared to the state’s data. Waters et al. (2014) also cited an article from the Washington Post that reported online charter schools in Ohio and Colorado had lower on-time graduation rates as compared to state data. This was supported by Barth et al. (2012) when he stated that full-time K-12 online schools have lower graduation rates, course completion, and test scores. Miron and Gulosino (2015) stated the following: Overall, average on-time graduation rates remained much lower for virtual schools than for traditional public schools in the U.S.: only 43.05% of students at virtual high schools graduate on time, whereas the national average for all public high schools was more than double that: 74.7%. (p. 19). Using data from the Colorado Department of Education, Hubbard and Mitchell (2011) report that “… [o]nline schools produce three times as many dropouts as they do graduates. One of every eight online students drops out of school permanently – a rate four times the state average” (p. 2). In conclusion, distance learning is not a new phenomenon in education. Influences to continue incorporating online tools in learning settings persist in K-12 environments. Yet the data from K-12 settings show that online use has had low results.

DILEMMAS FOR ONLINE LEARNING Issues, Controversies and Problems How should online tools be incorporated into an educational setting? As mentioned, one must first know the terminology and the history of online education. Additionally, stakeholders must know what issues,

206

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

controversies, and problems can occur if online tools are implemented in an environment that lacks empirical research to support use, that misinterprets the terminology, and that has unprepared users.

Bulk of Research When online tools were introduced to K-12 settings, the bulk of the research on their use was from adult environments. “[H]istorically, the practice and research into distance education and online learning had been focused upon adult populations, such as those found in post-secondary institutions or the corporate training sector” (Barbour & Reeves, 2009, p. 410). The practice of misusing data, findings, or information from a group to inform on another group, as it pertains to online tool use, has occurred. For example, a meta-analysis paper from Patrick and Powell (2009) with the title “A Summary of Research on the Effectiveness of K-12 Online Learning” used 51 studies focused on online learning. However, 44 of the 51 studies focused on adult learners. “The U.S. Department of Education reviewed existing research and found a modest positive impact of online courses, but cautioned that the findings were based mostly on results for post-secondary students” (Barth et al.,2012, p. 1). This caution is essential; as with any learning program, the curriculum must be suitable for the students for whom it will be used. Russell (2004) referenced a 2001 report from Catherine S. Cavanaugh who recognized that the effectiveness of distance learning was well-documented for adult learners but not for students in elementary and secondary school settings. In the U.S., when states started offering distance learning programs to students in K-12 settings, in 2001, Catherine S. Cavanaugh stated “…very few had conducted formal evaluations” (as cited in Russell, 2004, p. 5). It appeared that one group’s successes were applied to a different group superseding the need to determine if the new group was prepared for the new learning environment. Evaluations should be used to determine if students are equipped to be successful in an online educational setting, and to determine if the program is effective.

Inconsistency Literature has stated that the evaluation of online programs has been a challenge. Comparing online students across states is difficult because academic standards and assessments differ. A standard evaluation process can be difficult even among schools in the same state. “Several attempts to document student performance have been thwarted by missing and incomplete data, lax monitoring rules, and a vague picture of student dropping in and out of the online environment and subsequently the accountability system” (Barth et al., 2012, p. 3). With states or schools not using a common language to refer to the type of online tool used, “...determining how many students are enrolled in virtual schools can be a problem as well” (Barth et al., 2012, p. 4). In addition to knowing what type of online tools are available, it is important to know what type of online tool best fits a learner.

Issues with Online Tools: Does One Size Fit All? Benefits of online tool use are accessibility, flexibility, and moderate financial investment for maintenance. However, there are disadvantages to using online tools. The idea that one solution should not be generalized for all can be applied to online learning environments (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Attrition can occur when an online learning opportunity is being used as an experiment or as a last resort for at-

207

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

risk students (Hubbard & Mitchell, 2011). Unfortunately, if the environment was not an appropriate fit, the student transferred out of the online setting (Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Hubbard & Mitchell, 2011). Another reason why an online learning environment is not a good choice for some students is that parents of the students are not able to monitor and help their children (Hubbard & Mitchell, 2011). In some online learning programs, parents are the academic coaches. Parents help teach, monitor, and manage the class. Therefore, the commitment to be involved in an online course is that of the students, teachers, and parent. “Two small-scale studies found positive effects for elementary students, suggesting that parental supervision could be an important factor” (Barth et al., 2012, p. 1). The benefits of offering an online learning opportunity cannot overshadow the need to make sure that students, parents, and teachers are able to be successful (Barbour, 2009). Students, parents, and teachers may use technology on a daily basis and feel comfortable with it. However, that does not mean that they have the interest, stamina, or pedagogy required for teaching or learning through online tools. Educational institutions should determine if students are suited for an online experience. Randy DeHoff, academy director of a blended learning high school, stated that “…online schools need to help students determine who is likely to succeed in an online learning environment” (Hubbard & Mitchell, 2011, p. 5). The Louisiana Virtual School and the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow developed a questionnaire for students to complete to determine suitability. The belief is that “... students must be carefully accessed before they commit to online education” (Russell, 2004, p.17). An article by Roblyer, Freeman, Donaldson, and Maddox (2007) asked students about their online experience as it compared to traditional experiences. Some important findings from over half of the participants revealed that they “... said virtual courses were difficult and were more challenging to keep up…” with (Roblyer et al., 2007, p. 265). In the same article, 68% of the students said that access to the teachers was limited. As mentioned, students should have an assessment to determine capability to be successful in an online environment (Barbour & Reeves, 2009), but it should be coupled with an interview of the students. This will allow students to express if the online experience is right for their learning style. Depending on the type of online method, communication among stakeholders can be diminished. Issues can be addressed and possibly eliminated with dedication to knowing the needs of students to be successful in online learning environments.

Inadequate Learning Environments Teachers found several issues when they moved between online and traditional face-to-face learning environments. First, teachers recognized the reduced occasions to communicate with students and for students to communicate with each other. Teachers also felt that student accountability was compromised (Lowes, 2008). Teachers must re-assess how and what to make students responsible for, which could be inadequate without the proper training and tools for the teacher. Another concern identified by teachers was the challenge of relying upon text to virtually communicate in order to determine if a student was confused about a topic. Student’s tone and mannerisms were not available as cues to assess comfort while learning during teaching. Various conditions, such as those below, could make an online learning environment inadequate for students. If a student is in an online course and it is not suited for their abilities, students could get confused about the course’s activities and deadlines (Yusuf & Al-Banawi, 2013). Yusuf and Al-Banawi (2013) suggest that students can feel disconnected from teacher and peers. For instance, the teacher may be unavailable when the student is in need of help. Access to the course materials via the internet 208

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

could be difficult with poor connectivity. Perhaps an inadequate online learning environment could be the result of an unqualified teacher being assigned to manage the course (Russell, 2004). The nature of a full-time online setting where students communicate remotely could conceal the use of an unqualified teacher to manage the course. Communication could be meager if teachers have large groups of students to manage in an online setting. Providing just in-time assessment via text can be challenging in this type of setting (Lowes, 2008). Students accustomed to receiving individual attention may experience a reduction of time with the teacher (Russell, 2004). “While the average ratio was appropriately 15 students per teacher in the nation’s public schools, virtual schools reported more than twice as many students per teacher” (Miron & Gulosino, 2015, p. 12). Patrick and Powell (2009) cited Cornelia Weiner who identified interaction as the principal difference between online and traditional face-to-face instruction; it is also one of the most important facets of the online setting. Participants in online learning environments still want meaningful relationships with peers and the teacher (Patrick & Powell, 2009). In a traditional face-to-face gathering, teachers can gain information about how students feel or how they comprehend concepts directly verbally or indirectly with interpretation of student’s mannerisms. Participants also value timely feedback (Lowes, 2008); it is ideal when teachers are available to students when questions arise. For teachers who believe in teaching more than just the content of their course (such as, communication skills, social etiquette, and respect), some online learning environments can be inadequate. Thus, it would be ideal to incorporate traditional face-to-face meetings with online courses. In a blended learning setting (online and traditional face-toface tool use) schools can provide more than just academics; they can deliver social good (Waters, 2011). The following section depicts an urban environment where blended learning was conveyed as the planned instructional model, but observation of the actual implementation of the model revealed an error in the interpretation of the delivery. Instead, an asynchronous online setting was implemented minus the face-to-face support. In addition, the principal did not see the benefits of students working in an online environment. Students felt as if the online software was not accommodating, and they desired the social aspect of learning and teaching. Both parties elected to abandon the exposure to online tool use in their educational setting.

Case Study: Misinterpretation and Improper Application of Blended Learning The setting for the case study is in an urban city known for years of neglect and abuse. It will be referred to as City A. It has suffered from White flight, disinvestment and racial segregation in housing and education. City A, which is majority Black, endures crime, lack of affordable decent housing, poverty, and unemployment. In 2014, about 39.3% of the residents were living below the poverty line (Bouffard, 2015). In January of 2015, City A had a 14.3% unemployment rate, while the state had a 6.6% unemployment rate and the nation a 5.7% unemployment rate (Homefacts, 2016). The answer for City A’s crisis was an emergency manager to help avoid or work through a financial emergency that would disrupt services to residents. In addition, a recovery school district (RSD) for City A’s school system, issued by the governor, was charged with the task of raising the achievement of the lowest performing schools in the state (Martusewicz, 2013). School B, under the recovery school district (RSD) located in City A, was the locale where data were collected for the case study. As implied with the appointment of an emergency manager and the need for a recovery school district (RSD), the city and its school district were in need of help to manage both the city and its schools. 209

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

Onboard Informatics (2015) provides the following information about School B, which is within the recovery school district (RSD) and is where observations of an online program and interviews occurred. School B is located in an urban community that is about 95% Black. As of 2012, the residents earned about $24,000 adjusted gross income as compared to an adjusted gross income of about $55,000 for the state. For those 25 and older, the unemployment rate was about 39%, which exceeded the rate for City A, the state, and the nation. In 2013, the community, where School B is located, had an estimated 41% of its residents below the poverty line, as compared to 17% for the entire state. There were 40% renters compared to 29% in the state. Provided by Great Schools (1998–2016), less than 10% of students were proficient on standardized tests assessing English language arts (ELA), reading, math, social studies, and science. The data provided show that the residents in the community, for which the students of School B reside, are poor, transient, and low-performing academically. The facts about this community surrounding School B convey that the residents fare the same or worse than those in the entire city. In order to help raise the achievement level of School B’s students, the recovery school (RSD) removed School B from public control. Next, some teachers employed by School B were fired and replaced by Teach for America employees (Martusewicz, 2013, 2014). The Rotational Model of Blended Learning was chosen as the curriculum model for the academic courses. An asynchronous online program was the primary mode of instructional delivery with the teacher of record managing the course. The software provided individualized and immediate responses to the needs of students based on results from assessments completed by the students after working through tutorials, and tasks for practice. The next day, the students were to receive a lesson using other learning modalities (direct instruction, tutoring, group work, projects, or presentations) lead by the teacher of record to cover the same content from the previous day. The observation of the Rotational Blended Learning Model for School B takes place a few years after its initial implementation. The model in use lacked the traditional face-to-face component. The students exposed to the learning model over the years showed no significant progress academically. Thus while under the RSD, the student’s performance in reading and math had not improved. The lack of progress could be due to improper implementation of the Rotational Blended Learning Model, lack of preparedness of the participants, illiteracy, or a disregard for participant’s interest in learning using online tools. If these issues are not addressed before implementation, the use of online tools can face obstacles. With the help of the principal at School B, the case study will focus on the exposure of the entering ninth grade students to the Rotational Blended Learning Model that the RSD provided and a traditional face-to-face model mathematics course offered by an independent organization. The study will examine which model is preferred and why. If students do not prefer the blended learning model, will some of the issue mentioned above be the reason for their decision? New to School B, but aware of the academic performance of the existing and entering students, the principal planned to launch an additional traditional face-to-face mathematics course coinciding with the curriculum provided by the RSD. All ninth graders in School B were enrolled in the additional traditional face-to-face mathematics class and the Rotational Blended Learning Model mathematics course for the first month in the 2014–2015 school year. Depending on the motivation of the students, and the quality of the restrictive software minimizing online surfing, teachers of record for the online courses spend considerable amounts of time managing behavior and encouraging students to stay on task. During the online course, teachers of record were directed to allow the asynchronous online tool to deliver the content and instructions; they were to monitor not teach. The next day of the blended learning course, where other learning modalities were to be used, did not focus on content that was covered on the previous day. On this day, content and instructions covered gaps in student knowledge identified on performance tasks. 210

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

Hence this day was disjoint from the online course and did not allow full class instruction to support the primary source of content and instruction delivery. The students worked independently and on disjoint topics from the previous day and from each other. In the additional course using a traditional face-to-face model, the students were exposed to a highlyqualified instructor. The course occurred daily with teacher and students dispensing knowledge of content and instructions. The curriculum was coherent and connected to the previous day’s lesson. The instruction style was very simple: students used paper and pencil; teacher used chalkboard or whiteboard; and students presented problems and understanding daily to the entire class. The teacher used lecture style delivery, which incorporated student interpretation and background knowledge. At the end of the first month of exposure to both classes, students were allowed to decide if they wanted to remain in both types of classes or drop the additional traditional face-to-face course. The students who chose to remain in the additional traditional face-to-face course (more than 65%) were required to complete a registration process, which involved completing an application and interview. The students choosing to remain in the traditional face-to-face course were asked two questions for their interview: 1. Do you understand the expectations of choosing to remain in the two types of courses? 2. Why are you choosing to remain in the additional traditional face-to-face mathematics course? Overwhelmingly, the students expressed frustration with the online portion of the Rotational Blended Learning Model stating that when they made a mistake the computer software asked them the wrong questions and they could not ask questions of the software (Field notes, 2014). The students revealed that they liked the idea of being able to ask questions to a real teacher. Some students stated that they felt smart in the traditional face-to-face course because they were allowed to share their understanding of the mathematics when participating in class discussion or demonstrating a problem to the class. Expressed by Diane Ravitch (2013), “[e]lectronic technology has its charms, but it can’t compete with the lively interest interchange of ideas that happens when students discuss a book they read or a math problem they wrestled with or a play they saw or an unresolved mystery in history or the most recent elections” (p. 180). Hence, missing interaction with peers and feeling as if they are heard motivated their choice to be a participant in the additional traditional face-to-face mathematics course. The analytic tool component of the interactive software used for the online course was able to adapt to what it interpreted as the student’s weaknesses. A topic that students struggled with became the focus of the software until a sufficient score on an assessment was acquired, pertaining to that concept. For students interviewed from School B, a quote by Ravitch (2013) seems appropriate: “Yet with all its great potential, technology can never substitute for inspired teaching” (p. 180). The students stated in their interview that they felt as if the software was misinterpreting their mistake and providing additional inadequate supplemental lessons meant to address their misinterpreted mistake. As supported by Roblyer et al., (2007), the students felt as if their misunderstanding would have been correctly identified with an actual teacher. To measure academic performance for the school year, the RSD planned for three performance assessments. All students completed the first performance assessment at the start of the school year. This data was used to identify gaps in knowledge and to provide worksheets per student for the other portion of the blended learning course, where other learning modalities were to be used. Towards the end of semester one, about 20 weeks into the school year, performance assessment two was administered. The principal reported to her mathematics staff that the only group to have shown comparative growth on the 211

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

mathematics portion was the students who participated in the additional traditional face-to-face mathematics course. The principal did not attribute the increase in performance to the students having two mathematics courses. On the contrary, she used the lack of growth for the students with the online course only to assume that the exposure to the additional traditional face-to-face course improved retention. Encouraged by the results, the principal proposed the transition from the blended model (asynchronous model as primary deliverer of content and instruction, and face-to-face instruction focus on closing academic gaps) to the traditional face-to-face model. The principal was motivated by the students expressing that they learned mathematics and felt smarter, as well as the results from the performance tasks from those that experienced the additional traditional face-to-face mathematics course. In conclusion, providing an online curriculum that can meet students where they are academically with resources, assessments, and immediate feedback can provide students a personalized curriculum that they control. Using an asynchronous curriculum provided lessons for students unconstrained by teacher’s absenteeism, qualification, or emotion and feelings. Interfering with these positive attributes of the online curriculum chosen for this school under the RSD were observed behaviors that implied a lack of motivation to engage with the software. First, would students have been more focused on using the online tool if software was in place to eliminate internet surfing? Observing the online course revealed too much time devoted to students being redirected to mathematical tasks. A second potential obstacle for success in the online environment was literacy issues. As mentioned, Great Schools 1998 – 2016 showed that less than 10% of the student body was proficient in ELA and reading. Did a literacy issue contribute to the students’ response about the software? A third obstacle was the realization that the students wanted human interaction when being exposed to content and instructions. There is richness within learning a concept when learning is done socially. Did learning socially hide the student’s literacy issues or prohibit these issues from preventing students from learning mathematics? Talking to those students interested in the additional traditional face-to-face course conveyed the importance of incorporating learners in the plan as to how they will be taught. A discussion could have helped the teacher of record design the face-to-face portion of the blended learning course in order to be more supportive of the online portion. Next, suggestions, advantages, and disadvantages will be offered for consideration when inquiring about online tools for an educational setting.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Preference of Delivery Robyler et al. (2007) offers specific reasons why users prefer traditional face-to-face learning settings vs. distance learning. Traditional learning settings were preferred when the focus involved a student’s attitude and retention. A nurturing and supportive environment where a community of peers is open to learning together is ideal when attitudes or emotions are the gatekeepers to unlocking a student’s or teacher’s potential for growth. Emotions are connected to a student’s ability to be successful academically (Zins & Elias, 2007). For some students this need cannot be ignored and should be considered when educational programs are chosen for a group of learners. The whole student should be educated. Emotions, attitudes, and retention are interwoven; they can be effectively addressed with a skilled teacher in a group environment. Ravitch’s (2013) statement provides support for this belief: “…[s]tudents will respond with great enthusiasm to a gifted teacher than to a computer with the world’s best software” (p. 180). 212

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

Referring to the case study involving School B, observations of students in the additional traditional face-to-face class revealed the powerful effects of learning and communicating knowledge socially. First, there are expectations when communicating within a group. For example, one person speaks at a time, peers respect each other’s input, students use cues to know when to start talking, and the group uses appropriate language to communicate their thoughts. Second, the students in the traditional face-toface class expressed feeling smarter when given the opportunity to demonstrate understanding to their peers in a non-threatening learning environment. In this instance, the students learned from and with peers. Students have the ability, and should be given the opportunity, to express what they do and do not understand. Online learning models have the capability to provide social interaction among students and teachers. Yet, it is essential that teachers are knowledgeable, capable, and realize the importance of incorporating this capability in online settings. Online learners preferred distance learning settings when the focus was achievement. The student could take advantage of learning anytime, anyplace, and at their own pace. The student could control their education. They were not bound by typical restrictions found in educational learning settings where the teacher and school are the gatekeepers of aspects that distance learning provides its student (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Student-centered learning can be beneficial to some students. It is important that educational institutions discern which teachers and students are interested in learning and teaching in online environments in order to satisfy the needs of its stakeholders. Roblyer et al. (2007) cited research from a meta-analysis which found that teachers can be just as successful in synchronous settings as in traditional face-to-face school settings. Teachers must be trained with the proper technological and pedagogical methods to help students be successful. If a teacher is not experienced in using synchronous tools as a supplement, they could forfeit opportunities to build relationships. In addition, they may not be equipped to support the course using online resources. Inadequately prepared teachers could support what Roblyer et al. (2007) found in his research that “[s]tudents were more likely to achieve less and have lower attitudes in synchronous environments” (p. 262). Some support or interaction occurred because as compared to asynchronous learning settings, the dropout rate in synchronous settings was lower. Roblyer et al. (2007) suggests making synchronous settings stronger by adding face-to-face group meetings to help improve retention, and maintain a low dropout rate. There are several benefits of synchronous learning methods. This type of online method allows for increased communication opportunities (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Any educational setting can be enhanced by increasing the amount of opportunities to communicate. Some tools to use are blogs, e-mail, text, or discussion forums and chat rooms. Central to allowing for more opportunities to communicate, synchronous methods can provide proper wait-time for students who are shy or require more time to process before speaking (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). The activities using synchronous tools are scheduled and are to be accessed by students at a specific time and place. This could be a helpful teaching strategy to allow as many participants as possible a chance to contribute to a class discussion. Asynchronous method of delivery is commonly used for cyber or online charter schools in the U.S. (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). The program requires that “... students are expected to read through or interact with, followed by activities that the student must complete and/or a mandatory online discussion that they must participate in” (Barbour, 2009, p. 15). The coursework and activities are literacy base, thus requiring sound literacy skills. The key complaints of asynchronous methods include separation from peers and teachers, and the demand of comprehension (Barbour, 2009). Using asynchronous methods

213

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

places students in learning environments where they interact with software that reacts to correct or incorrect input. Human interaction is more flexible and gets at the root of misunderstandings by questioning students individually and having them explain their thinking. If not properly trained, the teacher of record could find it to be a daunting task to provide individual students with purposeful time. Asynchronous methods are known for providing students with expanded access to courses that their school does not offer or to courses available but not assigned a qualified teacher (Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Yusuf & Al-Banawi, 2013). Smaller schools may not have enough students to create desired or needed courses. Rural schools may not have an ample supply of qualified teachers. Therefore, these two circumstances may require online tools to accommodate needs. Asynchronous delivery methods are helpful to students that cannot attend a traditional face-to-face brick-and-mortar school or who may be in unusual situations. These students could be athletes, employees, suspended students, pregnant students, social outcasts, or hospitalized students (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Asynchronous access has allowed alternative education programs to provide numerous courses for students in need of credit recovery and remediation. Asynchronous learning platforms are also known for providing schools reliable high-quality curriculum. As previously mentioned, the teacher of record must know how to manage the online program. The software provides resources such as tutorials, practice problems, or assessments. The software is not affected by a bad day, illness, or lack of content knowledge. Its limits correspond to the limits of the user.

The Right Stuff Barbour and Reeves (2009) found that the bulk of students participating in online learning settings were “…academically capable, motivated, independent learners” (p. 402). They also possessed characteristics of being intrinsically motivated, having good literacy skills, being familiar with technology, and possessing good management skills. Skeptical of this description, Barbour and Reeves (2009) pointed out that the characteristics listed are adult traits. Those most likely to succeed in an e-learning setting are able “...to draw their own meaning or interpretation and apply teachings to their lives ...” (Yusef & Al-Banawi, 2013, p. 175). They follow up with poor motivation and study skills as reasons for being unsuccessful. Barth et al. (2012) stated that special-needs and low-income students were not likely to participate in distance learning environments. In City A, the students in schools under the RSD were in a low-income community ($24,000 for the adjusted gross income as compared to an adjusted gross income of about $55,000 for the state), exhibited poor motivation (observations of off-task behavior), and received poor ratings on standardized assessments (less than 10% proficient on standardized tests assessing ELA, reading, math, social studies, and science). Could these obstacles have contributed to the response of the students to opt for the additional traditional face-to-face mathematics class and for the principal to make it available? Possessing adult-like traits does not guarantee success in an online setting. Being motivated, organized, independent and literate does not replace the fact that a student could prefer being in a setting where learning occurs socially. The student may still need attention dedicated to their attitudes and emotions. A survey to determine aptitude is helpful, but an interview to determine if a student understands the demands of an online learning setting and their choice to participate is paramount. Present a door to students with choices. Let it be their decision to walk through, to own the experience of their choice.

214

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

FUTURE RESEARCH Despite the issues, controversies, and problems, online education will continue to emerge in K-12 educational settings. In order to assist its transition into K-12 learning environments, online education must be used for long durations, for a variety of learners, and with a standardized understanding of terminology and implementation. K-12 learning environments would benefit from the suggested attention through empirical studies. How would choice and implementation be influenced by what is discovered from longitudinal studies of online tool use in K-12 settings? From studies conducted across many educational districts? How would the design of online materials be affected if input from teachers and students was used? Once understood at the K-12 level, research should be conducted to determine how online tool use has affected students transitioning to post-secondary education settings.

CONCLUSION Distance learning has evolved from teachers being in control of the educational setting to students, independent of a teacher, managing their own learning. This trend has many supporters, thus making it a staple in the resources available for educating students. Unfortunately, these tools are being made available to K-12 schools and students based on interpretations of research conducted on adult learners in online learning environments. Implementing online tools in K-12 settings not based on empirical research has resulted in issues with online learning, such as providing the same online learning setting for all students, low graduation rates, lost of communication opportunities, and inappropriate learning environments. To influence successful implementation of online tools, educational institutions must know what options are available and which are appropriate for their students, teachers, and parents. If chosen based on research and stakeholder’s input, successful implementation is possible.

REFERENCES Barbour, M. (2009). Today’s student and virtual schooling: The reality, the challenges, the promise. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 13(1), 5–25. Barbour, M., & Plough, C. (2009). Helping to make online learning less isolating. TechTrends, 53(4), 57. Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402–416. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.009 Barth, P., Hull, J., & St Andrie, R. (2012). Searching for the reality of virtual schools. Alexandria, VA: Center for Public Education, National School Boards Association. Boss, R. (2011). Educational software for children. Retrieved from https://alair.ala.org/bitstream/ handle/11213/258/Educational+Software.pdf?sequence=86 Bouffard, K. (2015). Census bureau: Detroit is poorest big city of U.S. The Detroit News. Retrieved from http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/09/16/census-us-uninsured-dropsincome-stagnates/32499231/

215

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

Great Schools. (1998-2016). Test scores. Retrieved by http://www.greatschools.org/michigan/detroit/1195Pershing-High-School/quality/#Test_scores Hanover Research. (2013). Future trends in k-12 education. Retrieved from https://ts.madison.k12.wi.us/ files/techsvc/Future%20Trends%20in%20K-12%20Education.pdf Homefacts. (2016). Detroit, MI unemployment rate report. Retrieved from http://www.homefacts.com/ unemployment/Michigan/Wayne-County/Detroit.html Hubbard, B., & Mitchell, N. (2011). Troubling questions about online education. EdNews Colorado. Lowes, S. (2008). Online teaching and classroom change: The trans-classroom teacher in the age of the internet. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(3), 1–5. Marsh, R. M., Carr-Chellman, A. A., & Sockman, B. R. (2009). Why parents choose cybercharter schools. TechTrends, 53(4), 32–36. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0303-9 Martusewicz, R. A. (2013). Reticence. Educational Studies, 49(1), 1–4. doi:10.1080/00131946.2013. 752239 Martusewicz, R. A. (2014). Warrior in an educational nightmare. Educational Studies, 50(2), 99–102. doi:10.1080/00131946.2014.885758 Miron, G., & Gulosino, C. (2015). Virtual schools in the US 2015: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/ emo-profiles-11-12.pdf Onboard Informatics. (2015). Detail zip code profile. Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/zips/48234. html Patrick, S., & Powell, A. (2009). A summary of research on the effectiveness of K-12 online learning. International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K.Sloan Foundation. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American K-12 Education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P. Sloan foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 127–135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.004 Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. Vintage. Revenaugh, M. (2006). K-8 virtual schools: A glimpse into the future. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 60–64. Roblyer, M., Freeman, J., Donaldson, M. B., & Maddox, M. (2007). A comparison of outcomes of virtual school courses offered in synchronous and asynchronous formats. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 261–268. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.08.003 Russell, G. (2004). Virtual schools: A critical view. Development and management of virtual schools: Issues and trends, (pp. 1-25). Academic Press.

216

 Implementation of Online Education for K-12 School Children

Southern Regional Education Board. (2012). Increasing online learning options for K-12 students: The role of school districts. Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/2012/12T01_Inc_Online.pdf Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Waters, J. K. (2011). Competing for the virtual student. T.H.E. Journal, 38(7), 28–30. Waters, L. H., Barbour, M. K., & Menchaca, M. P. (2014). The nature of online charter schools: Evolution and emerging concerns. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 379–389. Watson, J., Pape, L., Murin, A., Gemin, B., & Vashaw, L. (2014). Keeping pace with K-12 digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group. Yusuf, N., & Al-Banawi, N. (2013). The Impact of Changing Technology: The Case of E-Learning. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6(2). Zins, J., & Elias, M. (2007). Social and emotional learning. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/ educators/elias_zins.pdf

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Asynchronous: Anytime, anywhere access online. Blended Learning: Online and traditional face-to-face tool use. Distance Education: Technology used to deliver content to support learning when a teacher is not physically present. Learner-Centered: Student-controlled access (when, where, and what). Online Learning: Receiving digital content via the Internet to support learning. Synchronous: Planned or arranged access to online content at a specific time. Teacher-Centered: Teacher-controlled over access (when, where, and what). Teacher of Record: A teacher or manager responsible for monitoring student’s learning on an academic task, usually associated with a performance measure. Virtual and Cyber Schools: Schools providing students instruction via online learning and technological tools.

217

218

Chapter 12

Teacher, Students, and MOOCs: Innovating and Researching Teacher Training Carlos Monge López Universidad de Alcalá, Spain Patricia Gómez Hernández Universidad de Alcalá, Spain

ABSTRACT The main aim of this research is to understand future teachers’ attitudes, knowledge and needs about Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). These courses are a supplementary resource in Higher Education that can fill fields of knowledge in which the curriculum could not encompass. In addition, these types of courses can contribute significantly to teachers, both in initial and in-service, training. For this reason, the students’ perspectives towards MOOCs are essential in these terms. In this way, fundamentally a questionnaire was administered to the students in the Degree in Teaching of Childhood Education, Degree in Teaching of Primary Education, and Masters Degree in Teacher Training of Secondary Education (n=145). The results indicated that a large part of the sample confirmed that they did not know anything about MOOCs. Therefore, Universities need to train competent future teachers in MOOCs culture. This chapter provides insights into the topic of advancing next generation elementary teacher education through digital tools and applications.

INTRODUCTION Technology is a social reality that changes cultures and, therefore, all levels of education. Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are an example of this idea, representing a new teaching and learning model in higher education. Gómez, Monge, and García (2016a) say that the first course similar to MOOCs was born in 1922. At that time, New York University began offering courses by radio with a massive and open character. The model was soon replicated by other universities and institutions. The onset of MOOCs was strongly related to open resources and codes movement, allowing information exchange, DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch012

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

recognizing its original authorship, and promoting collaboration between users. This movement gave rise to free content licenses (for example, Creative Commons) and open content publishing (for example, Open Course Ware project), an online publishing initiative created to provide free access to university teaching materials published under Creative Common licenses. In addition, it introduced Khan Academy, a non-profit organization offering a collection of educational videos with tutorials and lessons on mathematical organization. One of the differences between these types of initiatives is that they not only leave materials accessible, but also the entire training action. It can be considered that the first MOOC was launched in 2008 by Manitoba University under the acronym CCK08. The small course gave support to 24 students via an open access network. The network admitted 2,200 registered participants, of whom about 150 were actively interacting at different times. This course, which provided both theoretical and practical levels of connectivism foundations, was unique and pioneering due to its high number of attracted users, as well as the learning experience it provided. The characteristics of these courses include (Castaño & Cabero, 2013): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Similarities with an onsite class; A start date and deadline; Assessment mechanisms; Virtuality; No charges; Openness; Massification and no admission criteria; and Massive and interactive participation. In the same case, Milheim (2013) shows other principal features, including:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Openness; Massive registration and educational dropout; Limited interaction between students during the courses; Prestigious and expert universities as the most representative institutions that design and promote MOOCs; and 5. Low cost for students and universities. Online, openness, and massification are the most important and consensual characteristics of MOOCs, regardless of authors, period of time, or research line. The relative process of MOOCs is usually described in five phases: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Registration at platform and courses Presentation/tutorial about the course Learning modules (pills, discussion forums, assessment, tests, blind peer review, badges, and karma) Final assessment Certification

219

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of MOOCs Advantages • Large part of processed and organized information • Stronger relationships between institutions due to collaboration • Education from institutions that generate knowledge (e.g., universities) • Simultaneous training of many people

Disadvantages • Existence of an important pedagogical critique because these courses have an accumulation of doubtful and condensed information • Possibility of replacing onsite courses • Impersonation of user identities • Course standardization • Uncertain quality

(Silva & Salgado, 2014)

Silva and Salgado (2014) affirm that other particularities of MOOCs refer to benefits and risks during teacher education (Table 1). Meanwhile, Milheim (2013) shows some disadvantages: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Higher scholar dropout rate; Budget for MOOC development; Certification; and Academic integrity.

In the same way, other important elements of MOOCs refer to their typology. Cabero, Llorente, and Vázquez (2014) affirm that there are eight kinds of courses in addition to xMOOCs, cMOOCs, and task-based MOOCs proposed by SCOPEO (2013). Meanwhile, Gómez et al. (2016a) noted a great classification of MOOC types: • •

•

•

• •

220

TransferMOOC: This is a reflection of traditional academic courses adapted into an online platform. Its learning approach is based on content transfer to students. Made MOOC: This is a more innovative course than a transferMOOC due to video usage around content transmission. It proposes challenging tasks through problem solution and creation of materials. In addition, it includes interactive experiences and employs teamwork/peer assessment oriented to higher teacher-student ratios. SynchMOOCs: This is a course with a prearranged academic calendar. The calendar is a shorter duration than other types of MOOCs, facilitating the teacher availability to attend to the needs of the registered students. It has specific start dates and deadlines, as well as preassigned tasks and proposed assessments. AsynchMOOC: In contrast to previous courses, there are neither start dates nor deadlines in this course. This course does not have preassigned tasks or proposed assessments. The advantage to this course is the ability to connect people in different time zones. This allows them to carry out the course at their convenience, adapting to their own learning rhythms. MiniMOOC: This is a short course that offers an intense learning experience oriented to acquisition of specific skills and knowledge. The knowledge can be developed in a shorter timeframe (days and/or hours). It is adequate to high-precise domains and tasks with clear learning objectives. AdaptiveMOOC: This course is based on adaptive algorithms that allows personalized learning experiences and offers different ways to present content and tasks. This depends on the results provided by the dynamic assessment of each user.

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

•

•

GroupMOOC: This is a course available to a limited number of students who are assigned to small collaborative groups in order to improve their learning results. These groups can be changed depending on the progress. The members are automatically selected by the software and are assigned groups based on specific aspects (for example, user location, knowledge, or skills). Each group has a mentor; students can value themselves their advances. ConnectivismMOOC: A course based on the connections arising between networks established by users, rather than on content and knowledge transmission. It is focused on creation, exchange, and generation of knowledge, producing different learning paths and backgrounds for each user.

In SCOPEO’s (2013) terms, there are two principal groups of people that exist in MOOCs. The first group is made of up those whose work is developed prior to the course (technicians and computer staff, designers, and editors of virtual contents). The second group is made up of those whose work is developed during the course (teachers, curators, and facilitators). Obviously, students are the most important group for correct design, development, and assessment of MOOCs, although there are also some interested institutions (for example, foundations, universities, governments, etc.). When Gómez et al. (2016a) looked at technology experts (programmers, designers, and professionals of digital contents) and learning support experts (teachers, curators, and facilitators), they found the following: • • • • •

No participants are all students enrolled in the course, but they do nothing. Observers/onlookers are the majority of the students. Their work involves registering themselves, reviewing some of the materials, and observing the specific course. Marauders are students who are interested in a specific part, section, or module of the course. They focus solely on view only this part. Passive participants are students who view videos and complete some of the tasks. However, they are not totally involved in the course. Active participants are the minority of the students. They take full advantage of the course, view all of the videos, and complete all task proposed by the teacher.

In general, there are many platforms that host MOOCs. These include universities (for example, UNEDCOMA is supported by National University of Distance Education or edX principally belongs to University of Harvard) and foundations (for example, MiríadaX is driven by Universia Foundation and Santander Bank). In addition, a large part of these platforms is promoted by several institutions, like Coursera, where 37 different backers participate. According to Daradoumis, Bassi, Xhafa, and Cabbalé (2013), the first open online course for a large number of participants was launched in 2008, under the name “Connectivism and Connective Knowledge” (CCK08). This was hosted by Stephen Downes and George Siemens from the University of Manitoba (Canada). MOOCs became a generalized concept in 2012 when several large universities began their own MOOCs. Masters (2011) offers a guide to understanding MOOCs: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Understand the overall concept of MOOCs Understand that MOOCs are a stage in online education evolution Know that the centre does not hold (it is not designed to hold) Know that the role of the instructor has changed 221

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Know that active learner participation is crucial Know that the learners will be independent and frequently out of sight Be prepared to forego set goals and objectives that “must be met” Understand that the learner will engage with other learners and ideas Understand that the final “knowledge” will be negotiated Realise that knowledge will accrue, as well as change shape Accept that ownership of knowledge does not exist Be prepared to be scared Know that there is much to be resolved

The background collects studies that offer four types of ideas: 1. MOOCs serve to complement the curriculum of university degrees (Bruff, Fisher, McEwen, & Smith, 2013; Caballo, Caride, Gradaílle, & Poser, 2014; Capdevila & Aranzadi, 2014; Gómez et al., 2015, 2016a, 2016b; Monge, Gómez, & Montalvo, 2015; Siemens, 2013; Yuan & Powell, 2013) 2. There is little research on MOOCs in higher education (Gómez et al., 2015; Liyanagunawardena, Adams, & Williams, 2013; Martínez, Rodríguez, & García, 2014; Monge et al., 2015) 3. Initial and continuous teacher training needs improvement (An & Kim, 2006; Fini, Formiconi, Giorni, Pirruccello, Spadavecchia, & Zibordi, 2008; Gómez et al., 2015, 2016b; González, Castro, & Lizasoain, 2009; Monge et al., 2015; Salvat & Quiroz, 2005; Tejada, 2013; Valdés, Angulo, Urías, García, & Mortis, 2011) 4. Student characteristics and perspectives are essential to design, develop, and assess (Bruff et al., 2013; Cross, 2013; Daradoumis et al., 2013; Gómez et al., 2015; Grünewald, Meinel, Totschnig, & Willems, 2013; Guàrdia, Marina, & Sangrá, 2013; Mackness, Mak, & Williams, 2010; Monge et al., 2015; Robledo et al., 2010) A case study about MOOCs in initial teacher training is presented here. Therefore, the principal aim of this research is to understand future teacher attitudes, knowledge, and needs around MOOCs.

Background MOOCs are a supplementary resource in higher education that can fill fields of knowledge lacking in the curriculum. In this way, initial and continuous teacher training is deficient. These courses play an essential role (Siemens, 2013) and generate discussions on opportunities and threats (Capdevila & Aranzadi, 2014). Yuan and Powell (2013) argue that MOOCs possess great implications for higher education, with all of them focused on educational policy and higher education institutions. There are some countries whose teacher training is below average. Spain (where this research is carried out) is one of those countries (González et al., 2009), especially in regards to information training and communication technologies (An & Kim, 2006; Fini et al., 2008; Salvat & Quiroz, 2005; Tejada, 2013; Valdés et al., 2011). With the support of MOOCs, this can improve. However, the MOOC culture is not rooted in future and current teachers. Since these courses are relatively new, researchers are hesitant to explore them (Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013). It is very important to understand the perspectives of future teachers on MOOCs. In doing so, we can identify learning-teaching needs. Currently, these courses are viewed as a revolution in higher education 222

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

(Little, 2013), especially due to adaptations and changes produced inside this field as an adaptation to European Higher Education Area or an incorporation of ICTs, renew methodologies, etc. Important research about student perceptions (not teacher perspectives) on MOOCs is presented by Bruff et al. (2013). During the autumn of 2012, a mixed MOOC was developed at Vanderbilt University. The designers asked students to view conferences, fill out questionnaires, complete assigned tasks, and participate in optional discussion forums. This study was carried out with 10 students through a focus group and interview (14 Likert-scale and three open-ended questions). According to student perceptions, the most important results indicated that: • • •

The major advantages of MOOCs are flexibility, customization, and accessibility. MOOCs are very useful for training. Online discussion boards are seen as a useless resource and the students prefer face-to-face interaction.

Another similar study by Mackness et al. (2010) included an interview with 22 students. The most important results are: • • •

Approximately half of the sample (59.0%) said that autonomy is an advantage during MOOCs. Other students, particularly the novice in the MOOCs culture, state that it is a problem because they needed a greater amount of support. The openness is understood to be a positive aspect due to characteristics of MOOCs (namely, massive and open). However, it can also be a handicap (above all, linguistic differences). There are some barriers in connectivism and interactivity. These include: ◦◦ Knowledge gap in technology and subject/topic; ◦◦ Quality of personal connections; and ◦◦ Difficulties with connecting and language.

Similar to the work of Mackness et al. (2010), the following question arises: To what extent are the features of MOOCs a reality for participants? Cross (2013) performed a study reviewing approximately 1,470 student perceptions. He used a pretest-posttest, exerting a specific MOOC as the programmevariable. The results displayed outstanding information: 30.0% of the sample did not consider to be very familiar with MOOC culture, while 2.0% affirmed to be experts. Guàrdia et al. (2013), through the opinions of MOOC users, found 10 principles: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Design approach based on competencies Learner empowerment Learning plan and clear orientations Collaborative learning Social networks Peer assistance Quality criteria for knowledge creation and generation Interest groups Assessment and peer feedback Media/technology-enhanced learning 223

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

Grünewald et al.’s (2013) case is different. They did not design MOOCs pursuant to student attitudes, beliefs, opinions, and perceptions. Instead, the course was designed on learning styles. Through a survey (n = 1,153), they confirmed that: 1. Participants had a high degree of satisfaction with course content and structure; 2. They found that the different types of learning materials was very useful; and 3. Qualitative feedback provided recommendations for improvement of the platform around consistency, multimedia, hypertext, synchronous communication, and practical relevance. However, student perspectives on MOOCs is not the most important element. Teacher ideas on MOOCs are essential. For example, the study performed by Khalil and Ebner (2013) analyzed results from an online survey on student and teacher perceptions of these courses. It showed a high level of satisfaction in both groups. In addition, students highlighted the importance of interaction; weakness referred to learner-teacher relationships. Marauri (2014) analyzed the role of the facilitator (Table 2). The facilitator is an agent who intervenes in the process with a closed collaboration between teachers, curators, and technical staff. There are studies that confirm positive teacher training through MOOCs. Cain and Phillipe (2013) contextualized one at the University of the West Indies, where they studied the learning experiences in regards to facilities and barriers. This was done using qualitative phenomenological methodology (onsite and online interviews). It applied to eight participants who were selected through intentional sampling. After the analysis of interpretative phenomenological data, the main results were grouped into three categories: • • •

Student Expectations: Students felt comfortable with the flexibility in the work and individual organization Learning Facilitator Ideas: Personal attributes or factors included: peer support, course personnel support, online tools, program quality, teleconferences, and course materials Learning Constraints or Inhibitors: A lack of feedback, number of course activities, lack of face-to-face instruction, and technological challenges

Table 2. Principal facilitator roles • Check the proper functions of the platform prior to starting a course • Meet and inform users about structures, characteristics, and methodologies, as well as the operation in which the platform is supported • Accompany and guide to users • Pay attention and moderate discussion forums, encouraging user participation • Remember important dates • Update the frequently asked questions • Provide technical support • Promote individual work • Report on credentials and certifications, as well as offer suggestions for improvement • Transmit news • Solve incidences • Encourage students to complete evaluations (Marauri, 2014)

224

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

Martínez, Despujol, Medrano, and Ferrano (2013) studied the collaboration between Polytechnic University of Valencia and Ministry of Education of Honduras. Through a closed survey, authors analyzed participant satisfaction, experiences, and expectations around a specific MOOC focused on technological teacher training in Honduras. In this case, the low scholar dropout was the most important data (70.0% success in the first edition, 50.0% in the second edition). According to academics of Spanish faculties of education and teacher training, MOOCs provide several contributions to initial and continuous teacher education, particularly surrounding professional actualization/complement and improvement of communicational skills (Gómez et al., 2016b). Teacher communication and professional development was proven when they participated in virtual learning communities (Fini et al., 2008). Other representative experience surrounding teacher training through MOOCs is described by Viswanathan (2012). The course was conducted over five weeks, with participants belonging to various countries. Teachers from K-12 levels and college levels were provided with course tutorials as reading material. The author analyzed the effect of the course on the participants by conducting an introspective study. As a learner, the author could share her ideas related to audio recording software (23.0%), update her previous knowledge about mobile learning (31.0%), collaborate with others to clarify concepts of mastery learning and classroom flipping (15.0%), and learn to interact with others using video software (15.0%). Furthermore, the author’s digital skills enhanced the possibility to explore mobile learning (16.0%). Robledo et al. (2010) collected evidence to confirm differences in thinking and learning styles of teaching and psychopedagogy students, according to level and specialty. In this study, with a sample composed of 583 preservice teachers and using the study process questionnaire and the thinking styles inventory, there are statistically significant differences, especially pertaining to degree in teaching musical education students. Gómez et al. (2015) and Monge et al. (2015) provide two studies previously considered in this chapter. In the first study, the authors showed differences between on-site and open university students regarding MOOC challenges in teacher training: “in general, open university students seem to have a better attitude and deeper knowledge toward these courses” (Monge et al., 2015, pp. 264-265). In the second study, student perspectives and teaching-learning needs around MOOCs are presented during initial teacher training: “in conclusion, a MOOC could solve two elements: (1) poor initial teacher training and (2) future teachers’ attitudes and knowledge around MOOCs” (Monge et al., 2015, p. 245). The final research is based on an exploratory case study aiming to extend into the current chapter. The use of MOOCs in higher education, including pre-service teacher education, can be justified due to the benefits exposed by Gómez et al. (2016a) in their review: a great number of beneficiaries, institutional promotion, social exchange, overcoming traditional curriculum, interactivity between students, response to social requests, reflection on teacher-student roles, open/flexible programs, collaboration between universities, development of new software, promotion of social inclusion, etc. Although, it must be consider some risks, such as poor development model, problems associated with the assessment, return to the package content, standardization of knowledge, predominance of economic interests against pedagogical interests, high level of autonomy (as well as motivation and digital skills), dropout rate, or low participation.

225

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER Design The style research was a case study as a resource to describe and analyze a specific educational reality. It answered to an explanatory, interpretative, ethnographic, single, and instrumental type of design (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007), which aimed to expand the exploratory case study presented by Monge et al. (2015). The authors used an online survey to collect data. It was enlarged with participant observation, questionnaires, and content analysis during the explanatory study. The main research questions focused on: What ideas did pre-service teachers have about MOOCs as a pedagogical resource in their education? This case study was developed during 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. This research method was selected because (Cohen et al., 2007): 1. 2. 3. 4.

Case study data, paradoxically, are strong in reality; Case studies allow generalization either about an instance or for an instance to a class; Case studies recognize the complexity and embeddedness of social truths; Case studies, considered as product, may form an archive of descriptive material sufficiently rich to admit subsequent reinterpretation; 5. Case studies are a step to action; and 6. Case studies present research or evaluation data in a more publicly accessible form than other kinds of research report.

Sample The case selected and analyzed was the University of Alcalá, Faculty of Education. This institution, with a large and recognized trajectory, offered courses from onsite model teaching. Its location, in Guadalajara (Spain), gave a great public service. Since 1841, the Faculty of Education has educated teachers and is one of the country’s first teacher training colleges. The following degrees are linked to the Faculty: degrees in both childhood education and primary education; a master’s degree in teacher training of secondary education (taught outside and inside the faculty); a master’s degree in psychopedagogy (taught outside the faculty); a master’s degree in higher education (taught outside the faculty); and a doctorate in education. The reference population of this study was made up of students from the University of Alcalá. All of the students pursue studies for teaching. During 2013-2014, the final sample was made up of 145 participants (see Table 3) between the ages of 17-50. Women made up the largest percentage of students (76.6%). During 2014-2015, the researchers used a small sample (n=28) because they thought that the main ideas about MOOCs had not changed.

Instruments For data collection, an ad hoc questionnaire was used. It was composed of open-answer items asking for knowledge, value, and usefulness of MOOCs as teacher training resource. It was an online questionnaire designed using Google Docs platform. The questions had themes asking about weakness, threats, strengths, and opportunities (WTSO) of MOOCs in teacher training.

226

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

Table 3. Sample composition by studies

Degree in Teaching of Childhood Education Degree in Teaching of Primary Education

1st course

2nd course

3rd course

4th course

Single course

Total

42 (28.9%)

10 (6.9%)

14 (9.7%)

15 (10.2%)

2 (1.3%)

83 (57.0%)

9 (6.2%)

10 (6.9%)

17 (11.6%)

11 (7.6%)

9 (6.2%)

56 (38.0%)

-

-

-

-

6 (4.0%)

6 (4.0%)

51 (35.5%)

20 (13.8%)

31 (21.3%)

26 (17.8%)

17 (11.6%)

145 (100.0%)

Master’s Degree in Teacher Training of Secondary Education Total

In order to participate in observation, an anecdote-book was used as an instrument for data collection. The researchers used it to note perceptions about the process, as well as informal interviews with professors and students. In some cases, informal notes served to collect data that reduced social desirability or expressed diverse formalism. Finally, a documental analysis was supported by a structural sheet with didactic guides (technology in education) of initial teacher training, especially incising on aims, contents, and methodologies.

Procedure This study tried to triangulate the information through diverse techniques (data collection, sampling, and data analysis), participants, instruments, dates, places, researchers, etc. (Table 4), as criterion of validity in quality research, as well as confirmation with participants, expert judgment, and extended work (Lichtman, 2013). The case study procedure was focused on three sequential phases: 1. Pre-Active: Turned around research design, construction (and validation) of instruments, and contacting participants Table 4. Research procedure and triangulation Data collection techniques

Questionnaire

Participant observation

Content analysis

Participants/objects

Students (n=173)

Professors (n=2) and students (n=14)

Didactics units (n=6) and educational innovations projects (n=28)

Sampling techniques

Accidental sampling and proportional stratified sampling

Intentional sampling

Intentional sampling

Instruments

Questionnaire

Anecdote-book

Structured sheets

Data analysis techniques

Coding inductive-deductive categorization, descriptive statistics and textual representative quotes

Coding inductive categorization and textual representative quotes

Terms search and representative citations

Researchers

2

2

1

Date and places

May; anywhere

May and June; formal and noformal contexts

June; anywhere

227

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

2. Interactive: Turned around research development and fieldwork, including data analysis and interpretation 3. Post-Active: Turned around confirmation of results and construction of conclusions through a bidirectional process between researchers and participations, as well as the diffusion of this study The second topic of the research procedure referred to data categorization strategies. When all data was entered to Atlas.ti 5, it followed an inductive-deductive categorization, familiarization, and coding. There were four big families with their respective small families and categories (Table 5): 1. 2. 3. 4.

Knowledge; Contributions; WSTO; and Improvement.

The strategy consisted of searching the term “MOOC” (and synonyms) in didactic guides about technology in education and educational innovation projects of degrees in teaching at the University of Alcalá. In addition, instruments were validated through expert judgment procedure. Finally, participants confirmed the results and reached the conclusions of this study.

Results Questionnaire The most important result discussed the level of knowledge about MOOCs. A large part of the sample reported that they did not know the main characteristics of this type of course. They noted that they did not recognize how MOOCs could improve teacher training. Collected data yielded differences between student perspectives. Depending on age, sex, course, and studies, they had diverse answers regarding weaknesses, threats, strengths, and opportunities of MOOCs.

Table 5. Big and small families of categories for data analysis • Knowledge about MOOCs (KMO):      o Characteristics of MOOCs (CMO)      o Unawareness toward MOOCs (UMO) • Contributions of MOOCs to teacher training (CTT):      o Contributions of MOOCs to initial teacher training (CIT)      o Contributions of MOOCs to continuous teacher training (CCT) • WSTO analysis (ANA):     o Weaknesses of MOOCs (WMO)     o Strengths of MOOCs (SMO)     o Threats of MOOCs (TMO)     o Opportunities of MOOCs (OMO) • Improvements of initial teacher training (IIT):      o Subjects that need a MOOC (SNM)      o Role of universities in the diffusion of MOOCs (RUM)

228

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

During 2013-2014, there was an elevated percentage of the sample who affirmed not to properly know the main characteristics of MOOCs, independent of registered studies (61.4% of degree in teaching of childhood education students, 73.2% of degree in teaching of primary education students, and 60.0% of master’s degree in teaching of secondary education students), age (68.2% of students aged 17-26, 47.6% of students aged 27-36, and 66.7% of students aged 37 or more), level (59.6% of first level students, 70.0% of second level students, 77.4% of third level students, 73.1% of fourth level students, and 57.9% of master’s students), and sex (58.5% of men and 68.8% of women). During 2014-2015, the tendency was very similar to the previous data, but the percentage was higher for the participants who knew all of the MOOC characteristics (Figure 1). Until now, I did not know the MOOCs. Now, I was looking for the meaning of the acronym MOOC on the internet and I found “massive open online course.” For this reason, I concluded that they are virtual courses and free. If it is related with “open source software” or “software with open code”... I do not know anything about MOOCs. (Questionnaire, participant 84)

Figure 1. Knowledge about MOOCs (2014-2015)

229

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

They are courses that are free, developed on the internet, and directed to a lot of persons. In fact, I have already taken some MOOCs in National University of Distance Education, but I have not yet finished any course. (Questionnaire, participant 63)

MOOCs In the first phase (2013-2014), there was also an important percentage of the sample that affirmed that they did not know anything about the possible contributions of MOOCs to initial teacher training. In this case, the differences were large considering age (37.1% of students aged 17-26, 14.3% of students aged 27-36, and 83.3% of students aged 37 or more). In addition, there were differences in other categorized answers depending on level and age groups. There was more ignorance for the older students. However, the differences were minor depending on registered studies and sex. In the second phase (2014-2015), collected data showed a small percentage of no contributions of MOOCs to initial teacher training, training on ICTs, and acquisition of new knowledge as the most selected options (Figure 2). They can help us to study some subjects where we are not very skilled. They can also offer us training about these aspects that we consider interesting and important. (Questionnaire, participant 62)

Figure 2. Contributions of MOOCs to initial and continuous teacher training (2014-2015)

230

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

Massive open online courses can contribute to initial teacher education offering us opportunities with the aim of training around another more specific area belonging to other different branches of knowledge (for example, business for management a school). (Questionnaire, participant 76)

Teacher Training When students were asked about their perceptions of MOOCs as a resource in continuous teacher training, the differences between groups were more moderated than previous answers. The following shows the percentage for those who affirmed to consider MOOCs as an innovative tool: pre-service teachers of childhood education (8.4%), pre-service teachers of primary education (1.8%), and pre-service teachers of secondary education (0.0%). In the group, 63.5% of men and 44.9% of women, respectively, perceived that MOOCs could support new learning and strengthen old concepts. Some answers could be considered as substantial surrounding new and old learning (depending on age and levels during 2013-2014). Learning new concepts, renovating knowledge, and teacher education on ICTs were very important to participants (Figure 2). MOOCs can provide some educational innovations, like activities that are developed in other places and countries, as well as ... they can offer relationships with foreigners that help us to learn other languages. (Questionnaire, participant 27) They are a way for teacher recycling, being aware of news in education, and sharing pedagogical experiences. In summary, MOOCs suppose a continuous renovation of teacher knowledge, thus actualization. (Questionnaire, participant 30)

Weaknesses There was a diverse set of answers regarding perceptions on weaknesses. This depended on registered studies, levels, age, and sex (2013-2014). In total, 11 types of answers were categorized: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

None; Accessibility; Massification; Loss of face-to-face; Flexible timetable; Certification; Needs on ICTs; Different learning; Low publicity; More effort; and Kind of assessment.

Independent of unawareness, large differences between groups took place in loss of face-to-face (15.9% of students aged 17-26, 23.8% of students aged 27-36, and 33.3% of students aged 37 or more), in spite of other valued weakness as the type of assessment. In 2014-2015, the most selected weakness 231

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

Figure 3. Weaknesses, strengths, threats, and opportunities of MOOCs (2014-2015)

referred to accessibility, followed by different learning. A large percentage showed that there were not any weaknesses (Figure 3). In comparison with the previous phase, some categories (for example, the certification) were eliminated. The main weaknesses turn around the impersonal feature of teaching-learning processes, as well as the constant need around an internet connection/access with the aim of completion of courses. (Questionnaire, participant 9) Regarding weaknesses, one of them is to think that MOOCs are virtual courses. Then, people believe it is a hobby, without hard time for normal syllabus where they are registered or other programs that they are studying. For these reasons, like people are not aware of necessary time, there are great school

232

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

dropout rates. Other important weaknesses refer to a lack of adaptation period, inasmuch as teachers assume that students possess a basic knowledge. (Questionnaire, participant 21)

Strengths During 2013-2014, the students designated a diverse set of categories and found differences between groups. For example, depending on registered studies, the sample gave more or less importance to MOOC features (27.7% of pre-service teachers of childhood education, 25.1% of pre-service teachers of primary education, and 5.0% of pre-service teachers of secondary education) and flexible timetable (13.3%, 5.4%, and 25.0%, respectively). Depending on age, there were different answers related to accessibility (6.1% of students aged 17-26, 19.0% of students aged 27-36, and 0.0% of students aged 37 or more) and different learning referring to their field of knowledge (12.1%, 0.0%, and 0.0%, respectively). There were small differences depending on sex. Most differences were found on levels, mostly around: 1. Characteristics of MOOCs; 2. Flexible timetable; and 3. Other types of learning. In 2014-2015, the strength referring to the loss of face-to-face overcame the flexible timetable. Participants that answered “none” were equally high (Figure 3). I think that the strengths refer to a great competence because this type of course is without charges. Simultaneously, the fact of being online provides more comfort to the consumers, insomuch MOOCs do not have specific timetables or determined locations. (Questionnaire, participant 17) In my opinion, the principal strengths of these courses turn around their characteristics: there are no deadlines for registration, they are remote, no onsite, without charges, etc., with all aspects that it implies in daily life so fast that we carry. (Questionnaire, participant 37)

Threats In 2013-2014, depending on sex, the difference was not great around every answer except on loss of face-to-face (26.8% of men and 7.6% of women). The case of groups depending on registered studies was similar (other than the previous category, there were no important differences). However, the students showed other responses when they said that MOOCs did not have any threats (18.1% of pre-service teachers of childhood education, 10.7% of pre-service teachers of primary education, and 0.0% of preservice teachers of secondary education). There was more scope depending on age, particularity 12.1% of students aged 17-26, 23.8% of students aged 27-36, and 0.0% of students aged 37 or more. In this respect, there were diverse responses around loss of face-to-face (10.6% of students aged 17-26, 28.6% of students aged 27-36, and 0.0% of students aged 37 or more) and competences with onsite courses (6.1%, 4.8%, and 33.3%, respectively). Undoubtedly, the large differences and diverse answers were obtained by groups of levels, above all, attending to these categories: 1. No threats; 233

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

2. Loss of face- to-face; 3. Flexible timetable; and 4. Kind of assessment. In 2014-2015, besides pointing out “none” for threats, the accessibility and different learning showed as two important threats of MOOCs according to the participants (Figure 3). The principal threats are the questionable peer blind review, as well as the depersonalization (other person can study them in my place). Other main threats turn around the certification. (Questionnaire, participant 62) In my opinion, the most important threat refers to the replacing of face-to-face communication and onsite classes with virtual classes, decreasing perhaps quality in teaching-learning processes. In addition, this kind of course has not yet been sufficiently published, being it a considerable threat. (Questionnaire, participant 68) On the other hand, in 2013-2014, the answers around accessibility were not greatly different depending on registered studies and age. There were differences depending on sex (12.2% of men and 3.4% of women) and levels (11.5% of first level students, 5.0% of second level students, 0.0% of third level students, 12.9% of fourth level students, and 0.0% of master’s level students). Regarding characteristics of MOOCs, there were not important differences depending on registered studies and sex, although the differences were perceived depending on age (10.5% of students aged17-26, 14.3% of students aged 2736, and 0.0% of students aged 37 or more) and levels (from 19.2% of first level students to 0.0% of third level students). Flexible timetable was a category that did not present differences depending on sex and age, in spite of the differences depending on registered studies (6.0%, 0.0%, and 15.0% of pre-service teachers of childhood education, primary education, and secondary education, respectively) and levels (less than 8.0% of degree students and approximately 16.0% of master’s students). However, there were no great differences between groups around the category about certification, barring depending on levels (12.9% of third level students, 7.7% of fourth level students, and 0.0% of remaining levels students). Differences between kinds of students were not found in regards to ICT needs. Diverse learning of their field of knowledge was another type of answer. In this case, there were differences depending on registered studies (16.9% of pre-service teachers of childhood education, 21.4% of pre-service teachers of primary education, and 10.0% of pre-service teachers of secondary education), sex (24.4% of men and 15.3% of women), age (15.9% of students aged 17-26, 28.6% of students aged 27-36, and 16.7% of students aged 37 or more) and levels (from 36.4% of fourth level students to 5.0% of second level students). Finally, some students showed differences around career and professional-academic future, especially depending on registered studies (12.0% of pre-service teachers of childhood education, 10.7% of pre-service teachers of primary education, and 0.0% of pre-service teachers of secondary education) and levels. There were not any differences depending on age and sex. In addition, as Silva and Salgado (2014) affirm, some students perceived that onsite teaching-learning processes could be replaced by MOOCs. In 2014-2015, there was a large part of participants that did not indicate any opportunities; others highlighted the certification and loss of face-to-face communication as great opportunities of MOOCS (Figure 3). In this phase, there was a lot of categories, but scarcely indicated.

234

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

Regarding with opportunities, I consider that MOOCs have principally two aspects. The first makes reference to support that they can provide to onsite courses. The second refers to the possibility of a real continuous training and a pedagogical renovation, as well as teachers’ consciousness toward these topics. (Questionnaire, participant 112) The main opportunity talks about the possibility of studying different courses simultaneously. In addition, MOOCs will improve the teacher education around information and communication technologies in a near future. It is also an opportunity of MOOCs and of present and future teachers. (Questionnaire, participant 11) One of the final questions referred to student opinions about possible MOOCs in their degrees. In this case, they were asked about what subject they thought needed MOOCs as a support resource. The sample’s answers were diverse, depending on sex, age, registered studies, and level. In addition, 13 subjects/areas were found (attention to diversity, philosophy, communication, psychodidactic, English, arts, psychology, Spanish language, mathematics, and practicum) plus another three categories (unawareness, every subjects, and no subjects). The answers were strongly similar in both phases (2013-2014

Figure 4. Subjects that need a MOOCs

235

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

and 2014-2015), highlighting attention to diversity, communication, and psychodidactic, as well as the set of all subjects (Figure 4). At the end, some students answered two optional questions: 1. How did they meet these courses?; 2. What importance did they think that MOOCs about emotions at school would have? In both cases, there were not great differences in category answers depending on sex, registered studies, age, and level. In 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the answers around the first question were categorized in (from highest to lowest frequency): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

A teacher, This survey, Friends, Internet, University, and Work.

While professors have done an aisle rich diffusion, the university did not this as a complete institution. In regards to the second question, the students mostly considered MOOCs about “emotions at school” as a support resource: on a scale from 1-4 (being 1 not important and 4 fully important), the answers focused on, approximately, three points (mean = 3.06; SD = 0.87; mode = 3; median = 3).

Participant Observation Talking with students and teachers about MOOCs was an anecdotic fact. When they made it, the topics fundamentally turned around: 1. Unawareness; 2. Roles of university in the design, development, and divulgation of MOOCs; and 3. New proposals for the improvement of the initial teacher education through this type of course. For both professors and future teachers, participant observation showed general unawareness around MOOCs. In general, participants did not understand the ideas about MOOCs (unawareness). However, the majority answered that they would like to have more information on this educational resource. In general, participating students did not speak about MOOCs, perhaps due to unawareness toward them. A large part of these participants showed great attitudes toward higher learning around MOOCs. The case with the professors was similar. In this case, they had a poor unawareness toward this resource, although they pointed out their interest to (a) learn more around MOOCs and (b) teach with MOOCs. In both cases (students and professors), there was a small number of persons who knew the courses very well. On the other hand, there was a large part of participants that did not know anything about MOOCs. (Anecdote-book, p. 1)

236

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

Regarding with the role of universities around design, development, and divulgation of MOOCs, students and professors disliked that the University of Alcalá did not assume these responsibilities like other Spanish institutions. During this study, Faculty of Education of the University of Alcalá did not offer any MOOCs. In this way, participants said that they could not learn with an own MOOC, studying with them basically in the National University of Distance Education. In addition, professors perceived a poor training to design and implement MOOCs in their institution. (Anecdote-book, p. 2) Some students and professors affirmed that they would like to have MOOCs in their faculty with the main aim of improving initial teacher education and generating greater attitudes toward continuous teacher training. In addition, some professors who specialized in teacher education and ICTs in education showed a favorable interest around MOOCs whose title was “Emotions at School.” For this reason, a question about it was included in the questionnaire to students. In 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the ideas were very similar between students and professors. No substantial differences were found.

Content Analysis The content analysis turned around MOOCs in didactic guides of technology in education. In this case, there were not any terms that made reference to this topic (both 2013-2014 and 2014-2015). On the other hand, educational innovation project analysis showed similar results. Terms around MOOCs were not found in documents during 2013-2014. One proposal project designed an MOOC for initial teacher training. However, it fell in the first selection phase. In 2014-2015, a unique accepted project was found through which pre-service teachers would benefit and learn. This educational innovation turned around the initial teacher training on inclusive schools and improvement of educational coexistence, developed by a research group with a large trajectory in this field. Among other activities, the idea was the design, development, and assessment of an MOOC in its Faculty of Education.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As the results indicate, there is an important percentage of students who affirmed not to know anything about MOOCs. This type of course could be a support resource in teaching-learning processes in higher education. For this reason, universities might promote them between their students. There is a small number (7.07%) of pre-service teachers (of childhood, primary education, and secondary education) of the University of Alcalá who know MOOCs. It could be due to a large percentage of the sample is be unfamiliar with MOOCs, or knowing them due to other sources, including friends, work, and the internet. MOOCs are a new tool that need to be advertised in higher education. In the case of general knowledge about MOOCs, the students showed differences depending on age, level, registered studies, and sex. Students aged 17-26 and students aged 37 or more are the groups that knew less about these courses. It could be because of two possible causes: 1. They had access to higher education at earlier ages and, therefore, they do not know these resources; or

237

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

2. The older students possess fewer competencies on ICTs. The same happens in all questions referring to contributions of MOOCs to initial and continuous teacher training and WTSO of this type of course. Possibly, the cause is very similar to the previous reason. Related to the contributions of MOOCs to initial and continuous teacher training, independent of the category referred to as unawareness, a large part of answers dealt with different learning from their academic-professional field. In this case, there are also differences between some groups of students. In both initial and continuous training, students aged 27-36 affirm that MOOCs could facilitate new knowledge and review old learning. This was followed by students aged 17-26 and students 37 or more. This kind of course could be used as an introduction/support subject. Therefore, the last group would use MOOCs for other roles. WTSO analysis shows differences between categorized answers depending on sex, age, registered studies, and level. This focuses on the diverse opinions surrounding weaknesses, threats, strengths, and opportunities of MOOCs. For example, loss of face-to-face is a weakness according to some students. However, others view this as a strength. In this case, the difference is not usually caused by considered variables in this research. As a recommendation, WTSO must be considered when it comes to working with this type of resource, combating disadvantages, and expending benefits. In parallel with this issue and the quality of MOOCs, Milheim (2013) suggests the following strategies: • • • •

Provide an educational experience and perceived value that will enable higher course completion rates Develop revenue models that will make self-sustaining MOOCs Deliver signifiers of completion, such as credentials, badges, and acceptance into accredited programs Authenticate students so that accrediting institutions or potential hiring companies are satisfied that a student’s correct identity is known

On the other hand, a large part of the sample affirms that they meet MOOCs because some teachers have talked to them about other possibilities of training. It does not happen as a consequence of a university policy that encourages the design, implementation, and publicizing of MOOCs as a new resource in higher education. If students think that this type of course could be used for initial and continuous teacher training, the universities should promote this teaching-learning tool between their students and the degrees in teaching of childhood education and primary education, as well as the master’s degree in teacher training of secondary education. Samples show that MOOCs regarding “Emotions at School” is somewhat to very important at the University of Alcalá. This could be caused by needs surrounding emotional competence since this institution is located in Autonomous Community of Madrid where educational law does not contemplate emotional competence in the curriculum of childhood, primary education, and secondary education as basic competence/skill. In this case, all collected techniques (questionnaire, participated observation, and documental analysis) during 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 show a similar tendency around one idea: unawareness of MOOCs. For this reason, the Faculty of Education of the University of Alcalá must act to teach on and with MOOCs.

238

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

Table 6. Brief proposal of MOOCs • Title: Emotions at School • Hours: 12 • Presentation: The main aim of this education is to fully develop the personality. For this reason, educational institutions share that students do not only learn theoretical contents. They also progress in motivational, social, emotional, etc., aspects. “Emotions at School” offers resources to education professionals with the goal of facilitating improved emotions between students. The MOOC is divided into four modules, including basic and practical tasks. • Main Aim: To facilitate a set of resources oriented to education professionals in order to understand and work emotions into the class • Contents:        o Introduction: (a) Presentation        o Emotional Intelligence: (a) Definitions, characteristics, and types; (b) Principal theories; (c) Assessment tools        o Learning and Emotional Skills: (a) Emotional skills; (b) Training and improvement of emotions; (c) Intervention programs        o Teaching and Emotions: (a) Teachers’ emotional relationships; (b) Teachers’ emotional well-being; (c) Emotions during educational innovations and reforms        o Psychology of Emotion: (a) Research around emotions; (b) Neuropsychological basis of emotions; (c) Influences of emotions on other constructs • Target Audience: Everyone, fundamentally in-service teachers, educational counselors, pre-service teachers and pedagogues, etc. (i.e., those in the educational field interested in the emotions)

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The yielded data was derived from students and a few professors from the University Alcalá. Future research should extend the sample to Spanish, Iberoamerican, or people across the globe, including students and teachers of MOOCs. Curators, rectors, deans, etc., could be incorporated into future research projects. The main object of this research was to know student considerations around WTSO that MOOCs in regards to teacher training. However, a future research direction should focus on understanding the causes of these answers. According to students and professors, emotions at school play an important role of MOOCs (Table 6). The University of Alcalá should design, implement, and promote MOOCs on this topic with the intent to cover training needs. On the one hand, it will promote other forms of teaching-learning with new resources. It will educate pre-service teachers on ICT uses, as well as knowledge around emotions and their utility in school life. Through this course, students will learn the following three aspects: 1. Emotional skills; 2. Knowledge about MOOCs; and 3. Other forms of teacher education. According to Sluijsmans, Brand-Gruwel, van Merriënboer, and Martens (2004), training teachers in peer-assessment skills has positive effects on performance and perceptions. For this reason and the assessment processes in MOOCs, this proposal could improve teachers’ peer-assessment skills and, consequently, their performance and perceptions.

239

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

CONCLUSION MOOCs offer a new form of teaching-learning in higher education (Daradoumis et al., 2013; Gurthrie, 2012). These courses possess specific features (Castaño & Cabero, 2013; Milheim, 2013), as well as advantages and disadvantages (Milheim, 2013; Silva & Salgado, 2014). Participants in this study noted the advantages and disadvantages, which depended on the type of MOOC (Cabero et al., 2014; SCOPEO, 2013). Theory and research shows that these courses complement the curriculum of university degrees (Bruff et al., 2013; Caballo et al., 2014; Capdevila & Aranzadi, 2014; Gómez et al., 2015, 2016a, 2016b; Monge et al., 2015; Siemens, 2013; Yuan & Powell, 2013). However, there is little research about MOOCs in higher education (Gómez et al., 2015; Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013; Martínez et al., 2014; Monge et al., 2015). Initial and continuous teacher training needs great improvements (An & Kim, 2006; Fini et al., 2008; Gómez et al., 2016b, 2015; González et al., 2009; Monge et al., 2015; Salvat & Quiroz, 2005; Tejada, 2013; Valdés et al., 2011). Student characteristics and perspectives are essential to the design, development, and assessment (Bruff et al., 2013; Cross, 2013; Daradoumis et al., 2013; Gómez et al., 2015; Grünewald et al., 2013; Guàrdia et al., 2013; Mackness et al., 2010; Monge et al., 2015; Robledo et al., 2010). In general, pre-service teachers refuse properties of MOOCs because, perhaps, they are a relatively new educational resource. It could be due to a diverse set of causes, including: 1. The faculty does not offer MOOCs to students; 2. The curriculum for degrees in teaching and teacher training do not consider any think regarding with MOOCs; 3. The university divulgates poverty this resource, 4. etc. A large part of the sample points out one important characteristic of the MOOC: no fees. It could be facilitated by current economic situations and, possibly, by a students’ economic instability (for example, the majority does not yet work). The entire sample shows that they need support around certain subjects. In addition, some specialized professors note that faculty curriculums require MOOCs on emotions at schools. In conclusion, MOOCs could meet two elements: 1. Poor initial teacher training and 2. Future teacher attitudes and knowledge toward MOOCs. Foremost, MOOCs that possess future teacher needs could support training. Secondly, MOOCs could be used to change students’ knowledge and attitudes toward this resource. In this way, MOOCs may be a compromise toward initial and continuous teacher training.

240

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

REFERENCES An, H., & Kim, S. (2006). The benefits and limitations of online group work in a teacher education program. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006. Orlando, FL: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Bruff, D. O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E., & Smith, B. E. (2013). Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187–199. Caballo, M. B., Caride, J. A., Gradaílle, R., & Pose, H. M. (2014). Los massive open online courses (MOOCs) como extensión universitaria. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 43–61. Cabero, J., Llorente, M. C., & Vázquez, A. I. (2014). Las tipologías de los MOOC: Su diseño e implicaciones educativas. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 13–26. Cain, M., & Phillipe, S. (2013). An exploration of students’ experiences of learning in an online primary teacher education program. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 304–315. Capdevila, R., & Aranzadi, P. (2014). Los cursos online masivos y abiertos: ¿Oportunidad o amenaza para las universidades iberoamericanas? Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 17(1), 69–82. Castaño, C., & Cabero, J. (2013). Enseñar y aprender en entornos m-learning. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Cross, S. (2013). Evaluation of the old MOOCs curriculum design course: Participant perspectives, expectations and experiences. London: Open University. Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., & Caballé, S. (2013). A review of massive e-learning (MOOC) design, delivery and assessment. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference onP2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing. Washington DC: IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/3PGCIC.2013.37 Fini, A., Formiconi, A., Giorni, A., Pirruccello, N. S., Spadavecchia, E., & Zibordi, E. (2008). Intro OpenEd 2007: An experience on open education by a virtual community of teachers. Journal of eLearning and Knowledge Society, 4(1), 231-239. Gómez, P., Monge, C., & García, A. (2015). Challenges about MOOCs in teacher training: Differences between on-site and open university students. In E. McKay & J. Lenarcic (Eds.), Macro-level learning through massive open online courses (MOOCs). Strategies and predictions for the future (pp. 250–270). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Gómez, P., Monge, C., & García, A. (2016a). Fundamentación psicopedagógica de los MOOCs. In P. Gómez, A. García, & C. Monge (Eds.), La cultura de los MOOCs para la innovación en Educación Superior desde contextos iberoamericanos (pp. 23–51). Madrid: Editorial Síntesis. Gómez, P., Monge, C., & García, A. (2016b). La perspectiva de los formadores acerca de los MOOCs: un estudio inicial. In P. Gómez, A. García, & C. Monge (Eds.), La cultura de los MOOCs para la innovación en Educación Superior desde contextos iberoamericanos (pp. 201–223). Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.

241

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

González, C., Castro, M., & Lizasoain, L. (2009). Using triangulation to assess continuing education teacher needs in Madrid (Spain). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(2), 1–47. PMID:27453681 Grünewald, F., Meinel, C., Totschnig, M., & Willems, C. (2013). Designing MOOCs for the support of multiple learning styles. In D. Hernández, T. Ley, R. Klamma, & A. Harrer (Eds.), Scaling up learning for sustained impact (pp. 317–382). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40814-4_29 Guàrdia, L., Marina, M., & Sangrá, A. (2013). MOOC design principles. A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. eLearning Papers, 33, 1-6. Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2013). How satisfied are you with your MOOC? A research study on interaction in huge online courses. In Proceedings of 2013 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications. Victoria: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education. A users’ guide (3rd ed.). London: SAGE. Little, G. (2013). Massively open? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 308–309. doi:10.1016/j. acalib.2013.03.004 Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature (2008-2012). International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 202–227. Mackness, J., Mak, S. F. J., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning. Hampshire: University of Portsmouth. Marauri, P. M. (2014). La figura de los facilitadores en los Cursos Online Masivos y Abiertos (COMA/ MOOC): Nuevo rol profesional para los entornos educativos en abierto. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 17(1), 35–67. Martínez, F., Rodríguez, M. J., & García, F. J. (2014). Evaluación del impacto del término “MOOC” vs. “e-learning” in la literatura científica y de divulgación. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 185–201. Martínez, J. M., Despujol, I., Medrano, J. R., & Ferrano, M. (2013). Formación de profesores en zonas desfavorecidas mediante cursos online multimedia. Paper presented at IV Jornadas Internacionales de Campus Virtuales. Masters, K. (2011). A brief guide to understanding MOOCs. Internet Journal of Medical Education, 1(2), 1–6. Milheim, W. D. (2013). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Current applications and future potential. Educational Technology, 53(3), 38–42. Monge, C., Gómez, P., & Montalvo, D. (2015). MOOCs in initial teacher training: Perspectives and learning-teaching needs. In E. McKay & J. Lenarcic (Eds.), Macro-level learning through massive open online courses (MOOCs). Strategies and predictions for the future (pp. 222–249). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

242

 Teacher, Students, and MOOCs

Robledo, P., García, J. N., Díez, C., Álvarez, M. L., Marbán, J. M., Caso, A. M., & de, . (2010). Estilos de pensamiento y aprendizaje en estudiantes de Magisterio y Psicopedagogía: Diferencias según curso y especialidad. Escritos de Psicología, 3(3), 27–36. doi:10.5231/psy.writ.2010.0707 Salvat, B. G., & Quiroz, J. S. (2005). La formación del profesorado como docente en los espacios virtuales de aprendizaje. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 36(1), 3–17. SCOPEO. (2013). MOOC: Estado de la situación actual, posibilidades, retos y futuro. Salamanca: University of Salamanca Press. Siemens, G. (2013). Massive open online courses: Innovation in education? In R. McGreal, W. Kinuthia, & S. Marshall (Eds.), Open educational resources: Innovation, research and practice (pp. 5-16). Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning-Athabasca University. Silva, I., & Salgado, I. (2014). Utilización de los MOOC en la formación docente: Ventajas, desventajas y peligros. Profesorado. Revista de Currículo y Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 155–166. Sluijsmans, D. M., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 59–78. doi:10.1080/1470329032000172720 Tejada, J. (2013). Professionalization of teaching in universities: Implications from a training perspective. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 10(1), 345–358. Valdés, A. A., Angulo, J., Urías, M. L., García, R. I., & Mortis, S. V. (2011). Necesidades de capacitación de docentes de educación básica en el uso de las TIC. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 39, 211–223. Viswanathan, R. (2012). Teaching and learning through MOOC. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3, 32–40. Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. Bolton: CETIS.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Continuous Training: Teacher-learning processes developed over time by current teachers (in service teachers). Initial Training: Teacher-learning processes that future teachers (pre-service teachers) develop. Internet-Based Survey: Educational research using e-resources to connect participants with researchers. MOOCs: A free educational resource for large amounts of people to participate. These are usually designed by topic experts, endorsed by universities, and uploaded to virtual platforms. Perspectives: A set of ideas and opinions that make that persons position themselves and see things of determined form. Teaching-Learning Needs: A lack of something that is necessary for an educational process. Teacher Training: Processes through which current or future teachers learn about and implement a set of valid knowledge from a psychopedagogic perspective. WTSO: A technique to collect and analyze opinions on a topic, in order to seek positive and negative points. 243

Section 4

Digital Literacy and the Changing Role of the Library

245

Chapter 13

Let It Go:

A Journey toward Elementary Student-Driven Media Production Aligned with the CCSS Yonty Friesem Central Connecticut State University, USA Brien J. Jennings Narragansett Elementary School, USA Carol Prest Narragansett Elementary School, USA

ABSTRACT This case study introduces a two-year process in which a fourth grade teacher working with a library media specialist experienced a successful integration of digital and media literacy practices. During that time the fourth grade teacher adopted a less protectionist approach by having her students explore different multimedia production projects to enhance their learning in social studies. This book chapter introduces the process of both the fourth grade teacher as she explored new instructional strategies to incorporate media production and the Common Core State Standards and the library media specialist as a support team member. The standards index and its media production application can help educators integrate media production into their classrooms. This case study can help promote media production activities as they foster 21st century skills in elementary students.

INTRODUCTION With the increasing use of digital media by children, teachers need to adjust their pedagogy in order to connect with students. More and more, children consume and create media (Perrin, December 2015), which means these children have a different learning experience in and out of school. As public schools implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), learning becomes a multimedia experience, using DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch013

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Let It Go

problem solving and project-based learning as instructional strategies. In order to address the homeschool gap and promote meaningful learning as advocated by the CCSS, elementary school teachers can incorporate digital literacy into any subject matter in order to engage students and enhance their learning. This chapter introduces one case study out of a two-year digital literacy implementation at Narragansett Elementary School, a New England K-4 public school. The three authors took part in a whole-school initiative to integrate a digital literacy practice. The two-year process started as Brien Jennings, the library media specialist felt he was teaching in isolation and reached out to the Media Education Lab at the State university. As he brought the new practices to Carol Prest, the 4th grade teachers, they explored it with Yonty Friesem, the Media Education Lab staff, as a collaborative effort. In this chapter, the three authors describe this process as in isolation, reaching out, bringing in, exploring, and collaboration. Prest is a 4th grade teacher at the Narragansett Elementary School who took a leadership role. She volunteered to be a member of the catalysts teacher group - a group of eleven teachers who provided professional development to the school teachers. Jennings is the school library media specialist who brought the idea of integrating digital literacy to the school after attending the State University’s Summer Institute in Digital Literacy. Friesem is the associate director of the Media Education Lab who became part of the support team at the school. Using qualitative observations, in-depth interviews, and self-reflection, the data collected showcases the two-year process of successful implementation of digital literacies in a fourth grade level class. With student artifacts such as portfolios, blogs, and videos, we can see how the process of integrating technology is not merely a technical/vocational one, but rather a change in the teacher’s state of mind. Collaboration is a word often heard in schools. It is routinely spoken of as the ideal; something to be sought after. The level and quality of teacher collaboration can be linked to improved student achievement (Ronfeldt, Farmer, Mcqueen & Grissom, 2015). Quality collaboration leads to quality teachers, leads to quality student achievement. Yet, there is rarely any real opportunity for the type of collaboration that goes much beyond the temporary or much deeper than the surface. It tends to be a concept that exists on various professional development days, briefly catches the imaginations of a portion of the faculty, and eventually succumbs to the realities and pressures of working in public education. Great in theory, but not quite feasible. Based upon Self-Determination Theory (Pink, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000), teachers should find their intrinsic motivation to implement digital media in order to have a successful learning experience for both them and their students.

BACKGROUND Digital media empowers users to access information, analyze and evaluate, create messages, and reflect upon usage (Hobbs, 2010). At the same time, it calls for social responsibility (Gardner & Jenkins, 2011). One of the biggest challenges in adapting media literacy pedagogy is teachers’ protectionist approach. Buckingham (1998) explained that the learning process must be student-centered and not a top-down approach where teachers are demystifying media messages to protect students from the negative influence of the media. In other words, instead of seeing the young students as victims of the media that needed to be protected, teachers should engage students’ popular culture in order to empower them to critically analyze media messages they consume and even be able to produce their own media messages. This empowering approach is challenging when teachers are in isolation. Sharing the control over the class content and activity with students means that there is a chance of disorder and transgression (Parry, 2013). 246

 Let It Go

Teachers might find this risk to be too challenging when they are the only adult in the room responsible for the children’s learning process. For this research, the authors decided to adapt Hobbs’ (2010) definition of digital and media literacy education as constructed by five competencies: access, analyze, create, reflect, and act. She added to the US canonical definition (Aufderheide & Firestone, 1993) the two components of reflection and action. By doing so, it allowed the authors to broaden the scope of media literacy practice and struck a balance between the protectionist and the empowerment approaches. Using inquiry-based learning, media literacy education allows students to develop the skills required to be proficient according to the CCSS (Scheibe & Rogow, 2011).

DIGITAL AND MEDIA LITERACY AND THE COMMON CORE The National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE) issued a special document in 2014 in order to connect the media literacy core principles with the CCSS (Moore & Bonilla, 2014). In their opening statement they explained the connection between media literacy and the CCSS: Media literacy engages in the thoughtful understanding of all texts in our media environment, including print, visual, audio, interactive, and digital texts. Media literate students are able to decode and comprehend texts, which allows them to analyze and evaluate texts for credibility, point of view, values, varying interpretation, and the context in which they are made, including institutional and economic contexts. Incorporating media literacy education into, specifically, English Language Arts (ELA) practices, supports the focus of the CCSS on analysis, digital creation, and the use of nonprint texts. (P.1) In the document, Moore and Bonilla connected five principles of media literacy with the CCSS. First, exploring the relationships between authors and audiences is related to reading literature (RL.) and/or Information (RI.) as ideas of analyzing and synthesizing the structure of the text by examining the purpose and message. Second, expanding the concept of literacy promotes the RL and RI key ideas of learning to analyze and synthesize diverse media and formats. It is also relevant to the speaking and listening (SL.) key ideas of comprehension and collaboration as students use multimedia texts. Third, research with information, news, and current events is aligned with the SL key ideas of presenting knowledge and ideas, but mostly writing (W.) key ideas of researching how to build and present knowledge. Fourth, empowering students as critical thinkers through media production and analysis is a strategy to apply the W.6 to use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others. This applies to SL practices to demonstrate rhetorical skills in English. Fifth, reflection, ethics, and understanding multiple points of view is connected with the W. and SL. to use rhetorical practices for evaluating multiple perspectives including their own. As our case study will showcase, “the process of teaching how to access, analyze, evaluate, create, and communicate using media in all of its forms supports many of the most challenging goals of the CCSS” (Moore & Bonilla, 2014, p.1). Although the authors of the CCSS looked at the ability to analyze and produce multimedia text as an essential part of student readiness for a successful career and life (Coleman, 2010), the document does not specify how to use media or how to implement them in each grade (Stotsky, 2013). Moreover, regarding the CCSS and digital literacy, Kaufman (2010) stated “uncertainty about standards and instruction are particularly detrimental to the learning needs of teachers” (p. 564). Looking at the challenges 247

 Let It Go

that a public elementary school teacher faces in implementing the CCSS and digital and media literacy, the authors wondered how this process works and what the steps to promote a successful integration of digital media and the CCSS would be. Educators across the country had been implementing the CCSS into their classrooms. The standards were more rigorous in many cases, but in Narragansett Elementary School, the Reading and Writing standards were not much different than what had already been taught. In the project that will be featured in this chapter, Writing Standards 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 were pertinent. These standards involve researching and writing a well-organized informational report. Reading standards RI4.2, RI4.3, and RI.4.7 were also implemented. These standards as can be seen in Table 1. related to conducting research and working with multimedia technology as students had to read, interpret, and analyze text and information presented visually. Finally, and perhaps most importantly when referring to media literacy, as explained before, the Speaking and Listening standards SL.4.4 and SL.4.5 were implemented when students created their media production. These involve reporting on a topic in an organized manner and adding audio recordings and visual displays to presentations when appropriate to enhance the development of main ideas. While teachers are gradually integrating the CCSS, it takes a long process of transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991) to start integrating the CCSS with digital technology. Similarly to Mezirow’s ten stages of transformative learning, Carol Prest underwent the five stages to integrate media production as aligned with the CCSS. With the help of Brien Jennings and Yonty Friesem, five stages were identified: in isolation, reaching out, bringing in, exploring, and collaborating. The three authors reflected on the five steps as they applied Mezorow’s three dimensions of transformative learning: psychological, convictional and behavioral. Friesem (2015) analyzed the two-year process of Jennings and Prest in relation to their hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1043) and their path to be self-determined educators (Pink, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000). This chapter describes the connection between the transformative process of Prest as her needs as educator were met by collaborating with Jennings and Friesem as well as discovering the power of media production to be a student-driven activity.

METHOD The purpose of this case study (Yin, 2009) was to explore the process of one fourth grade teacher in her struggles to successfully implement digital and media literacy, as aligned with the CCSS, with her students at Narragansett Elementary School. As a collaborative effort to tell the story of Prest and Jennings, the authors incorporated auto-ethnography data into the book chapter.

Participants The purposive sampling (Creswell, 2014) aimed at targeting leading teachers who successfully implemented media production in their classroom. As part of a larger multiple case study, participants volunteered to take part in a semester long research, including being interviewed and observed multiple times regarding their implementations of media production during the last two years. Upon IRB approval, the 45 full time faculty of Narragansett Elementary School were introduced to the research at a faculty meeting in January 2015. Eight volunteered to be observed and interviewed at their convenience between January and June 2015. This chapter describes the story of two study participants – Carol prest, the fourth grade teacher and Brien Jennings, the library media specialist. The school was a public school using “Race to 248

 Let It Go

Table 1. Glogster activity and assessment aligned with CCSS for 4th grade Definition

Activity

Assessment

RI 4.2

Determine the main idea of a text and explain how it is supported by key details; summarize the text.

Students researched their topic by first reading a book provided by the teacher. They took notes and wrote about the most important points about the topic’s background and why the person made a difference.

Teacher conferenced with students and later used the fourth grade writing rubric* to assess final writing.

RI 4.3

Explain events, procedures, ideas, or concepts in a historical, scientific, or technical text, including what happened and why, based on specific information in the text.

Students learned about the significance of a historical figure. They used the information from their research to explain what happened.

Writing rubric*.

RI 4.7

Interpret information presented visually, orally, or quantitatively (e.g., in charts, graphs, diagrams, time lines, animations, or interactive elements on Web pages) and explain how the information contributes to an understanding of the text in which it appears.

Students reviewed, analyzed and chose images and videos, and explained why they made their choices.

Teacher observation, Glog’s analysis and students’ reflection.

W 4.2

Write informative/ explanatory texts to examine a topic and convey ideas and information clearly.

Students drafted, edited and revised two paragraphs about their topic on a historical figure who had made a difference.

Writing rubric*.

W 4.4

Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development and organization are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.

After instruction, students wrote their paragraphs in preparation for sharing with classmates and families.

Writing rubric*.

W 4.5

With guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, and editing. (Editing for conventions should demonstrate command of language standards 1-3 up to and including grade 4 here.)

Students peer-edited with a partner using a checklist. After making revisions the teacher conferenced with each student and more revisions or edits were done if needed.

Teacher observations, checklist of digital literacy skills** and the writing rubric*.

W 4.6

With some guidance and support from adults, use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of one page in a single sitting.

Students copied and pasted their paragraphs into a Glog on-line poster. Then they reviewed and chose images, videos, backgrounds and other graphics to enhance their words. Students helped each other as needed.

Teacher circulated as students worked, providing assistance when needed. Observations of student peer support.

W 4.7

Conduct short research projects that build knowledge through investigation of different aspects of a topic.

Students did research about their topic’s background and what they did to make a difference.

Students’ presentations of their research outcomes before working on their Glogs.

SL.4.4

Report on a topic or text, tell a story, or recount an experience in an organized manner, using appropriate facts and relevant, descriptive details to support main ideas or themes; speak clearly at an understandable pace.

Students learned what good speakers do when they make a presentation. There is a chart in the classroom that explained this. They practiced and then presented their glogs, first to the class and later to parents.

Students offered compliments and suggestions after their peers presented their glogs. Sometimes Glogs were revised. Teacher used a rubric for the Glog presentations***.

SL.4.5

Add audio recordings and visual displays to presentations when appropriate to enhance the development of main ideas or themes.

Students make strategic use of digital media and visual displays as they inserted audio, images, videos, and other graphics to enhance their Glog.

Teacher observation and Glog rubric***.

Note: Definitions are taken from the CCSS site: http://www.corestandards.org/ *Prest applied the writing rubric of the Delaware Department of Education (2013). ** Prest created a rubric for students’ digital literacy skills such as locating, evaluating, synthesizing, planning, editing and communicating information. *** Prest created a rubric for students’ Glog presentation including the development of the historical research, the design and navigation of the poster and the multimedia component.

249

 Let It Go

the Top” funding to implement the CCSS. The school was a high performing school, located in a white upper-middle class suburban community with 8.6% of children living under the poverty line (RI Kids Count, 2016). Ninety percent of the students were white and twenty one percent were eligible for reduced or free lunch (Narragansett Public Schools, 2016). This unique setting allowed Jennings and Prest to implement innovative practices of media literacy. They underwent a gradual process where they learned to empower their students using media production. The description of their work and personal process in this chapter as five stages allow other educators to interpret the process and apply the relevant parts as it relates to their own particular contexts.

Context of Study The three authors worked at Narragansett Elementary School. Prest was a fourth grade teacher. Jennings was the library media specialist. Friesem was part of the support team that provided professional development and researched the effects of that professional development. This publication is part of a greater research project to explore how to integrate digital literacy in elementary public education. In 2011, the Narragansett School District began a rolling implementation of the CCSS, as part of the State’s Department of Education requirement for receiving the Race To The Top grant. The schoolwide work on digital and media literacy at Narragansett Elementary School started when Jennings returned from the Summer Institute in Digital Literacy. Prest was one of the first participants of the group, as she had already been starting to explore the idea of incorporating digital literacies in her classroom. During the 2014-2015 school year, Friesem started to provide support to the digital literacy initiative and collected data later in the spring semester.

Data Collection and Analysis The data was collected during the Spring semester of 2015. Friesem was conducting observations and interviews with Narragansett Elementary School teachers who volunteered to be part of the research. Friesem conducted observations and was part of the process for a year and a half prior to conducting the interviews. Each participant was videotaped as they were individually interviewed by Friesem, and as part of two focus groups. Jennings and Prest took part in the same two focus groups. Like the other participants, they invited Friesem to their classroom and scheduled time to conduct the individual interviews. In order to include their experience of the process, Jennings and Prest also participated in the analysis of the interviews and observations, and together reflected on their work. This autoethnographic (Chang, Ngunjiri, & Hernandez, 2013) writing included data that was collected through interviews and observation, along with a self-reflection from each participant. The Authors decided to collaborate on the writing since the data included a self-reflection from each author discussing their interdependence and collaboration. Each provided their perspective and together they analyzed the data. Their dialogue generated a synthesis of their perspectives into one narrative. Prest and Jennings were interviewed by Friesem on four occasions; twice individually and twice as part of a focus group. Between interviews they were observed by Friesem five times while having a media production activity in their class. Together, Prest, Jennings, and Friesem collaborated on the narrative analysis (Merriam, 2001). Using a Google Document©, Friesem provided Jennings and Prest with the context for their interpretations of the research data. 250

 Let It Go

The authors wanted to provide a descriptive narrative to the reader in order to see the different steps that lead to a whole district digital literacy integration as well as Prest’s self-reflection on her change in her instructional strategies. The data analysis provided a five stage process that can be transferred to other settings. Although Narragansett Elementary School has its own particular context, the process can be adapted, even partially by other educators who see how media production can be used to promote a student-centered approach aligned with the Common Core Standards.

LEARNING TO LET IT GO Working together, the three Authors framed the process through a narrative of five stages: in isolation, reaching out, bringing in, exploring, and collaborating. The following section provides the narrative and evidence of the process that Prest, the fourth grade teacher, and Jennings, the library media specialist went through from the summer of 2013 to the summer of 2015.

In Isolation: The Library Media Center Prior to the 2013/2014 school year, Jennings taught in isolation. It was not an uncommon scenario for school library media specialists at the elementary level. Beyond the occasional research collaboration, there was not much opportunity to extend classroom lessons into the library media center, or vice versa. The library was generally viewed as a place students were sent to learn library skills and to gather materials needed for research projects. There was no real connection to what was being taught in the classroom. Digital and media literacy of any kind was simply not a part of the classroom teacher’s day-to-day vocabulary. And in large part this reflected Jennings’s failure to connect with them. He knew how to present the concepts and created a good unit on the topic, but was continually frustrated by the lack of depth that could be achieved. Jennings struggled with ideas about how to bring these concepts to younger students (predominantly second grade, as first grade tended to be almost entirely dedicated to teaching and reinforcing the most basic library skills). Developmentally, these students were not equipped to process much more than the basics of intellectual property. Conversely, with older students (third and fourth grade), the topics went much deeper than Jennings would explore in his limited instructional time. Especially not while still managing to present the basic library and research skills they were required to know by the end of their time at Narragansett Elementary School. The students were engaged while in the media center, exploring complex concepts of digital and media literacy with active questions and conversation. But it ended at the library doors. “It was a continual frustration” (Jennings, 2015). There was also the need to go beyond basic media literacy and explore the more complex aspects of deeper media analysis and creation, but, as this was traditionally something that was for the middle school and high school levels, “I was not confident that classroom teachers would see this as something that was even relevant to the age level” (Jennings, 2015). By the close of the 2012/2013 Jennings was feeling increasingly isolated and frustrated by the realities of teaching at the elementary school level. He realized that he would have to adapt a deeper media literacy curriculum to the elementary level or risk stagnating, and so began searching for ideas how to do so. A brief internet search resulted in finding information about an upcoming Summer Institute in Digital Literacy organized by the Media Education Lab at the University of Rhode Island.

251

 Let It Go

Reaching Out: The Summer Institute in Digital Literacy The 2013 Summer Institute in Digital Literacy was the first week-long professional development offered by Dr. Renee Hobbs and Dr. Julie Coiro at the University of Rhode Island. Friesem was the assistant director of the Media Education Lab at that time. He was in charge of production and logistics, as well as being a faculty member that provided sessions. Each morning a different keynote speaker presented a particular aspect of digital literacy. Dr. Coiro explained how inquiry-based learning benefits students when they work with a peer when learning how to locate information online, analyze different sources, synthesize data, and communicate it to others. Dr. Hobbs showcased how to use the AACRA model to enhance digital and media literacy skills. She demonstrated the importance of students having the ability to access media, analyze the media message, create their own message, reflect upon their use of media and composition, and be socially responsible; thinking about their impact. Later the same day, Friesem, along with other faculty, presented a workshop focusing on the use of video production in schools. One of the workshop participants was Jennings. Jennings attended large and smaller group sessions outlining the theory and best practices of digital and media literacy. Friesem’s session, Producing Videos on A Small Budget, provided several strategies for introducing digital literacy. After the session, Jennings reached out to Friesem and they brainstormed about how to bring media production to younger students. Jennings also reached out to Dr. Hobbs who discussed the possibility of forming a partnership between Narragansett Elementary School and the Media Education Lab. After meeting with the administration it was decided that the first steps would be the formation of a “DigiLit” book study group, using Discovering Media Literacy: Teaching Digital Media and Popular Culture in Elementary School (Hobbs & Moore, 2013), and a pilot program involving the fourth grade faculty.

Bringing in: Book Group/Pilot Program Prest taught at Narragansett Elementary School for over twenty years. Her colleagues included three comparatively recent transfers from the system’s middle school and one “newer” teacher who joined the school less than six years before. Prest had always been interested in collaboration opportunities and had had the pleasure of working with colleagues who had often been on the forefront of innovative teaching. At the time of this study, about one-third of her class were considered to be enrichment track students. These students were identified from high test scores as well as recommendations from their third grade teacher regarding daily class performance and motivation to learn. Prest had always been willing to explore ways of integrating technology into her classroom as she believed it could be beneficial to students. However, she remained cautious about the risk of students focusing too much on the technology tools. Over the course of the 2013/2014 school year, Prest often expressed reservations about using technology at the expense of curriculum requirements. She often felt uncertain of her ability to use digital tools and was wary that real learning would be overshadowed by the “bells and whistles.” She thought there needed to be a depth to the learning and the focus should not be just on the presentation. She found it helpful to see examples of successful integration projects but sometimes felt apprehensive about being able to keep up with the technology. Things changed so fast for her. Just when she would think that some innovation was great, something newer came along that seemed even better. After Jennings came back from the Summer Institute in Digital Literacy, he was highly enthused about the experience. His enthusiasm was contagious and Prest was very supportive of a potential partnership 252

 Let It Go

with the Media Education Lab. She agreed to take part in a fourth grade pilot PD program designed by Friesem in the spring 2014. Along with ten full time teachers, she signed on to the DigiLit book study group that was formed. The group met for several weeks, discussing Hobbs’ (2013) book and sharing how it was changing their attitudes about teaching digital literacy in the classroom. Having time to share with colleagues is something Prest found inspiring and supportive as she attempted to improve her teaching practice. Prest had previously “dabbled” with integrating digital technology in her classroom, but had never been fully satisfied with the results. During the 2012/2013 school year she used the free version of Glogster©, an online platform that allows students to create multimedia posters. Though her experience was frustrating, she tried it again with the support of Jennings, Friesem and the DigiLit group. Her success to implement CCSS with technology in her second experiment with Glogster in the 2013/2014 school year, convinced the school principal to pay for the full version for all grade three and grade four teachers the following two years 2014-2016. Initially in 2012, Prest used Glogster with her students for a writing/biographical research assignment in history. This was a research report that focused on U.S. heroes. Students chose a topic from a list she provided. Students then researched, took notes, and did a biographical report about the person. The collaboration with Jennings in the 2013/2014 school year at the library media center was limited to research skills lessons taught earlier in the year and arranging a time for students to come to the library media center to select biographies. A list of potential historical figures was provided to Jennings and alternatives were suggested where necessary. In addition to print materials, students were also allowed to utilize 1-2 online resources (not to include Wikipedia). After completing their research, students then were directed to write Word© documents, describing the character traits that made these people heroic. Finally, based upon this writing exercise, they were to create a multimedia “Glog”. Although unsure of her own skills using Glogster, Prest demonstrated how to create a presentation using Glogster templates to her students. The results of that pilot project were mixed; there were a lot of technology glitches and she was very apprehensive because she did not feel that she had mastery of the program. She could see the potential for using Glogster or some other digital tool in the future, but continued to be concerned about the glitches that would inevitably occur and was intent on finding the most effective way to integrate the technology into her lessons.

Exploring Glogster: Incorporating the CCSS As a result of professional development with Jennings, Friesem, and the DigiLit book club during the 2013/2014 academic year, Prest decided at the end of March to make another attempt at integrating a digital tool into the lesson. She decided upon Glogster again, but in this case opted to use the paid version. She found that there were fewer glitches with this version. She redesigned the “Hero” project as a three-week unit. This time, with collaboration from the school literacy coach, each step was created with CCSS in mind as seen in Table 1. Reading 4.2 students researched their topic by first reading a book provided by the teacher. They took notes and wrote about the most important points about the topic’s background and why the person made a difference. Reading 4.3 students learned about the significance of an historical figure. They used the information from their research to explain what happened. Reading .4.7 students did research about their topic’s background and what they did to make a difference. Writing .4.2 students drafted, edited and revised two paragraphs about their topic on an historical figure who had made a difference. Writing .4.4 after instruction, students wrote their paragraphs in preparation for 253

 Let It Go

sharing with classmates and families. Writing .4.5 students peer edited with a partner using a checklist. After making revisions the teacher conferenced with each student and more revisions or edits were done if needed. Writing .4.6 students copied and pasted their paragraphs into a Glog on-line poster. Then they reviewed and chose images, videos and other graphics to enhance their words. Students helped each other as needed. Writing .4.7 students did research about their topic’s background and what they did to make a difference. Speaking and listening L.4.4 students learned what good speakers do when they make a presentation. There is a chart in the classroom that explained this. They practiced and then presented their glogs, first to the class and later to parents. Speaking and listening L.4.5 students made strategic use of digital media and visual displays as they inserted audio, images, videos, and other graphics to enhance their Glog. The Glog project “People Who Have Made a Difference” allowed students to meet many of the Grade 4 CCSS and for Prest to be able to assess their learning. Common Core Reading Standard 4.2 is a reading comprehension ability when students can “determine the main idea of a text and explain how it is supported by key details” (CCSS, 2011). In addition, Reading Standard 4.3 is the ability to “explain events, procedures, ideas, or concepts in a historical, scientific, or technical text, including what happened and why, based on specific information in the text” (CCSS, 2011). The students’ first task of this project, after choosing a topic from a list provided by Prest, was to read one book, also provided by Prest, and to take notes from it. After that they could add information to their notes from websites. They were instructed to find details about the topic’s childhood and then learn how that person made a difference in the world. Students had to differentiate what was important information from what was “just interesting”. This was the research segment of the assignment. One of the Reading standards that refer to digital literacy with informational text was Reading 4.7 that states that students should be able to interpret information presented visually, orally, or quantitatively (e.g. in charts, graphs, diagrams, time lines, animations, or interactive elements on Web pages) and explain how the information contributes to an understanding of the text in which it appears. By locating videos, pictures and informational text online, students were able to analyze and evaluate from various resources the main contributions of the historical figure and how they made a difference. Writing standard.4.2 is referring to students’ ability to “write an informative or explanatory text to examine a topic and convey ideas and information clearly” (CCSS, 2011). After collecting research notes, students wrote drafts, they were expected to write at least one paragraph about the topic’s background and one paragraph explaining how the person made a difference, or, what the person’s most important contributions were. Prest had taught writing lessons prior to students doing the research. It was during this step that students produced work demonstrating CCSS W.4.4. This standard states that “students will produce clear and coherent writing in which the development and organization are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience” (CCSS. 2011). When students completed their drafts, either in notebooks or on the computer, they signed up for a conference with Prest. At that time, she would meet with the students. It allowed her students to meet CCSS W.4.5 “with guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, and editing” (CCSS, 2011). This is when the major revision and editing would take place. Creation of the Glog followed. Writing standard 4.6 states that “with guidance and support from adults, students should be able to use technology, including the internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others” (CCSS, 2011). In addition, they should demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of one page in a single sitting. Both of these standards were addressed with this project. Furthermore, CCSS W.4.7 calls for students to conduct short research projects that build 254

 Let It Go

knowledge through investigation of different aspects of a topic. Students are expected to demonstrate understanding of the subject under investigation. Two of the speaking and listening standards call for students to make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and enhance understanding of presentations. Speaking and listening standards 4.4. and 4.5 regarding the Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas requires students to add audio recordings and visual displays to presentations when appropriate to enhance the development of main ideas or themes. The Glogster platform provided the perfect platform for students to use their creativity to produce a multimedia project. In prior lessons they were taught the importance of choosing backgrounds, images, videos, and graphics that would enhance their subject. Colors and size of fonts mattered, placement of images and other graphics could enhance the topic or make for a cluttered project. Videos had to be chosen for a reason, they had to watch and analyze in order to decide if a video had the best information and the optimum length to improve their presentation. Meanwhile, throughout this process, students were learning more about their topic. As the projects were completed, they were shared on the Promethean Board© in the classroom. Students evaluated their peers work with a rubric. They complimented aspects that they thought were effective, and made suggestions where they felt improvements could be made. This was done with great respect and students were encouraged to revise their work if they chose to do so. The grand finale was our “Glogfest”. Parents were invited to come into the classroom one afternoon to view the students’ presentations. During the work on the Glogster - historical figure assignment, students were focused and engaged throughout the project, especially when it was time to complete the Glogs. Moreover, they were happy and willing to help each other, teaching each other the features of Glogster and fixing glitches when they occurred. One important outcome for Prest was the realization that some of the children were more confident with the technology than she was. They quickly caught on and were willing to explore all of the tools Glogster offered. Depending on them to help each other and, in some cases, teach her, was empowering for both the students and the teacher. This also allowed her the time needed to conference one-on-one with students.

Letting Go: How Digital and Media Literacy with CCSS is Learner-Centered At the same time the students would use the research skills learned in the library media center for their Glogster multimedia project, Jennings was supporting their research by teaching them about visual, media, and digital literacy (this occurred in all five fourth grade classrooms). These lessons focused specifically on explaining the importance of design elements in creating a multimedia presentation, and covered topics including sound and layout choice; from use of color, fonts, and backgrounds, to placement of titles and media. After completing the research portion of the assignment, students were introduced to Glogster. Unlike the earlier trial when Prest introduced the online platform, this time, the students were allowed to explore its capabilities independently. They experimented for two to three days, and Prest provided focus and guidance, before beginning to create their final products. It was liberating for Prest to learn that she did not need to know everything about the technology. This was a significant transformative moment in her teaching. She just “let go”. The students took over, rose to the occasion, and helped each other. In fact, the collaboration that took place between students was just as important as the task they were working on. But, “I had to get over the idea that the teacher needs to know everything, and by letting go of that, the students explored and discovered skills on their 255

 Let It Go

own,” (Prest, 2015). Unlike her first experience with Glogster, this time she stepped back and let students explore it and then teach each other. In the process, she came to realize that she did not need to be fully in control of every aspect of the lesson in order to be effective. The writing was different from the first project because of the structure that followed the CCSS W.4.4., W.4.5., and W.4.7. so, the quality of writing was better to begin with. The students had a great time. “They pulled it all together and the parents came into the classroom to view the final presentations. It was enjoyable learning experience for all” (Prest, 2015). At the end of the school year 2013-2014, Friesem conducted a focus group to receive feedback for his workshop, and, more importantly, to plan the next year. Prest, Jennings, and four teachers participated and offered their feedback. It was during this feedback session that Friesem learned about Prest’s project and how, ultimately, her students had taught other fourth grade students how to use Glogster. That started a chain reaction when the other grade four teacher approached the classroom next door and offered to teach them. During the next year, the digital literacy initiative took a bigger turn as many teachers at the school started to use media production. Additionally, Jennings was allowed to reallocate a small portion of his budget to create a TV studio with green screen and studio lighting at the library. The studio was used in some capacity by all grade levels, but consistently by the third and fourth graders who were sent by their teachers. Jennings was successful in breaking the insolation.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Prest’s experience was only one of several transitions that happened at the school. As Jennings reached out and got more teachers to become involved in the digital literacy initiative, not only was the isolation over, but the teaching has transformed into a student driven focus. The collaboration with the Media Education Lab evolved into a year of support of the administration and a group of catalyst teachers that Jennings and Prest took part in. Narragansett Elementary School principal started to use video production for her monthly update for parents. The superintendent supported the initiative and came to one of the professional development days to learn how to use Twitter for research. The teachers who used the digital and media literacy practice presented in statewide and national conferences. The five stages, from isolation to collaboration, demonstrated how, with the understanding of the connection between digital and media literacy and the CCSS, educators can come together to transform their instructional strategies. Narragansett Elementary School had a long history of technology integration and a long history of being a community of practice. Nevertheless, the two-year initiative to bring digital and media literacy practices connected the two traditions into a comprehensive practice in the classroom. The teachers came together to discuss their shared goals as aligned with the CCSS and started to implement the use of media production in their classes. As a result, not only did the community of practice support their work in the classroom, but their pedagogy also shifted. Prest’s case study demonstrated how with the right support from in- and out-of-school professional development, a teacher can shift from a protectionist approach to using media in the classroom to achieve a more empowering approach. At each stage, another component was added to support Prest’s practice. First, Jennings reached out to an out-of-school resource - the Media Education Lab. Second, with relevant materials, he brought literature and practices that connected digital and media literacy scholarship and assignments to the CCSS. Third, Prest used the resources provided by Jennings, and the school literacy coach, along with Friesem’s

256

 Let It Go

professional development workshops as an out of school expert in media education. Prest’s exploration in her class to let her students take the lead became a transformative experience for her as an educator. The five stages that were described can be seen as the combination of Self-Determination Theory (Pink, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and the Hierarchy of Human Needs (Maslow, 1943). As described by Friesem (2015), the hierarchical process of Narragansett Elementary School teachers, and Jennings and has five stages. Jennings’s feeling of isolation and frustration from the protectionist approach to media in the school, created an opportunity for him as library media specialist to reach out and find support to integrate an empowering approach. His needs were met once he found a common language with the Media Education Lab members. This relatedness experience motivated him to create a community of practice at Narragansett Elementary School. He brought in the empowering approach using a book club and professional development to introduce the concepts and practice. The book club and professional development met the needs of a group of teachers who decided to explore the empowerment approach using media production. They explored media production in their classroom and started to feel more competent as they gave more control to their students. Learning to “let it go” was not only an empowering practice of digital and media literacy, it met the teachers’ need to be updated and develop their students’ 21st century skills as required by the Common Core State Standards. This shift from a protectionism to an empowerment approach regarding media was a two-year process, as teachers supported each other while undergoing a professional development. This interdependence of teacher and learner benefited both Prest and her students. Additionally, the entire school became a place to integrate digital and media literacy, with the library media center as a hub for resources and support. Prest’s index of activities aligned with the Common Core State Standards is one of many media production projects that were implemented by a group of devoted teachers at Narragansett Elementary School. Using her index can help other educators to implement parts of it in their particular educational setting.

Limitations This particular case study has a unique context and cannot be replicated exactly. And yet, it can be transferred to other settings with mild modifications. While our collection and analysis of the data might be seen as biased, this transformative research (Fraenkel, Wallen & Hyun, 2012) aims to advocate for pedagogical change as Prest altered her perspective. We acknowledge that not all settings would be able to implement this method and not all the data can be transferred to other schools. Nevertheless, we want this case study to serve as a showcase to be used as a call for educators to consider giving their students an opportunity to explore their own voice as a practice aligned with the CCSS.

CONCLUSION This chapter describes the process of one fourth grade teacher who, with the support of her colleagues, integrated media production into her class. Prest benefited from learning to hand the control of the production over to her students. Her two-year process started with the book club, continued with digital tool experimentation (with the support of the library media specialist, the literacy and math coaches), the university experts mentoring through a weeklong summer institute, and monthly workshops. A significant contribution to Prest’s feelings of confidence was due to her engagement with the school community of practice of her fellow teachers. Her students’ work is tangible evidence for the school 257

 Let It Go

community of how elementary students can benefit from media production while following the CCSS. Many educators can relate to Prest’s journey. Although it is her particular experience, this journey can be transferred to other contexts and educational settings to promote the successful implementation of the CCSS via students’ empowerment producing their own media messages. The process of breaking the isolation by reaching out, bringing in, letting go, and collaborating is a model that can benefit other professional development designers, administrators, media library specialists, and teachers. With the current standardized testing policy, elementary school teachers have to connect their practice to the CCSS. Our case study shows that structuring a systematic lesson plan looking at educational outcomes can help us empower students to take control over their learning process. Students are able to search for the information, evaluate it, compose a report, and present it using different media platforms. If we as educators can learn to let go and let our instruction be student-driven, we will not only use technology to enhance the students’ digital and media literacy skills, and meet the educational standards, but more importantly, we will prepare our students to be educated and literate 21st century citizens.

REFERENCES Alliance for Childhood. (2010). Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professional on the Common Core Standards Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/joint_statement_on_core_standards.pdf Aufderheide, P., & Firestone, C. M. (1993). Media literacy. A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Washington, DC: Aspen institute. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED365294.pdf Avila, J., & Moore, M. (2012). Critical literacy, digital literacies, and common core state standards: A workable union? Theory into Practice, 51(1), 27–33. doi:10.1080/00405841.2012.636332 Baker, F. (2014). Media literacy clearinghouse. FrankBaker.com. Retrieved from: http://www.frankwbaker.com/mlc/ Buckingham, D. (1998). Media education in the UK: Moving beyond protectionism. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 33–43. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02735.x Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F., & Hernandez, K. C. (2013). Collaborative autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Coleman, D. (2011, April 28). Bringing the Common Core to life. Retrieved from New York State Education Department at http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/docs/bringingthecommoncoretolife/part6transcript.pdf Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers’ criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and literacy, grades 3–12. Retrieved from the Common Core Standards Initiative at www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12.pdf Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

258

 Let It Go

Delaware Department of Education. (2013, February 5). Argumentation/opinion text-based writing rubric. Dover, DE: Department of Education - Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/508 Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Friesem, Y. (2015). On becoming a digital literacy mentor: Self-determination and media production in elementary education. (Unpublished PhD in Education). Kingston, RI: University of Rhode Island. Gardner, H., & Jenkins, H. (2011). Appendix: How we got here. Our space: Being a responsible citizen of the digital world (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education & Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California. Retrieved from http://www. thegoodproject.org/pdf/Our_Space_full_casebook.pdf Hobbs, R. (1996). Media literacy and the “big tent”. Paper presented at the National Media Literacy Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/media-literacyand-big-tent Hobbs, R. (2010, November). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. (White Paper). Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Retrieved from http://www.knightcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ Digital_and_Media_Literacy_A_Plan_of_Action.pdf Hobbs, R., & Moore, D. C. (2013). Discovering media literacy: Teaching digital media and popular culture in elementary school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. doi:10.4135/9781506335445 International Reading Association Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Committee. (2012). Literacy implementation guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards [White paper]. Retrieved fromhttp:// www.reading.org/Libraries/association-documents/ira_ccss_guidelines.pdf Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: The John D.and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2010). Teacher Learning Opportunities in a Shifting Policy Environment for Instruction. Educational Policy, 24(4), 563–601. doi:10.1177/0895904809335106 Kids Count, R. I. (2016). 2016 Rhode Island Kids Count Factbook. Providence, RI: Rhode Island Kids Count. Retrieved from http://www.rikidscount.org/DataPublications/RIKidsCountFactbook.aspx Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. doi:10.1037/ h0054346 Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Moore, D. C., & Bonilla, E. (2014). Media Literacy Education & The Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from https://namleboard.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/namlemleccssguide.pdf

259

 Let It Go

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ Parry, B. (2013). Children, film and literacy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137294333 Perrin, A. (2015). One-fifth of Americans report going online ‘almost constantly.’ Internet project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/08/one-fifth-of-americans-report-going-online-almost-constantly/ Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Ravitch, D. (2010). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. New York, NY: Basic Books. RobbGrieco, M., & Hobbs, R. (2013). A field guide to media literacy education in the united states. Kingston, RI: Media Education Lab. Retrieved from http://mediaeducationlab.com/news/field-guidemedia-literacy-education-united-states Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., Mcqueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher Collaboration in Instructional Teams and Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514. doi:10.3102/0002831215585562 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 PMID:10620381 Scheibe, C. L., & Rogow, F. (2011). The Teacher’s Guide to Media Literacy: Critical Thinking in a Multimedia World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Shanahan, T. (2012). The Common Core ate my baby: And other urban legends. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 11–16. Stotsky, S. (2013). Literature or Technical Manuals: Who Should Be Teaching What, Where, and Why? Nonpartisan Education Review / Essays, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/ Review/Essays/v9n1.htm Strickland, D. (2012). Planning curriculum to meet the Common Core State Standards. Reading Today, 29(4), 25–26. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

260

 Let It Go

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Digital and Media Literacy: The ability to access, analyze, create, reflect and be socially responsible while consuming, producing, and sharing media messages digitally. Empowerment Approach: Approach that looks at media as a tool to empower individual and/or communities through expressive composition of texts. Glogster: A cloud-based platform used for presentation and interactive learning. Users can mix a variety of media to create multimedia posters. Media Library Specialist: A library media specialist (LMS) is a certified librarian who has also been trained as an educator. Traditionally, the LMS is responsible for teaching library, research, and information literacy skills. They are also responsible for developing the school library’s collection of resources. Media Production: Media production describes the creation and recording of digital or analog communication. Media production can take the forms of writing for traditional print and broadcast, as well as the Internet. It can include film and television production, animation, blogging or vlogging, video game authoring, and website and logo design. Protectionism Approach: Approach that looks at the need to be critical media consumers in order to take control of the media messages that we are surrounded by. Summer Institute in Digital Literacy: A week-long professional development for educators who are looking to deepen their understanding and practice of digital literacy. Applying an inquiry-based learning approach, participants learn from leading expert in the field, share their experience and design their own digital literacy curriculum.

261

262

Chapter 14

Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards Kelly Paynter Jacksonville State University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter addresses the benefits and synergies that the elementary classroom teacher and the school library media specialist (LMS) experience when collaborating in the planning, differentiation, and assessment of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), with an emphasis on the role of technology and information literacy. General reasons for teacher/LMS collaboration; specific reasons for collaboration on the CCSS; technology integration; and physical space and instructional flexibility form the key concepts of discussion. Tables present specific CCSS that the LMS is uniquely qualified to teach to students. The chapter concludes with practical recommendations for district personnel, school-based administrators, LMSs, classroom teachers, and preservice teachers.

INTRODUCTION The elementary school classroom teacher has many roles: facilitator, manager, leader, guardian, psychologist, social worker, colleague, technologist, coach, student, and servant (Howard, 2015). It can be overwhelming to accomplish learning objectives with a group of children varying in ability, home support, native language, behavior, and motivation. Having more than 90 seconds to use the bathroom may constitute a given day’s major accomplishment. The classroom teacher, however, has a valuable ally, one that even may be underutilized. This superhero/co-teacher down the hall is the library media specialist (LMS). Particularly in the areas of research, literature, and informational texts, the LMS can help the classroom teacher implement the Common DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0965-3.ch014

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

Core State Standards (CCSS) through methods such as co-teaching, technology implementation, and co-assessment (Bogel, 2009). The objectives of this chapter are fourfold. First, current and preservice elementary classroom teachers will learn general reasons to collaborate with the LMS, which include a reduction of the teacher-topupil ratio, more efficient differentiation of instruction, and easier cross-curricular integration. Second, collaboration as it pertains specifically to the CCSS will be examined. Teachers will discover how the LMS can teach certain CCSS strands, promote literacy in all content areas, determine the complexity of texts, assess students’ reading levels, and provide alignment with national information literacy and technology standards. Next, the role of the LMS as technology integration facilitator will be explored. Preservice and current teachers will understand how the LMS can serve as a technology expert, teacher, troubleshooter, and manager; and act as an assessor of digital end products. Finally, the media center will be presented as a flexible space in terms of both physical plant and human resources. Authentic learning experiences, embedded instruction, and just-in-time teaching enable the classroom teacher to take full advantage of the library and the LMS’s expertise. It is the author’s hope that each preservice teacher, current elementary school classroom teacher, and administrator who reads this chapter will discover an innovative, exciting way to collaborate with the school LMS.

Background Various studies have documented the benefits of a fully-staffed, fully-stocked library, in which teachers, administrators, students, and parents work in partnership. Reading scores improve (Barack, 2012); math, science, history, and writing proficiencies increase (Dow, Lakin, & Court, 2012); minority students experience greater achievement (Nelson, 2010); and secondary students are more likely to graduate (Coker, 2015). Research has indicated, however, that preservice classroom teachers receive little information about the role of the LMS, including how to initiate collaboration (or why one would want to collaborate in the first place) and how the LMS can help the classroom teacher with lesson plans, technology integration, and assessment (Latham, Gross, & Witte, 2013). Studies have also indicated that preservice teachers struggle in the areas of digital and information literacy (Stockham & Collins, 2012), technology integration (Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012; Hutchison & Colwell, 2016), differentiation of instruction (Troxclair, 2013), and inter-disciplinary planning (Brand & Triplett, 2012). Current elementary classroom teachers and administrators may also not understand the benefits of collaboration with the LMS (Ballard & Fontichiaro, 2010). These individuals may not have had positive relationships with their own LMSs during their formative years, or perhaps they are unaware of the ways in which the LMS can help increase student achievement. The LMS wears many hats in a school, and the job is greatly shaped by the desires of the local school administrative staff. Below are several roles and functions of the LMS that can be symbiotic with and beneficial to the elementary classroom teacher, particularly an individual in the early stages of his/her career.

263

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

GENERAL REASONS TO COLLABORATE WITH THE LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALIST There are many reasons to collaborate with various personnel across the school building; in fact, it is a best practice heavily emphasized in teacher training programs. According to Moreillon and Ballard (2012), “Through shared responsibility, co-teachers create opportunities for reciprocal mentoring and ongoing mutual reflection to improve practice. The opportunity to learn alongside a colleague as an equal improves teaching practices for novice as well as veteran educators” (p. 6). Some of the benefits of collaboration between the classroom teacher and LMS include a reduction of the teacher-to-student ratio, the ability to differentiate instruction, the promotion of cross-curricular concepts, and a more efficient library ordering process.

Lower Teacher/Pupil Ratio One of the most obvious benefits of collaboration with the LMS is an automatic halving of the teacherto-pupil ratio. In an age of increased class sizes, the importance of this aspect of the co-teaching model cannot be overstressed. Having two adults in any given lesson, both of whom can answer questions, redirect behavior, clarify instructions, and provide encouragement is valuable and efficient (Moreillon & Ballard, 2012). Buzzeo (2008) defines this relationship as having a “partner [with whom] to share the task of addressing student deficits” (p. 30). This benefit is only recognized, however, if the classroom teacher stays with the class during library visits and acts as an active participant in the lesson, and if the LMS has a full-time paraprofessional who can answer questions and attend to patron needs while the LMS is working with classes.

Differentiation of Instruction In the “School Librarian’s Bill of Responsibilities” (Bogel, 2009), LMSs are charged with “support[ing] multiple paths to understanding for individual learning styles” and “design[ing] student-centered learning experiences” (p. 66). The classroom teacher and the LMS can differentiate instruction based on student readiness, level, topic, or any other appropriate measure. Classes can be split between the library and the classroom or arranged in groups or stations in either location. Depending on the topic, the teacher and LMS can alternate instruction according to each other’s strengths, and they can remediate or enrich struggling or advanced learners. Preservice and new teachers may struggle with appropriate differentiation strategies, particularly with gifted students (Troxclair, 2013) or English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) students (Siwatu, 2011). The LMS can help the classroom teacher deduce the ideal grouping or separation of students to allow differentiation to happen. Through quantitative measures such as reading scores, qualitative measures such as personal observation of a student’s computer skills, or professional judgment and knowledge of a subject or of particular students in a classroom, the LMS provides a different viewpoint than the classroom teacher regarding optimal differentiation strategies.

264

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

Cross-Curricular Integration and Flow of Ideas As the hub of the school, the library and LMS represent a convergence of all subjects, grade levels, and teachers (Dow, 2010). The LMS can serve as a catalyst to pass along projects, initiatives, and good ideas to staff throughout the building. S/he has a big picture view of the school, much like an administrator. An area in which the LMS excels regarding the flow of information is how to help students who are struggling. Many ESOL teachers and Special Education teachers bring clusters of students to the media center for small group instruction. The LMS may be an active participant or just a casual observer to these sessions, but the LMS can pass along promising strategies observed in these sessions to other teachers who may be looking for alternate ways to reach students who need extra help. Many LMSs find themselves acting in the role of teacher sounding board; indeed, some LMSs keep coffee or snacks readily available for teachers for this very reason. The LMS is uniquely positioned to identify and synthesize trends from the teachers with whom s/he interacts (Ballard & Fontichiaro, 2010). The LMS can serve as a liaison between classroom teachers and administrators regarding common successes or difficulties that multiple educators experience in the building. Teachers often operate on the “egg carton” model—each person is an island, teaching in a single room, rarely interacting with other teachers, except perhaps his or her own grade-level professional learning community. The LMS can promote the spread of ideas across grade levels and subjects and can prevent duplicative efforts. For example, the LMS might say to a group of fourth grade teachers, “The second grade teachers already had the students demonstrate mastery using PowerPoint. Why don’t you try Prezi with your students?” Brand and Triplett (2012) found that first-year teachers attempt to implement cross-curricular, multidisciplinary projects such as they were encouraged to create when in college, but meet with only modest success. The teachers cite time constraints as well as typical “first year teacher” issues as hindrances to the success of these projects. Instead of allowing these teachers to give up and avoid such rich projects in the future, this is an excellent opportunity for collaboration with the LMS, who can serve as a content adviser and help with the planning, thus reducing the time constraint issue.

Finding and Ordering Materials The classroom teacher can and should request that the LMS order materials that support CCSS standards. The LMS can evaluate e-books, databases, software packages, and handheld devices that assist with technology implementation and promote learning style diversity. In addition, the LMS can order professional materials such as CCSS workbooks, strategy guides, and lesson planning aids (“Sample Job Description,” 2009). Some teachers may feel pushy asking for materials to use with their classroom; this is an unfounded fear. While library guidelines prohibit ordering materials that can only be used in one classroom and/ or do not circulate via the media center (examples include science lab materials, technology that is permanently mounted in one teacher’s room, single-use workbooks for a specific classroom, etc.), the LMS is delighted to order materials that s/he knows patrons will use. In fact, a great practice for the classroom teacher is to email the LMS specific ISBNs or web links of desired materials or to circle or sticky-note items in promotional catalogs and deliver these directly to the LMS. While the LMS tries very hard to become an expert on all CCSS standards, the classroom teacher is positioned better to know

265

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

if a particular movie or database would satisfy the approach that is desired for a given strand. Directing the LMS straight to these resources saves time and ensures teacher satisfaction.

REASONS TO COLLABORATE WITH THE LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALIST ON THE CCCS Besides the general reasons discussed above, there are several specific reasons that a classroom teacher should collaborate with the LMS on the implementation of the CCSS. These include the ability of the LMS to teach certain standards on behalf of the classroom teacher; the promotion of literacy concepts in non-language arts fields; the ability to judge the appropriate complexity of fiction and informational text assigned to students; the assessment of students’ reading levels; and the integration of technology and library standards into classroom instruction.

Library Media Specialist as Teacher The classroom teacher need not feel solely responsible for teaching each CCSS strand. Many of them in English Language Arts (ELA) are uniquely suited for library instruction and can be taught and even assessed by the LMS. The ELA standards are divided into six broad categories: Reading (Literature); Reading (Informational Text); Reading (Foundational Skills); Writing; Speaking and Listening; and Language. There are common anchor standards in each category that progress in complexity as a child moves from kindergarten through fifth grade (and further throughout middle and high school). For example, using the anchor standard Craft and Structure, a first grade student will learn to “Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text,” whereas a fifth grader would be expected to “Describe how a narrator’s or speaker’s point of view influences how events are described” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010a). Certainly the LMS can and should supplement and reinforce concepts and standards that are introduced by the classroom teacher. In elementary school, however, certain standards lend themselves so well to library instruction that it would be much more efficient if the classroom educator delegated the teaching of those items to the LMS (Moreillon, Kimmel, & Gavigan, 2014). While not an exhaustive list, and excluding the unique talents of any given LMS (who may have been a classroom teacher prior to becoming a LMS and thus possesses unique expert knowledge of particular subjects), the tables in the Appendix highlight some of the standards that the LMS can teach on behalf of the classroom teacher. As noted earlier, since the same anchor standards are emphasized and expanded in every grade, these tables show a sample progression of various standards across kindergarten, second, and fourth grades. Table 1 demonstrates strands inside the ELA Reading: Literature standards that are logical concepts to be taught initially by the LMS and/or while located in the media center. Table 2 is quite similar to Table 1, except that the standards focus on Informational Text (“Nonfiction” in library vernacular) as opposed to Literature (stories, fiction, poems, etc.). Beyond reading, the LMS can also assist with the instruction of writing skills. While the express teaching of the foundational skill of writing is probably better left to classroom teachers, the LMS can

266

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

supplement concepts, particularly in the areas of digital product production; using factual or text-based evidence to support claims; and authentic assessments. Table 3 highlights some of the writing standards that utilize library skills. Literacy does not only entail the concepts of reading and writing; authentic creations, incorporating speaking, listening, and language, are the applied products of foundational skills. The LMS is a natural choice to assist students in learning how to navigate reference materials to aid these processes; s/ he can also provide technology instruction regarding digital tools that demonstrate student mastery, as evidenced in Table 4.

Literacy Standards in Subjects Other Than Language Arts Reading and ELA teachers are no longer solely responsible for teaching literacy in the CCSS standards; this is now the job of all teachers, including those in social studies, science, and career and technical education (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010a). The LMS can collaborate with these individuals to brainstorm how to integrate literacy skills into each subject. Many schools of education now train preservice teachers on the promotion of literacy in content areas (Cook & Dinkins, 2015). LMSs can build on this training by helping classroom teachers to find appropriate literature and informational texts to support content-related themes. While non-ELA teachers are not assessed specifically on literacy standards in elementary school, in grades 6-12 these standards are formally part of teachers’ evaluation systems and classroom responsibilities. As part of high-quality vertical teaming practices, fifth grade teachers should communicate consistently with sixth grade teachers to ensure a seamless transition. Since middle school social studies educators are expected to teach such standards as Literacy.RH.6-8.1: “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010a), a collaborative partnership among the LMS and fifth and sixth grade teachers will ensure that students have a seamless transition regarding the literacy skills that are expected in middle school.

Text Complexity The CCSS emphasize the selection of appropriately complex texts to ensure that readers continue to develop their reading skills. The LMS, as an expert in literacy and a primary developer of the library collection, can advise teachers regarding materials that meet students’ text complexity needs. Text complexity for any given book, notes Connors (2015), is not “attributable solely to [its] readability score. Instead, it is contingent on the processes that readers engage in as they transact with a work of literature” (p. 94). Text complexity is measured via three means: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Reader and Task (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010b). Quantitative measures are assessed with reading level measures (discussed below). Qualitative considerations include the meaning, purpose, structure, themes, perspectives, and language conventions of a text, and necessary reader background knowledge. Reader and Task strategies involve the levels of scaffolding and independence required as a reader moves higher along various bands of text complexity. It is difficult for a classroom teacher to assess each child’s reading level; discuss prior experiences, knowledge, and preferences with each child; and select a book that meets all the necessary criteria. The LMS can streamline this process and can supplement classroom libraries, particularly for students who may be reading substantially above or below grade level. Connors (2015) recommends that preservice 267

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

teachers interview LMSs on how to select books of appropriate text complexity before they attempt the process in their future classrooms.

Reading Level Measures The LMS is skilled in interpreting literacy measures such as the Lexile framework (MetaMetrics, 2015) and the Fountas and Pinnell (2011) level gradients. The LMS can help measure students’ proficiencies through assessments such as the Scholastic Reading Inventory (2015) and can tailor lessons to students’ particular levels. Reading incentive programs like Accelerated Reader (AR) and Scholastic Reading Counts! (2015) also help determine a student’s reading level, through Lexile scores or proprietary measures like AR’s ATOS Analyzer (2015). Most books from the major publishers have already been analyzed and coded for these well-known reading measures. When selecting book cataloging specifications, LMSs can choose the reading measures that will be displayed in the library catalog or even on the books themselves (spine, back cover, etc.). This makes it quite easy for the LMS to help a student find the perfect book.

ISTE/AASL Standards Crosswalk The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for Students (2007) and the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) Standards for the 21st Century Learner (2007) are the guiding documents for school library media practitioners. These standards share several similarities with the CCSS, and there are various areas of convergence. The LMS is uniquely positioned to advise classroom teachers on these overlaps, particularly in the areas of authentic digital products, information literacy, ethics, and knowledge creation and evaluation. The AASL has prepared formal CCSS/Library Crosswalk documents, organized by English Language Arts, Math, and Literacy in Other Subjects, located at http://www.ala.org/aasl/standards-guidelines/ crosswalk. Once inside a given subject, such as Math, the end user can view the document presented two ways: AASL to CCSS, or CCSS to AASL. For example, if one chooses the first option, one can open AASL Standard 2 (“Draw conclusions, make informed decisions, apply knowledge to new situations, and create new knowledge”) and see the related CCSS standards delineated by grade level. Conversely, the end user can select a particular grade’s CCSS standards, such as fourth grade, and view the associated AASL standards. ISTE has not created formal crosswalk documents, but it has issued a position statement on the CCSS (2015) and offers Project ReimaginED, a social learning community in which users can share lessons that integrate the ISTE standards with CCSS standards. Some individual states, such as Washington (2013) and New York (2015) have created their own crosswalk documents.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION LMSs are often the de facto technology gurus at their schools. When a technology problem arises, be it software or hardware, the LMS is a familiar, reassuring presence. Through the consistent promotion of information literacy and digital literacy best practices, the LMS can assist teachers with software selection, training, implementation, and troubleshooting. 268

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

Technology Expertise and Teaching The classroom teacher and the LMS can divide up the responsibilities of any given lesson, particularly one that involves technology. Often the LMS can instruct the students in technology concepts with which the classroom teacher may be unfamiliar; the classroom teacher acts as the subject matter expert. The TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) framework describes how content knowledge, pedagogy principles, and technology interact (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Preservice teachers generally do an excellent job when implementing technology into their practice lesson plans, but according to Hofer and Grandgenett (2012), this practice sometimes falls apart when these individuals begin their student teaching and commence their first year of “real” teaching. Due to a lack of scaffolding and personalized feedback, such as that received from professors, new teachers often neglect to incorporate all of the elements of TPACK and produce underdeveloped lesson plans. This phenomenon provides evidence that a partnership between the LMS and new teachers could prove beneficial; new teachers could ask for suggestions regarding technology integration and could continue to receive personalized scaffolding on their lessons even after graduation from college. Similar research by Hutchison and Colwell (2016) found that preservice teachers generally use technocentric approaches to the TPACK framework; that is, they are skilled in technology concepts, but lacking in the pedagogy and content domains. The preservice teachers in the study had difficulty following all steps of the planning cycle when designing lessons and tended to rely on others’ suggestions regarding websites and apps instead of researching this information independently. This suggests an opportunity for collaboration between the LMS and new or preservice teachers; the LMS can serve as a constructive reviewer of technology-enhanced lesson plans and can recommend Web 2.0 tools and applications that would meet students’ needs. Morillon (2015) concurs, stating, “School librarians can offer to co-plan, co-implement, and co-assess [preservice teachers’] unit[s]. This level of interaction early in a teacher’s career not only supports K-12 student learning but can also help establish classroom-library collaboration as a teaching norm” (p. 27). The LMS is also a solid choice to provide professional learning opportunities for teachers by acting as a technology trainer on staff development days. LMSs can also offer Lunch and Learns or training during teachers’ planning periods separate from formally scheduled continuing education days. This is a great way to disseminate new technologies, help teachers who are experiencing learning curves with new technologies, and demonstrate new library resources that are aligned to the CCSS.

Discovering and Sharing New Technologies The LMS is a repository of information regarding new technological advances, whether it be Web 2.0 tools, software packages, devices, or online learning communities. Most LMSs learn about emerging concepts through conferences/conventions and collaboration with other LMSs. These technologies can then be disseminated to classroom teachers for implementation. The LMS is in the unique position of being privy to multiple teachers’ lessons plans, so news of a great new technology tool spreads quickly. Many professional organizations and conferences specifically targeted toward LMSs are heavily technology-focused, so the LMS is generally at the forefront of new technology advances. Hofer and Grandgenett (2012) assert that technology-related pedagogy and content are “moving targets” (p. 101), which implies that someone must be responsible for keeping up with everything. The LMS, while certainly not perfect, can serve as a school-based individual at the forefront of such knowledge. Most, if 269

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

not all, school library education programs have one or more classes solely dedicated to teaching librarians about emerging technology concepts and how to integrate them into lessons. LMSs are trained in concepts such as modeling Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) lessons, suggesting ways to flip classroom lessons, and brainstorming appropriate technology use policies.

Information Literacy and Digital Literacy Guide A big push in the CCSS is the notion that students should develop and hone critical thinking skills, including information literacy and digital literacy skills. Information literacy consists of “developing effective cognitive strategies for selecting, retrieving, analyzing, evaluating, synthesizing, creating, and communicating information in all formats and in all content areas of the curriculum” (American Library Association, 2000, para. 5). Digital literacy carries the concept of information literacy further with the inclusion of technology: it is the “ability to use information and communication technologies to find, understand, evaluate, create, and communicate digital information” (American Library Association, 2013, p. 1). Only 16% of school LMSs, in a survey by Stockham and Collins (2012), felt that new teachers modeled effective information literacy practices for their students. Just 50% believed these recent graduates had a solid foundation in information and digital literacy concepts. The LMSs in the study indicated that many new teachers confused search engines and basic technology skills with true digital literacy concepts, noting that few truly understood databases. Stockholm and Collins also surveyed new teachers, and found that 40% of them had never even heard of information literacy standards, such as Information Power (American Library Association, 2000), Big6 (http://www.big6.com), or Handy 5 (Losey, 2007). This suggests that there exists a wonderful opportunity for LMSs to take recent graduates under their wing; even experienced teachers who are disappointed with the quality and types of resources their students utilize for research projects may benefit from harnessing the LMS’s expertise in information and digital literacy concepts.

Technology Manager and Troubleshooter In many schools, the LMS is the central contact point for BYOD management and troubleshooting. While most institutions have a separate technology support person, the LMS is often the first line of defense for issues such as failure to connect to a wireless network. This allows the LMS to identify patterns and trends, so that recommendations can be made to administrators, technology specialists, and classroom teachers about what software is (and is not) user- or network-friendly. By extension, the LMS is a logical choice to serve on a school’s technology committee (“Sample Job Description,” 2009). LMSs often oversee laptop and tablet carts, lab signups, interactive whiteboards, and electronic slates. In addition to circulating such items, the LMS can provide hands-on training to students and teachers and can demonstrate model lessons using the technology. The LMS can serve as a central point for evaluating and purchasing apps for handheld devices and can execute the necessary app updates.

Assessment of Digital Projects The LMS, as a technology diffuser, can assist classroom teachers in assessing final technological products produced by the students. From helping the classroom teacher figure out the best technology tool to use 270

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

for a project, to providing training to students on the tool(s), to being present as a co-assessor when the students present or demonstrate their final products, the LMS can provide expert guidance (Dow, 2010). The LMS can suggest further ways to improve the end products, encouraging the students to complete an important but often-overlooked step of the engineering cycle: modification and resubmission. Co-assessment is an excellent opportunity to generate data for a library program as well as for classroom teachers. Since many teaching evaluation systems now incorporate value-added models that seek to calculate gain scores or other measures of student improvement (McShane, 2014), generating local, preliminary data alongside the LMS may help the classroom teacher prepare for this process and improve instruction on the fly. Similarly, collecting data on student achievement is a practice that should take place in every library media center (Buzzeo, 2008).

FLEXIBILITY: SPACES AND MODES OF DELIVERY If there is one word that adequately describes the modern library, it is flexible. Through the conceptual arrangement of physical spaces and services, to the promotion of authentic experiences, to the way that instruction is scheduled, libraries have evolved significantly to meet the demands of a new generation of students, teachers, and administrators.

Learning Commons Contemporary libraries are flexible nuclei of information and communication. Students and teachers are not restricted to just books or computer labs; rather, they come together to collaborate and produce, using the human and physical capital available to them. With this shift in the way that libraries are viewed, a new title—Learning Commons—has been proposed by the industry. Learning commons are uniquely suited to the teaching of the CCSS because of the standards’ emphasis on authentic assessments and products (“7 Things,” 2011). A learning commons model emphasizes flexibility, mobility, collaboration, cooperation, and cross-discipline integration in a center where authentic experiences can happen. Whether a library is called a library, a collaborative learning center, a media center, or a learning commons, it should always be the vibrant hub of learning at a school. Rather than operating on a traditional model of rigid procedures, silent voices, and the protection of resources, the modern library should adapt continually to meet the current needs of learners and classroom teachers. The library program and the LMS must be nimble.

Authentic Experiences The library or learning commons can provide many opportunities for students to have authentic learning experiences. Makerspaces, or areas in which students are encouraged to create, build, and brainstorm (such as with robots or crafts), are a popular trend (Strycker, 2015). Morning news shows, frequently facilitated by the elementary LMS, provide real-time technology and communication opportunities. Physical spaces to host/view projects, such as makerscapes, allow networking and display of various electronic devices.

271

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

The library can serve as a place to host project demonstrations such as living wax museums or Ellis Island simulations. Art teachers can display their students’ products in the media center for an art show. During book fairs, music classes can serenade the parents. The key for the modern library is to be seen as a place where anything can happen—not just the circulation of books. Classroom teachers should remember that the library may offer a more creative, flexible space than they might perceive. Having productive brainstorming sessions with the LMS will give the classroom teacher ideas of how to use the library and/or LMS to provide authentic, production-based experiences (Ballard & Fontichiaro, 2010).

Scheduling For the past two decades, the AASL-advocated mode of library instruction has been flexible scheduling; that is, the classroom teacher or individual students can decide when to come to the library (American Association of School Librarians, 2015). By collaborating with classroom teachers, the LMS can deliver just-in-time instruction that relates directly to the concepts currently studied in the classroom (Ballard & Fontichiaro, 2010; Bogel, 2009). Although some elementary libraries still operate on a fixed, “specials” rotation (usually at the request of local school administration), there is still room for innovation, collaboration, and authentic experiences that support the CCSS. The AASL publishes Empowering Learners: Guidelines for School Library Programs (2009). An effective school library excels in four broad categories: Vision for Learning, Teaching for Learning, Learning Environment, and Learning through Leadership. The Empowering Learners broad guidelines specifically reference flexibility, stating that “the school library program includes flexible and equitable access to physical and virtual collections of resources that support the school curriculum and meet the diverse needs of all learners” (2015, para. 10). As of this writing, a new set of AASL standards and guidelines is under revision; release of these guiding documents is scheduled for 2017.

Embedded Instruction The LMS does not have to “live” in the library. S/he can travel to classrooms, auditoriums, hallways, and other areas in the school, providing real-time instruction in a format and location that meets students’ needs (Dale & Kellam, 2012). Such flexibility is key to successful implementation of the CCSS. The LMS can bring a cart of books to a classroom along with a laptop for on-the-fly checkout. The LMS may accompany a class on a STEM field trip and encourage students to use their personal devices to access QR codes or scholarly resources on the topic of study. The LMS might set up a mobile circulation station in the cafeteria to encourage those students who may not visit the library to check out a book. In a classroom, the LMS may take a subset of students and provide them with specialized instruction. In order for embedded instruction to be a success, however, schools and districts must not underestimate the importance of a full-time, well-trained library clerk or paraprofessional. This individual will ensure that the library runs smoothly while the LMS provides instruction or attends departmental collaboration meetings in other areas of the school. Dow (2010) notes that “too often school librarians’ expertise is negated when they teach library skills out of context or ‘babysit’ students…or serve as studytime monitors…while other educators hold regularly scheduled instructional planning sessions” (p. 80).

272

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

RECOMMENDATIONS There are several recommendations that affect the well-being of elementary school classroom teachers, LMSs, and the successful implementation of the CCSS. These recommendations involve various parties at multiple levels. Although not discussed explicitly, library media programs must also have support at the Federal, state, and college/university levels in order to be successful.

Districts School districts must make it a priority to fully fund libraries with a meaningful per-student dollar equivalent. A recent trend in education is to allow the local school district and/or principal to have a great deal of flexibility regarding the operations of the school (Li, 2012). This has, unfortunately, resulted in the reallocation of media center staff to other areas of the school and a diversion of media funds to other budgets (Collins, 2010). Districts need to ensure that every student at every school has equitable access to library staff and materials. This can be accomplished by setting a minimum benchmark that every school must meet; flexibility above and beyond, but not below, this point could be at the principal’s discretion. It is incredibly important to employ a full-time LMS and full-time paraprofessional at every school. Some districts, faced with budget woes, have cut library clerks and paraprofessionals. While the districts are well-meaning by keeping the certified librarians, they still shortchange the students. With no (or a part-time) paraprofessional to take care of the administrative tasks of a library, such as shelving, book repair, data entry, circulation, assisting patrons, etc., these duties fall on the shoulders of the LMS. These duties, while crucial to the successful running of a library, do not increase student achievement. LMSs need to be able to devote the vast majority of their time to instruction and collaboration with teachers in order to serve the students best (Buzzeo, 2008; Dow, 2010). Larger districts should employ a Library Media Coordinator who can set the tone, direction, and vision for the LMSs throughout the district and provide consistent, purposeful professional development. In smaller districts that cannot afford such a position, a local school LMS can be hired as the district coordinator; this person, however, should be paid a stipend and given ample substitute funds so that the home library will have coverage while the coordinator is called away for administrative duties.

Local School Administrators Local school administrators have incredible power when it comes to either building up or undermining the library program. Administrators should have frequent conversations with their LMSs about library program vision, challenges, and celebrations. Many administrators are woefully uninformed about happenings in the library. Indeed, only 8% of principals report receiving any training about the role of the LMS in their administrator preparation programs (Church, 2008). To their credit, administrators are busy people and often focus mainly on evaluating and visiting individual classrooms and teachers, but administrators must remember that the library is also a classroom (in fact, the largest one in the school) and that the LMS performs many of the same instructional roles as classroom teachers (Ballard & Fontichiaro, 2010). Ideally, administrators will view LMSs as “additional knowledgeable team members to address student deficits” whose instruction can provide “resulting increases in measurable student skills” (Buzzeo, 2008, p. 30).

273

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

Most administrators acknowledge the valuable role of the LMS; 92% believe that information literacy skills should be taught in the context of content curriculum; 90% agree that LMSs and classroom teachers should co-teach; and 74% believe that LMSs and classroom teachers should co-assess student work (Church, 2008). Tellingly, however, the same survey revealed that only 38% of administrators believed that they were responsible for promoting collaboration between the LMS and classroom teacher on a schoolwide basis. Administrators are the instructional leaders of the school, so they can encourage best practices by “setting the expectation that all teachers are expected to co-plan, co-implement, and coassess one or more units of instruction with the school librarian” (Moreillon, 2015, p. 28). Administrators should consider removing the library program from the Specials rotation. In some schools, this is when classroom teachers have planning time, but in fashioning the schedule this way, this prevents the LMS from collaborating with the classroom teachers. While the library lessons taught during these scheduled, fixed rotations are certainly important, because classroom teachers do not stay during instruction, they are disconnected from the skills their students are learning (Dow, 2010). Buzzeo (2008), notes, “The savvy administrator will understand that in order to boost student achievement an ongoing teacher/librarian collaborative partnership reinforcing student skills in areas of deficiency is more important than just an isolated lesson in the library” (p. 31). The LMS and classroom teacher cannot recognize the teacher-to-pupil reduction possible unless both adults are present during a lesson, and there is little time outside the Specials schedule that teachers can reserve the media center for projects such as research papers, Web 2.0 tools, or other authentic assessment products. The supportive administrator can design staff development that brings LMSs and classroom teachers together. (Often, staff development initiatives completely ignore “unusual” staff such as LMSs, counselors, speech pathologists, and school psychologists.) Administrators could harness the power of their LMSs to deliver staff development, but should occasionally allow the LMSs to be participants instead of always being the presenters. Similarly, during district-wide staff development days, local school administrators should allow LMSs to travel to collaborate with other LMSs across the district instead of always requiring them to stay at their home schools to provide support. Certainly, the latter function will be necessary at times, but it should not be the only option for the LMS.

Library Media Specialists LMSs can be their biggest cheerleaders or their own worst enemies. Often the job of a LMS is quite self-directed, and the LMS who chooses to sit in an empty, quiet library is missing opportunities for collaboration. The opposite, however, is usually true—many elementary school LMSs are incredibly busy and feel pulled in multiple directions. Since elementary LMSs are responsible for the content of six grade level CCSS standards, they have more demands on their background knowledge skillset than middle or high school librarians. LMSs may be unsure of their role in changing times, but the core roles of Teacher, Instructional Partner, and Information Specialist (Moreillon et al., 2014) should remain at the forefront when deciding how to prioritize library programs and initiatives. While it is difficult to attend every departmental or grade-level meeting, the LMS should make this effort at least monthly. When the LMS is directly involved in the planning of instructional initiatives, the library and LMS are more likely to be part of those initiatives. The LMS brings a unique perspective to these meetings and may help classroom teachers become aware of previously unknown resources and technologies. Buzzeo (2008) asserts that if teachers do not yet understand how the LMS can help them in “addressing student deficits then it is essential that the LMS raise the question of targeted skills at 274

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

the beginning of the collaborative planning process when discussing content area and multiple literacy standards” (p. 29). Notably, the LMS cannot assume that the classroom teacher will initiate collaboration; the LMS must be proactive. The LMS should approach new teachers every year to collaborate. “New teachers” includes those truly new to the school and also those teachers who have not, for whatever reason, worked with the LMS in the past. Setting reasonable and attainable goals, such as, “This semester, I will approach three teachers with whom I have not collaborated, with success defined as getting at least one of them to use the library’s resources” will focus a LMS’s efforts. Data is king, and LMSs should collect data about their programs and disseminate it to all school stakeholders. In addition to basic data such as circulation statistics and the number of visitors, LMSs can compare the pre- and post-test scores on lessons they co-planned; note the increase in reading level measures for individual students or whole classrooms or grade levels; and graph the improvement in state test scores after the implementation of a successful library initiative. While time-consuming, these measures make great impact on lawmakers and administrators who control library staffing and funding. “Data-driven collaboration,” writes Buzzeo (2008), “carries all of the same rewards as collaboration does with the added advantage of fully addressing the school’s instructional goals, which inevitably are built around the need to move students forward in deficient areas” (p. 30). What better way to draw positive attention to the library than a demonstration of how its programs help address school initiatives?

Classroom Teachers Classroom teachers can schedule collaboration meetings one-on-one with the LMS or invite the LMS to grade or department meetings to present about the services the LMS offers. Often LMSs can feel left out because they do not know when or where departmental meetings take place, so classroom teachers can promote collegiality by making these details public. Teachers can also select CCSS that are difficult for them to implement, or projects that do not flow well, and ask the LMS for assistance. Often having the fresh viewpoint of a second person is all the classroom teacher needs to revive a lackluster lesson. Most importantly, however, the classroom teacher should make a conscious effort to seek out the services of the LMS. Often teachers get so busy that they gravitate toward survival mode and only do those critical, reactionary tasks that keep their classrooms functioning. Taking proactive steps toward working with the LMS, who truly wants to help teachers succeed, can relieve teachers’ anxiety (Buzzeo, 2008) and help them manage the demands of teaching more easily.

Preservice Teachers Preservice teachers are in a wonderful position to shape the direction of their future educational careers. By learning as much as they can while still in college about information and digital literacy, the role of the LMS, and the ways in which they can collaborate with the LMS and other educators, preservice teachers can use reflective practice in their student teaching and practicum experiences. The LMSs at the host sites can speak to preservice teachers about the benefits of a relationship, and the supervising teachers can help the preservice teachers plan units that involve the LMS, thus modeling co-teaching in a safe environment. In fact, Dow (2010) maintains that one of the official roles of a LMS is to “act as a leader and guide to retain newly recruited teachers” (p. 79). Siwatu (2011) found that preservice teachers 275

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

felt least prepared to teach in urban schools. In such settings, the LMS can serve as a friend and mentor and can help preservice teachers navigate these climates. By turning to the LMS, whose job is structured so that s/he can truly help “newbies,” preservice and new teachers can discover a valuable ally. Preservice teachers need practice in collaboration, co-teaching, and co-assessment. One school of education paired preservice teachers and preservice librarians to develop a co-teaching project (Moreillon, 2013). The participants said they learned the difference between cooperation and collaboration, and indicated that they now appreciated the advantages this arrangement could offer K-12 students. Not every preservice teacher will have this opportunity at his/her university; indeed, Latham et al. (2013) discovered that preservice librarians were much more likely to receive instruction about collaboration and co-teaching than were preservice classroom teachers. Individual preservice teachers can, however, ask their supervising teachers and host-site LMSs to provide them with such experiences.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The link between adequately staffed library media centers and student achievement (as evidenced by test scores) is not a well-studied topic. At the time of this writing, only about 21 state impact studies have been conducted (Library Research Service, 2015), and few studies have attempted to pinpoint a national effect of media services on student achievement. Many state studies are now outdated because the staffing levels of media centers have changed dramatically during the past decade. During the Great Recession of 2008-2009, some of the hardest hit budget areas in public schools were librarians and libraries (Collins, 2010), so comparing test scores pre- and post-recession may reveal a change in student performance. Future studies could include comparisons of test scores at schools that have LMSs who frequently teach and collaborate to test scores of schools that have eliminated LMS (or paraprofessional) positions. Qualitative case studies of teachers and LMSs who demonstrate the ways in which they collaborate to teach the CCSS would greatly enhance the research base. After all, one point of the CCSS movement is that each state should not have to reinvent the wheel. If something good is happening between LMSs and classroom teachers in Nevada, then Alabama educators need to know. Examining best practices of classroom teachers who regularly collaborate with LMSs and consequently achieve positive end results would provide a much-needed storytelling lens through which such partnerships could be viewed. The vision of this textbook seeks to address how to prepare the next generation of elementary school teachers to work within a market - and standards - driven profession. This is an extremely daunting task. Elementary school teachers, whether prospective or veteran, will struggle with this concept if they go it alone. Collaborating with one’s peers, administrators, and of course, the school LMS, will help mold the individual classroom teacher into a confident, polished professional.

CONCLUSION One thing that is certain in education is change. Political candidates decry the CCSS and want them reversed. Some states have not adopted them. Once teachers become comfortable and confident in teaching a set of standards, those standards become subject to revision or abandonment. Luckily, LMSs embrace change. Because of the very nature of the profession (especially given its interlacing with technology), LMSs are accustomed to being deft, malleable individuals. LMSs make a perfect fit for 276

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

collaboration with elementary school classroom teachers. Regardless of what curriculum is currently in vogue or adopted in the future, the relationship between the classroom teacher and LMS should remain a constant, productive association. The classroom teacher and the LMS have an opportunity to pursue a truly special relationship, one that is beneficial and meaningful for both parties. Particularly in the area of CCSS implementation, this collaboration can produce a synergy that is greater than the sum of the two persons. It is the duty of every individual in the school to ensure that students succeed, and the classroom teacher and LMS can make the most of each other’s strengths to ensure that this directive becomes reality.

REFERENCES 7 things you should know about the modern learning commons. (2011). Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7071.pdf American Association of School Librarians. (2007). Standards for the 21st-century learner. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/aasl/standards-guidelines/learning-standards American Association of School Librarians. (2009). Empowering learners: Guidelines for school library programs. Chicago: American Library Association. American Association of School Librarians. (2015). Empowering learners: Outline of guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/aasl/standards-guidelines/outline American Library Association. (2000). Information Power: Building partnerships for learning. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=informationpower&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=19935 American Library Association. (2013). Digital literacy, libraries, and public policy: Report of the Office for Information Technology Policy’s digital literacy task force. Retrieved from http://www.districtdispatch. org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2012_OITP_digilitreport_1_22_13.pdf Ballard, S., & Fontichiaro, K. (2010). More than shushing and shelving. Principal Leadership, 11(4), 50–54. Barack, L. (2012, March). Full-time school librarians linked to higher student reading scores. School Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.slj.com/2011/09/industry-news/something-to-shout-aboutnew-research-shows-that-more-librarians-means-higher-reading-scores/ Bogel, G. (2009). School librarian’s bill of responsibilities and the ALA core competences. Knowledge Quest, 38(2), 64–68. Brand, B. R., & Triplett, C. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary curriculum: An abandoned concept? Teachers and Teaching, 18(3), 381–393. doi:10.1080/13540602.2012.629847 Buzzeo, T. (2008). Make the move from collaboration to data-driven collaboration. Library Media Connection, 27(3), 28–31.

277

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

Coker, E. (2015). Certified teacher-librarians, library quality and student achievement in Washington state public schools. Retrieved from Washington Library Media Association: https://wala.memberclicks. net/assets/WLMA/Advocacy/wslitreport_final%204_9_15.pdf Collins, C. (2010). Survival tactics for the warrior librarian. Library Media Connection, 29(3), 18–19. Connors, S. P. (2015). Confronting the monster under the (text complexity) staircase. English Journal, 105(1), 92–95. Cook, K. L., & Dinkins, E. G. (2015). Using popular text to develop inquiry projects: Supporting preservice teachers’ knowledge of disciplinary literacy. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6), 44–50. doi:10.2505/4/jcst15_044_06_44 Dale, J., & Kellam, L. (2012). The incredible embeddable librarian. Library Media Connection, 30(4), 30–51. Dow, M. J. (2010). Making schools better: School librarians’ roles in aggressive reforms: What is our official position? Knowledge Quest, 38(5), 78–82. Dow, M. J., Lakin, J. M., & Court, S. C. (2012). School librarian staffing levels and student achievement as represented in 2006-2009 Kansas Annual Yearly Progress data. School Library Research, 2012(15), 1-15. Retrieved from ERIC database: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ994364 Fountas, I. C., & Pannell, G. S. (2011). The F&P Text Level GradientTM. Retrieved from http://www. fountasandpinnellleveledbooks.com/aboutLeveledTexts.aspx#TL Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: A longitudinal study of preservice teachers in a secondary M.A.Ed. program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 83–106. doi:10.1080/15391523.2012.10782598 Howard, S. D. (2015). Teachers are psychologists, technologists, coaches, servants…and much more. PAGE One, 36(5), 5. Hutchison, A., & Colwell, J. (2016). Preservice teachers’ use of the technology integration planning cycle to integrate iPads into literacy instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education (Routledge), 48(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/15391523.2015.1103146 International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-students International Society for Technology in Education. (2015). ISTE standards and the Common Core. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-in-action/common-core Latham, D., Gross, M., & Witte, S. (2013). Preparing teachers and librarians to collaborate to teach 21st century skills: Views of LIS and education faculty. School Library Research, 16, 1–23. Li, J. (2012). More freedom to spend less money: What happened when California school districts gained spending flexibility and budgets were cut? RAND Corporation Research Brief. Retrieved from http:// www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/2012/RAND_RB9665.pdf

278

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

Library Research Service. (2015). School libraries impact studies. Retrieved from http://www.lrs.org/ data-tools/school-libraries/impact-studies/ Losey, B. (Ed.). (2007). The Handy 5: Planning and assessing integrated information skills instruction (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. McShane, M. Q. (2014). Planes, trains, and teacher evaluation. Education Week, 34(1), 27–28. MetaMetrics. (2015). The Common Core State Standards initiative: Using Lexile measures to assess college and career readiness. Retrieved from https://www.lexile.com/using-lexile/lexile-measures-andthe-ccssi/ Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x Moreillon, J. (2013). Educating for school library leadership: Developing the instructional partnership role. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 54(1), 55–66. Moreillon, J. (2015). Building collaborative relationships through mentoring, modeling, outreach. School Library Monthly, 31(4), 27–28. Moreillon, J., & Ballard, S. D. (2012). Coteaching: A pathway to leadership. Knowledge Quest, 40(4), 6–9. Moreillon, J., Kimmel, S., & Gavigan, K. (2014). Educating pre-service school librarians for the instructional partner role: An exploration into university curricula. School Library Research, 17, 1–25. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history, social studies, science, and technical subjects: Appendix A, Research supporting key elements of the standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2016). Standards in your state. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/ Nelson, J. (2010). Library staffing benefits Latino student achievement. CSLA Journal, 34(1), 14-16. Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts database. (Accession No. 52595646) New York State Education Department. (2015). Educational technology learning standards for students: A crosswalk between ISTE’s standards and NYS learning standards. Retrieved from http://www.p12. nysed.gov/technology/TechLit/literacy.html Renaissance Learning. (2015). ATOS text complexity analyzer. Retrieved from http://www.renaissance. com/products/accelerated-reader/atos-analyzer?type=3 Sample job description: School library media specialist. (2009). Knowledge Quest, 38(2), 80-82. Scholastic, Inc. (2015). About the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI). Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/education/assessment/literacy/sri-index.htm

279

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

Scholastic, Inc. (2015). Scholastic Reading Counts! The only Lexile-based independent reading program. Retrieved from http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/independent_reading/scholastic_reading_counts/ index.htm Siwatu, K. O. (2011). Preservice teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-efficacy to teach in America’s urban and suburban schools: Does context matter? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 357–365. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.004 State of Washington, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2013). Crosswalk the Common Core and educational technology standards. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/EdTech/Standards/ edtechcoresubjects/CCSS-Crosswalk.aspx Stockham, M., & Collins, H. (2012). Information literacy skills for preservice teachers: Do they transfer to K-12 classrooms? Education Libraries, 35(1/2), 59–72. Strycker, J. (2015). Makerspaces: The next iteration for educational technology in K-12 schools. Educational Technology, 55(3), 28–32. Troxclair, D. A. (2013). Preservice teacher attitudes toward giftedness. Roeper Review, 35(1), 58–64. doi:10.1080/02783193.2013.740603

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS American Association of School Librarians: A subset of the American Library Association, the AASL is the guiding professional organization of school LMSs. The AASL publishes program standards, guidelines, and advocacy toolkits, and it provides members with professional learning opportunities. Common Core State Standards: A set of K-12 educational standards in English language arts (ELA), math, and literacy that as of the time of this writing (2016), 48 of 57 US states, territories, and the Department of Defense have fully adopted. Minnesota has adopted the ELA standards only; Alaska, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia have not adopted any part of the CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2016). Embedded Instruction: The concept that library instruction can take place not only in the library media center but in classrooms, in virtual spaces, and in other locales. The LMS can provide just-intime instruction that is relevant to a particular assignment or unit instead of teaching general library concepts in isolation. Flexible Scheduling: The belief that any student, teacher, or class should use the library in a way that best meets the needs of a lesson, including but not limited to timing, physical space, and resources. International Society for Technology in Education: ISTE is one of the largest non-profit professional associations in the world that focuses on technology policies, integration, standards, teacher training, and professional learning communities.

280

 Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

Learning Commons: A modern library concept, focused on the belief that learning should happen in a manner that best fits the students’ and teachers’ current needs. Learning Commons may feature moveable furniture for on-the-fly flexible groupings; stations at which students can network their devices to collaborate on a project; small group areas or rooms; technology, in the form of desktops, laptops, tablets, and student devices; maker spaces, in which students can build or test authentic products (such as robots or art collages); and other innovative, flexible, and timely concepts. Text Complexity: A measure of the difficulty and appropriateness of a piece of literature or informational text for a given student, obtained through quantitative and qualitative measures.

281

Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

APPENDIX Table 1. Sample Reading (Literature) standards the LMS can teach Strand

Kindergarten

Second

Fourth

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.2

N/A

Recount stories, including fables and folktales from diverse cultures, and determine their central message, lesson, or moral.

Determine a theme of a story, drama, or poem from details in the text; summarize the text.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.5

Recognize common types of texts (e.g., storybooks, poems).

N/A

N/A

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.6

With prompting and support, name the author and illustrator of a story and define the role of each in telling the story.

Acknowledge differences in the points of view of characters, including by speaking in a different voice for each character when reading dialogue aloud.

Compare and contrast the point of view from which different stories are narrated, including the difference between first- and third-person narrations.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.7

With prompting and support, describe the relationship between illustrations and the story in which they appear (e.g., what moment in a story an illustration depicts).

Use information gained from the illustrations and words in a print or digital text to demonstrate understanding of its characters, setting, or plot.

N/A

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.9

N/A

Compare and contrast two or more versions of the same story (e.g., Cinderella stories) by different authors or from different cultures.

Compare and contrast the treatment of similar themes and topics (e.g., opposition of good and evil) and patterns of events (e.g., the quest) in stories, myths, and traditional literature from different cultures.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.10

Actively engage in group reading activities with purpose and understanding.

N/A

N/A

Table 2. Sample Reading (Informational Text) standards the LMS can teach Strand

Kindergarten

Second

Fourth

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.10

Actively engage in group reading activities with purpose and understanding.

N/A

N/A

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.5

Identify the front cover, back cover, and title page of a book.

Know and use various text features (e.g., captions, bold print, subheadings, glossaries, indexes, electronic menus, icons) to locate key facts or information in a text efficiently.

N/A

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.6

Name the author and illustrator of a text and define the role of each in presenting the ideas or information in a text.

N/A

Compare and contrast a firsthand and secondhand account of the same event or topic; describe the differences in focus and the information provided.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.7

With prompting and support, describe the relationship between illustrations and the text in which they appear (e.g., what person, place, thing, or idea in the text an illustration depicts).

Explain how specific images (e.g., a diagram showing how a machine works) contribute to and clarify a text.

Interpret information presented visually, orally, or quantitatively (e.g., in charts, graphs, diagrams, time lines, animations, or interactive elements on Web pages) and explain how the information contributes to an understanding of the text in which it appears.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9

With prompting and support, identify basic similarities in and differences between two texts on the same topic (e.g., in illustrations, descriptions, or procedures).

Compare and contrast the most important points presented by two texts on the same topic.

Integrate information from two texts on the same topic in order to write or speak about the subject knowledgeably.

282

Elementary Library Media Specialists’ Roles in the Implementation of the CCSS

Table 3. Sample Writing standards the LMS can teach Strand

Kindergarten

Second

Fourth

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.2

N/A

Write informative/explanatory texts in which they introduce a topic, use facts and definitions to develop points, and provide a concluding statement or section.

Develop the topic with facts, definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples related to the topic.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.6

With guidance and support from adults, explore a variety of digital tools to produce and publish writing, including in collaboration with peers.

With guidance and support from adults, use a variety of digital tools to produce and publish writing, including in collaboration with peers.

With some guidance and support from adults, use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of one page in a single sitting.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.7

Participate in shared research and writing projects (e.g., explore a number of books by a favorite author and express opinions about them).

Participate in shared research and writing projects (e.g., read a number of books on a single topic to produce a report; record science observations).

N/A

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.8

With guidance and support from adults, recall information from experiences or gather information from provided sources to answer a question.

Recall information from experiences or gather information from provided sources to answer a question.

N/A

Table 4. Sample Speaking, Listening, and Language standards the LMS can teach Second

Fourth

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.5

Strand N/A

Kindergarten

Create audio recordings of stories or poems; add drawings or other visual displays to stories or recounts of experiences when appropriate to clarify ideas, thoughts, and feelings.

Add audio recordings and visual displays to presentations when appropriate to enhance the development of main ideas or themes.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.4.e

N/A

Use glossaries and beginning dictionaries, both print and digital, to determine or clarify the meaning of words and phrases.

Consult reference materials (e.g., dictionaries, glossaries, thesauruses), both print and digital, to find the pronunciation and determine or clarify the precise meaning of key words and phrases.

283

284

Compilation of References

21 . Yüzyılın Öğretmeni. (2013, November 13). Kıbrıs Postası. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.kibrispostasi. com/index.php/cat/91/news/119975 7 things you should know about the modern learning commons. (2011). Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/ library/pdf/ELI7071.pdf Ackerman, G. (2012). Measuring technology acceptance: Adapting an instrument. Paper presented at the New England Educational Research Organization Annual Conference, Portsmouth, NH. Aitf, A., Richards, D., Busch, P., & Bilgin, A. (2015). Assuring graduate competency: A technology acceptance model for course guide tools. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(2), 94–113. doi:10.1007/s12528-015-9095-4 Alexander, K. (2014). The crossover. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Alliance for Childhood. (2010). Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professional on the Common Core Standards Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/joint_statement_on_core_standards.pdf Amaral, M. (2011). Lesson Plan: Using facebook profiles for character analysis. Retrieved from http://www.teach4real. com/2011/03/28/facebook-profiles-character-analysis/ Amarin, N. Z., & Ghishan, R. I. (2013). Learning with technology from a constructivist point of view. International Journal of Business, Humanities, and Technology, 3(1), 52–57. American Association of School Librarians. (2007). Standards for the 21st-century learner. Retrieved from http://www. ala.org/aasl/standards-guidelines/learning-standards American Association of School Librarians. (2009). Empowering learners: Guidelines for school library programs. Chicago: American Library Association. American Association of School Librarians. (2015). Empowering learners: Outline of guidelines. Retrieved from http:// www.ala.org/aasl/standards-guidelines/outline American Library Association. (2000). Information Power: Building partnerships for learning. Retrieved from http:// www.ala.org/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=informationpower&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay. cfm&ContentID=19935 American Library Association. (2013). Digital literacy, libraries, and public policy: Report of the Office for Information Technology Policy’s digital literacy task force. Retrieved from http://www.districtdispatch.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/01/2012_OITP_digilitreport_1_22_13.pdf Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Wiley.

 

Compilation of References

Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007028 An, H., & Kim, S. (2006). The benefits and limitations of online group work in a teacher education program. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006. Orlando, FL: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Anthony, A. B., & Clark, L. M. (2011). Examining dilemmas of practice associated with the integration of technology into mathematics classrooms serving urban students. Urban Education, 46(6), 1300–1331. doi:10.1177/0042085911416015 Archambault, L. M. (2011). The practitioner’s perspective on teacher education: Preparing for the k-12 online classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 73–91. Armstrong, T. (1999). Seven kinds of smart: Identifying and developing your multiple intelligences. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc. Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (2nd ed.). Assocoation for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publishing. Armstrong, T. (2003). The multiple intelligences of reading and writing: Making the words come alive. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publishing. Arnold, E. (2007). The MI strategy bank: 800+ multiple intelligence strategies for the elementary classroom (2nd ed.). Chicago: Zephyr Press. Arthur, B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human Memory: A proposed system and its component processes. In K. Spence & J. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Academic Press. Aufderheide, P., & Firestone, C. M. (1993). Media literacy. A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Washington, DC: Aspen institute. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED365294.pdf Avila, J., & Moore, M. (2012). Critical literacy, digital literacies, and common core state standards: A workable union? Theory into Practice, 51(1), 27–33. doi:10.1080/00405841.2012.636332 Ayers, W., Klonsky, M., & Lyon, G. (Eds.). (2000). A simple justice: The challenge of small schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Baack, S. A., Brown, T. S., & Brown, J. T. (1991). Attitudes toward computers: Views of older adults compared with those of young adults. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(3), 422–433. doi:10.1080/08886504.1991.10781970 Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Baird, D., & Fisher, M. (2006). Neomillennial user experience design strategies: Utilizing social networking media to support always on learning styles. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 5–32. doi:10.2190/6WMW-47L0M81Q-12G1 Baker, F. (2014). Media literacy clearinghouse. FrankBaker.com. Retrieved from: http://www.frankwbaker.com/mlc/ Ballard, S., & Fontichiaro, K. (2010). More than shushing and shelving. Principal Leadership, 11(4), 50–54.

285

Compilation of References

Barack, L. (2012, March). Full-time school librarians linked to higher student reading scores. School Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.slj.com/2011/09/industry-news/something-to-shout-about-new-research-shows-that-morelibrarians-means-higher-reading-scores/ Barbour, M. (2009). Today’s student and virtual schooling: The reality, the challenges, the promise. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 13(1), 5–25. Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402–416. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.009 Barbour, M., & Plough, C. (2009). Helping to make online learning less isolating. TechTrends, 53(4), 57. Barron, A. E., Ivers, K. S., Lilavois, N., & Wells, J. A. (2006). Technologies for education: A practical guide (5th ed.). London: Libraries Unlimited. Barron, A., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on technology in k-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the national technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 744–755. doi:10.1080/15391523.2003.10782398 Barron, B., Walter, S. E., Martin, C. K., & Schatz, C. (2010). Predictors of creative computing participation and profiles of experience in two Silicon Valley middle schools. Computers & Education, 54(1), 178–189. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2009.07.017 Barth, P., Hull, J., & St Andrie, R. (2012). Searching for the reality of virtual schools. Alexandria, VA: Center for Public Education, National School Boards Association. Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546. Baum, S., Viens, J., & Slatin, B. (2005). Multiple intelligences in the elementary classroom: A teacher’s toolkit. New York: Teachers College Press. Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley scales of infant and toddler development (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Beane, J. A. (2013). Common Core of a Different Sort: Putting Democracy at the Center of the Curriculum. Middle School Journal, 44(3), 6-14. Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2). Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291–321. doi:10.1080/088 86504.1994.10782093 Bellanca, J. A., & Brandt, R. S. (2010). 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Belland, B. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52(2), 353–364. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.004 Bell, C. (2014). El Deafo. New York, NY: Abrams Books. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

286

Compilation of References

Bennett, L. (2000). Technology standards for the preparation of teachers. The International Journal of Social Education, 15(2), 1–11. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Berger, R., Rugen, L., & Woodfin, L. (2014). Leaders of their own learning: Transforming schools through studentengaged assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education. Berk, L. E. (2014). Child development. Boston, MA: Pearson. Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2013). Getting to the core: Using digital resources to enhance content-based literacy in the Social Studies. Social Education, 77(2), 102–106. Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1503_1 Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Informing design research: Learning from teachers designs of social infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258–311. doi:10.1080/10508406.2012.691925 Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95–100. Blumenfeld, P., Kempler, T., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learning Science (pp. 475–488). New York: Cambridge University Press. Blumfield, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., & Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398. doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139 Bogel, G. (2009). School librarian’s bill of responsibilities and the ALA core competences. Knowledge Quest, 38(2), 64–68. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: Educational triage and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268. doi:10.3102/00028312042002231 Boss, R. (2011). Educational software for children. Retrieved from https://alair.ala.org/bitstream/handle/11213/258/ Educational+Software.pdf?sequence=86 Bouffard, K. (2015). Census bureau: Detroit is poorest big city of U.S. The Detroit News. Retrieved from http://www. detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/09/16/census-us-uninsured-drops-income-stagnates/32499231/ Bower, M., Highfield, K., Furney, P., & Mowbray, L. (2013). Supporting pre-service teachers technology-enabled learning design thinking through whole of programme transformation. Educational Media International, 50(1), 39–50. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2013.777183 Brand, B. R., & Triplett, C. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary curriculum: An abandoned concept? Teachers and Teaching, 18(3), 381–393. doi:10.1080/13540602.2012.629847 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the digital native: Beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 357–369. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x

287

Compilation of References

Brown-Chidsey, R., Bronaugh, L., & McGraw, K. (2009). RTI in the classroom: Guidelines and recipes for success. New York: The Guilford Press. Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599–621. Brown, S. (2016). Young readers transactions with interactive digital texts using e-readers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(1), 42–56. doi:10.1080/02568543.2015.1105887 Bruce, D. L., & Chiu, M. M. (2015). Composing with new technology: Teacher reflections on learning digital video. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 272–287. doi:10.1177/0022487115574291 Bruff, D. O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E., & Smith, B. E. (2013). Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187–199. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. doi:10.2307/1511637 Buckingham, D. (1993, Summer). Towards new literacies: Information technology, English and media education. English and Media Magazine, 20-25. Buckingham, D. (1998). Media education in the UK: Moving beyond protectionism. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 33–43. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02735.x Bukor, E. (2015). Exploring teacher identity from a holistic perspective: Reconstructing and reconnecting personal and professional selves. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(3), 305–327. doi:10.1080/13540602.2014.953818 Burns, K., & Polman, J. (2006). The impact of ubiquitous computing in the internet age: How middle school teachers integrated wireless laptops in the initial stages of implementation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 363–385. Buzzeo, T. (2008). Make the move from collaboration to data-driven collaboration. Library Media Connection, 27(3), 28–31. Caballo, M. B., Caride, J. A., Gradaílle, R., & Pose, H. M. (2014). Los massive open online courses (MOOCs) como extensión universitaria. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 43–61. Cabero, J., Llorente, M. C., & Vázquez, A. I. (2014). Las tipologías de los MOOC: Su diseño e implicaciones educativas. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 13–26. Çağıltay, K., & Bichelmeyer, B. (2000). Differences in learning styles in different cultures: A qualitative study. ERIC Clearinghouse. Cain, M., & Phillipe, S. (2013). An exploration of students’ experiences of learning in an online primary teacher education program. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 304–315. Cankoy, O. (2010). Matematik öğretmenlerinin a0, 0! ve a÷ 0 ile ilgili konu temelli pedagojik alan bilgileri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 10(2), 729–769. Cankoy, O., & Tut, M. A. (2005). High-stakes testing and mathematics performance of fourth graders in North Cyprus. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 234–243. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.4.234-244 Capdevila, R., & Aranzadi, P. (2014). Los cursos online masivos y abiertos: ¿Oportunidad o amenaza para las universidades iberoamericanas? Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 17(1), 69–82.

288

Compilation of References

Carpenter, J., & Krutka, D. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 414–434. doi:10.1080/15391523.2014.925701 Castaño, C., & Cabero, J. (2013). Enseñar y aprender en entornos m-learning. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis. Cennamo, K. S., Ross, J. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standardsbased approach. Wadsworth. Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2011). Universal Design for Learning guidelines (Version 2.0). Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design, Version 2.0. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Cermak, L. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (1979). Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F., & Hernandez, K. C. (2013). Collaborative autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Chapman, C. (1993). If the shoe fits...: How to develop multiple intelligences in the classroom (rev. ed.). SkyLight Training and Publishing, Inc. Charbonneau-Gowdy, P. (2015). It takes a community to develop a teacher: Testing a new teacher education model for promoting ICT in classroom teaching practices chile. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(4), 237–249. Chen, J. Q., Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple intelligences around the world. John Wiley & Sons. Chen, R. (2011). Preservice mathematics teachers ambiguous views of technology. School Science and Mathematics, 111(2), 56–67. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2010.00061.x Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cho, V., Ro, J., & Littenberg-Tobias, J. (2013). What Twitter will and will not do: Theorizing about teachers’ professional communities online. Learning Landscapes, 6(2), 45–62. Chung, J. E., Park, N., Wang, H., Fulk, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2010). Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1674–1684. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.016 Clinton, W. J., & Gore, A. A. (1996, October 10). Remarks by the President and Vice President to the people of Knoxville. [transcript]. Retrieved March 1, 2010 from http://archives.clintonpresidentialcenter.org/?u=101096-remarks-bypresident- and-vp-in-knoxville-tn.htm Clough, G. W. (2014, February). How will 3-D printing change the Smithsonian? Smithsonian.com. Retrieved from http:// www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-will-3d-printing-change-the-smithsonian-180949426/?no-ist Coan, S. (Ed.). (2006). The best of multiple intelligences activities. Teacher Created Resources, Inc. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Coker, E. (2015). Certified teacher-librarians, library quality and student achievement in Washington state public schools. Retrieved from Washington Library Media Association: https://wala.memberclicks.net/assets/WLMA/Advocacy/ wslitreport_final%204_9_15.pdf Coleman, D. (2011, April 28). Bringing the Common Core to life. Retrieved from New York State Education Department at http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/docs/bringingthecommoncoretolife/part6transcript.pdf 289

Compilation of References

Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers’ criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and literacy, grades 3–12. Retrieved from the Common Core Standards Initiative at www.corestandards. org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12.pdf Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2015). SEL and pre-service teacher education in the United States and Canada. Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/pre-service-teacher-education/ Collins, C. (2010). Survival tactics for the warrior librarian. Library Media Connection, 29(3), 18–19. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). About the standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ about-the-standards/ Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). English language arts standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/ Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Math standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/ Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. (2015, August 27). ‘Multifab’ 3D-prints a record 10 materials at once, no assembly required. Retrieved from https://www.csail.mit.edu/multifab_multimaterial_3D_printer Connors, S. P. (2015). Confronting the monster under the (text complexity) staircase. English Journal, 105(1), 92–95. Cook, K. L., & Dinkins, E. G. (2015). Using popular text to develop inquiry projects: Supporting preservice teachers’ knowledge of disciplinary literacy. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6), 44–50. doi:10.2505/4/jcst15_044_06_44 Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X031004003 Cooperstein, S. E., & Kocevar-Weidinger, E. (2003). Beyond active learning: A constructivist approach to teaching. RSR. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 141–148. doi:10.1108/00907320410537658 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (2005). Universal Design for Learning: A guide for teachers and education professionals. Arlington, VA: Authors. Cowhey, M. (2006). Black ants and Buddhists: Thinking critically and teaching differently in the primary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cross, S. (2013). Evaluation of the old MOOCs curriculum design course: Participant perspectives, expectations and experiences. London: Open University. Croxall, B., & Koh, A. (2013). Digital pedagogy? A digital pedagogy unconference. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.briancroxall.net/digitalpedagogy/what-is-digital-pedagogy/ Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology, 1980-2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Cuban, L. (2008). Hugging the middle: How teachers teach in an era of testing and accountability. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L., & Jandric, P. (2015). The dubious promise of educational technologies: Historical patterns and future challenges. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(3-4), 425–439. doi:10.1177/2042753015579978 290

Compilation of References

Cydis, S. (2015). Authentic instruction and technology literacy. Journal of Learning Design, 8(1), 68–78. doi:10.5204/ jld.v8i1.222 Czaja, S., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzdog, C., Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A., & Sharit, J. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333–352. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333 PMID:16768579 Dale, J., & Kellam, L. (2012). The incredible embeddable librarian. Library Media Connection, 30(4), 30–51. Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers’ comprehension through scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Keiffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (2nd ed.; pp. 75–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., & Caballé, S. (2013). A review of massive e-learning (MOOC) design, delivery and assessment. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference onP2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing. Washington DC: IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/3PGCIC.2013.37 Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008 Davis, F. (2011). Forward. In T. Teo (Ed.), Technology acceptance in education (p. vii). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Davis, S. F., Palladino, J. J., & Davis, S. F. (1997). Psychology 2. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. de Vaujany, F. (2008). Capturing reflexivity modes in IS: A critical realist approach. Information and Organization, 18(1), 51–72. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2007.11.001 Dedeoğlu, T. G. (2006). Application of multiple intelligences theory in state schools. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. Delaware Department of Education. (2013, February 5). Argumentation/opinion text-based writing rubric. Dover, DE: Department of Education - Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/508 Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. New York, NY: Kellogg & Company. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77–80. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Free Press. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon. Dieker, L. A., Kennedy, M. J., Smith, S., Vasquez, E., III, Rock, M., & Thomas, C. N. (2014). Use of technology in the preparation of pre-service teachers (Document No. IC-11). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/ innovation-configurations/ Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives (DALN). (2015). Retrieved from: http://daln.osu.edu 291

Compilation of References

Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 55–65. doi:10.1007/s10798-006-9008-y Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19, 22–39. Dow, M. J., Lakin, J. M., & Court, S. C. (2012). School librarian staffing levels and student achievement as represented in 2006-2009 Kansas Annual Yearly Progress data. School Library Research, 2012(15), 1-15. Retrieved from ERIC database: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ994364 Dow, M. J. (2010). Making schools better: School librarians’ roles in aggressive reforms: What is our official position? Knowledge Quest, 38(5), 78–82. Doyle, T. (2011). Learner-centered teaching: Putting the research on learning into practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Ltd. Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. ET Magazine, 42(1), 5–13. Educause Learning Initiative. (2012, July). 7 things you should know about 3D printing. Retrieved from http://net. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7086.pdf Educause Learning Initiative. (2013, April). 7 things you should know about makerspaces. Retrieved from https://net. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7095.pdf Edwards, D. (2009). Tracing literacy journeys: The use of the literacy autobiography in preservice teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 51–61. doi:10.14221/ajte.2009v34n4.6 Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize Universal Design for Learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41. doi:10.1177/073194871003300103 Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 7–24. Egbert, J. (2007). Supporting learning with technology: Essentials of classroom practice. Pearson-Merrill/Prentice Hall. Ellis, R. D., & Allaire, J. C. (1999). Modeling computer interest in older adults: The role of age, education, computer knowledge, and computer anxiety. Human Factors, 41(3), 345–355. doi:10.1518/001872099779610996 PMID:10665203 Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1994). Long-term working memory. Boulder, CO: Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado. Ernest, J.M., Causey, C., Newton, A.B., Sharkins, K., Summerlin, J., & Albaiz, N. (n.d.). Extending the global dialogue about media, technology, screen time, and young children. Childhood Education, 90(3), 182-191. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher Technology Change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551 Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 Esquith, R. (2007). Teach like your hair’s on fire: The methods and madness inside Room 56. New York, NY: Penguin. Eysenck, M. W. (1974). Age differences in incidental learning. Developmental Psychology, 10(6), 936–941. doi:10.1037/ h0037263 292

Compilation of References

Fini, A., Formiconi, A., Giorni, A., Pirruccello, N. S., Spadavecchia, E., & Zibordi, E. (2008). Intro OpenEd 2007: An experience on open education by a virtual community of teachers. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 4(1), 231-239. Fisher, T. (2006). Educational transformation: Is it like beauty in the eye of the beholder, or will we know it when we see it? Education and Information Technologies, 11(3-4), 293–303. doi:10.1007/s10639-006-9009-1 Fleming, L. (2015). Worlds of making: Best practices for establishing a makerspace for your school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Forte, A., Humphreys, M., & Park, T. (2012). Grassroots professional development: How teachers use Twitter.Proceedings of the Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, (pp. 106-113). Fountas, I. C., & Pannell, G. S. (2011). The F&P Text Level GradientTM. Retrieved from http://www.fountasandpinnellleveledbooks.com/aboutLeveledTexts.aspx#TL Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Franzen, C. (2013, November 12). MakerBot aims to put a 3D printer in every school, and wants you to help pay for it. Retrieved from http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/5096918/makerbot-academy-aims-for-3d-printer-in-every-school Frei, S., Gammill, A., & Irons, S. (2007). Integrating technology into the curriculum. Shell Education. Friesem, Y. (2015). On becoming a digital literacy mentor: Self-determination and media production in elementary education. (Unpublished PhD in Education). Kingston, RI: University of Rhode Island. Friske, J., Knezek, D., Taylor, H., Thomas, L., & Wiebe, J. (1995). ISTE’s technology foundation standards for all teachers: Time for a second look? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 12(2), 9–12. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Gardner, H. (2010). Çoklu zeka kuramı–yaratıcılık–gelecek için beş akıl. In Proceedings of 1st International Conference of Living Theorists: Howard Gardner. (H. Kale, Trans.). Burdur, Turkey: Mehmet Akif Ersoy University. Gardner, H., & Jenkins, H. (2011). Appendix: How we got here. Our space: Being a responsible citizen of the digital world (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education & Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California. Retrieved from http://www.thegoodproject.org/pdf/Our_Space_full_casebook.pdf Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children learn and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gebhard, S. (2006). The lost boys (and girls): Readers in Neverland. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(5), 454–463. doi:10.1177/0022487106294087 Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor & Francis.

293

Compilation of References

Gee, J. P. (2012). The old and the new in the new digital literacies. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 418–420. doi:10.10 80/00131725.2012.708622 Gentner, D., & Namy, L. L. (2006). Analogical processes in language learning. Current Directions In Psychological Science Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 297–301. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00456.x George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gijselaers, W. H. (1996). Connecting problem- based practices with educational theory. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 13–21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/tl.37219966805 Giroux, H. A. (1996). Hollywood, race, and the demonization of youth: The “kids” are not “alright”. Educational Researcher, 25(2), 31–35. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. Goldenberg, L. B. (2011). What students really want in science class. Science Teacher (Normal, Ill.), 78(6), 52–55. Gómez, P., Monge, C., & García, A. (2015). Challenges about MOOCs in teacher training: Differences between on-site and open university students. In E. McKay & J. Lenarcic (Eds.), Macro-level learning through massive open online courses (MOOCs). Strategies and predictions for the future (pp. 250–270). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Gómez, P., Monge, C., & García, A. (2016a). Fundamentación psicopedagógica de los MOOCs. In P. Gómez, A. García, & C. Monge (Eds.), La cultura de los MOOCs para la innovación en Educación Superior desde contextos iberoamericanos (pp. 23–51). Madrid: Editorial Síntesis. Gómez, P., Monge, C., & García, A. (2016b). La perspectiva de los formadores acerca de los MOOCs: un estudio inicial. In P. Gómez, A. García, & C. Monge (Eds.), La cultura de los MOOCs para la innovación en Educación Superior desde contextos iberoamericanos (pp. 201–223). Madrid: Editorial Síntesis. González, C., Castro, M., & Lizasoain, L. (2009). Using triangulation to assess continuing education teacher needs in Madrid (Spain). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(2), 1–47. PMID:27453681 Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2007). Integrating technology for meaninful learning (5th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Great Schools. (1998-2016). Test scores. Retrieved by http://www.greatschools.org/michigan/detroit/1195-PershingHigh-School/quality/#Test_scores Grieser, D., & Kuhl, P. K. (1989). Categorization of speech by infants: Support for speech-sound prototypes. Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 577–588. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.4.577 Gronseth, S., Brush, T., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Strycher, J., Abaci, S., Easterling, W., & van Leusen, P. et al. (2010). Equipping the next generation of teachers: Technology preparation and practice. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 30–36. doi:10.1080/21532974.2010.10784654 Grünewald, F., Meinel, C., Totschnig, M., & Willems, C. (2013). Designing MOOCs for the support of multiple learning styles. In D. Hernández, T. Ley, R. Klamma, & A. Harrer (Eds.), Scaling up learning for sustained impact (pp. 317–382). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40814-4_29 Guàrdia, L., Marina, M., & Sangrá, A. (2013). MOOC design principles. A pedagogical approach from the learner’s perspective. eLearning Papers, 33, 1-6. 294

Compilation of References

Gura, M., & Percy, B. (2005). Recapturing technology for education: Keeping tomorrow in today’s classrooms. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Habib, D. (2007). Including Samuel. [Motion Picture]. Institute on Disability. Habib, D. (2012). Who cares about Kelsey? [Motion Picture]. Institute on Disability. Hackman, H. W. (2008). Broadening the pathway to academic success: The critical intersections of social justice education, critical multicultural education, and universal instructional design. In J. L. Higbee & E. Goff (Eds.), Pedagogy and student services for institutional transformation: Implementing Universal Design in higher education. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalties and distinctive patterns in teachers integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101(3), 261–315. doi:10.1086/444044 Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal Design for Learning in the classroom: Practical applications. New York, NY: Guilford. Hanover Research. (2013). Future trends in k-12 education. Retrieved from https://ts.madison.k12.wi.us/files/techsvc/ Future%20Trends%20in%20K-12%20Education.pdf Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. Retrieved from http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2009, No. 1, pp. 4087-4095). Harris, M. J. (2010). Impactful student learning outcomes on one-to-one student laptop programs in low socioeconomic schools. (Doctoral dissertation). San Francisco State University. Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229. doi:10.1080/15391523.2011.10782570 Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416. doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536 Hefzallah, I. M. (2004). The new educational technologies and learning: Empowering teachers to teach and students to learn in the information age (2nd ed.). Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd. Hehir, T. (2009). Policy foundations of universal design for learning. In D. T. Gordon, J. W. Gravel, & L. A. Schifter (Eds.), A policy reader in universal design for learning (pp. 35–45). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Hemmings, A. (2012). Urban high schools: Foundations and possibilities. New York: Routledge.

295

Compilation of References

Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, A. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed.; pp. 401-412). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_32 Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. doi:10.1007/ s11423-006-9022-5 Heybourne, W. H., & Perrett, J. J. (2016). To flip or not to flip? Analysis of a flipped classroom Pedagogy in a general biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(4), 31–37. Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572. doi:10.1177/0011000097254001 Hilton, J. III, Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four Rs of openness and ALMS Analysis: Frameworks for Open Educational Resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(1), 37–44. doi:10.1080/02680510903482132 Himley, M. (1991). Shared territory: Understanding children’s writing as works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hirsch, S. (2012). How to create an app. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://www.appsbar.com/how-to-create-an-app/ Hobbs, R. (1996). Media literacy and the “big tent”. Paper presented at the National Media Literacy Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/media-literacy-and-big-tent Hobbs, R. (2010, November). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. (White Paper). Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Retrieved from http://www.knightcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Digital_and_Media_Literacy_A_ Plan_of_Action.pdf Hobbs, R., & Moore, D. C. (2013). Discovering media literacy: Teaching digital media and popular culture in elementary school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. doi:10.4135/9781506335445 Hoepfl, M. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education 9(1). Accessed September 5, 2015, http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v9n1/hoepfl.html Hoerr, T. R. (2000). Becoming a multiple intelligences school. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publising. Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: A longitudinal study of preservice teachers in a secondary M.A.Ed. program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 83–106. doi:10.10 80/15391523.2012.10782598 Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2008.04.002 Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte, W., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Harvard University Press. Holleis, P., Schmidt, A., Drewes, H., Attarer, R., & Dollinger, P. (2010). Taking teaching beyond the classroom: Pervasive computing technologies for the classroom of the future. In K. Mäkitalo-Siegl, J. Zottmann, F. Kaplan, & F. Fischer (Eds.), Classroom of the future: Orchestrating collaborative spaces (pp. 63–87). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Homefacts. (2016). Detroit, MI unemployment rate report. Retrieved from http://www.homefacts.com/unemployment/ Michigan/Wayne-County/Detroit.html 296

Compilation of References

Howard, S. D. (2015). Teachers are psychologists, technologists, coaches, servants…and much more. PAGE One, 36(5), 5. Hsu, H., & Chang, Y. (2013). Extended TAM model: Impacts of convenience on acceptance and use of Moodle. USChina Education Review, 3(4), 211–218. Hsu, Y., Ho, H., Tsai, C., Hwang, G., Chu, H., Wang, C., & Chen, N. (2012). Research Trends in Technology-based Learning from 2000 to 2009: A content Analysis of Publications in Selected Journals. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 354–370. Huang, H. (2007). Predicting knowledge construction in the web-based learning environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(4), 431–440. Hubbard, B., & Mitchell, N. (2011). Troubling questions about online education. EdNews Colorado. Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT—replacement, amplification, and transformation—framework. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2006 (pp. 1616–1620). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Hu, P., Clark, T., & Ma, W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227–241. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00050-8 Hurford, J. R. (1991). The evolution of the critical period for language acquisition. Cognition, 40(3), 159–201. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(91)90024-X PMID:1786674 Husbye, N. E., Buchholz, B., Coggin, L., Powell, C. W., & Wohlwend, K. E. (2012). Critical lessons and playful literacies: Digital media in PK-2 classrooms. Language Arts, 90(2), 82–92. Hutchinson, A. C., & Colwell, J. (2014). The potential of digital technologies to support literacy instruction relevant to the Common Core State Standards. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 147–156. doi:10.1002/jaal.335 Hutchison, A., & Colwell, J. (2016). Preservice teachers’ use of the technology integration planning cycle to integrate iPads into literacy instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education (Routledge), 48(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080 /15391523.2015.1103146 Hwang, G., Chu, H., Yin, C., & Ogata, H. (2015). Transforming the educational settings: Innovative designs and applications of learning technologies and learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 127–129. do i:10.1080/10494820.2014.998863 Hyde, T. S., & Jenkins, J. J. (1969). Differential effects of incidental tasks on the organization of recall of a list of highly associated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82(3), 472–481. doi:10.1037/h0028372 ICDL Foundation. (2012). StoryKit (Version 1.1) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com Illeris, K. (2004). The three dimensions of learning. Malabar, FL: Krieger Pub. Co. Ingle, J. C., & Moorehead, T. (2016, February 15). What does research really say about iPads in the classroom? eSchoolNews. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2016/02/15/what-does-research-really-say-about-ipads-in-the-classroom/ International Reading Association Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Committee. (2012). Literacy implementation guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards [White paper]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.reading.org/Libraries/ association-documents/ira_ccss_guidelines.pdf International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste. org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-students

297

Compilation of References

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education. International Society for Technology in Education. (2015). ISTE standards and the Common Core. Retrieved from http:// www.iste.org/standards/standards-in-action/common-core International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Curriculum framework. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/ standards/tools-resources/essential-conditions/curriculum-framework International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Essential conditions. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/ standards/tools-resources/essential-conditions International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste. org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for- teachers International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Ongoing professional learning. Retrieved from http://www. iste.org/standards/tools-resources/essential-conditions/ongoing-professional-learning International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Skilled personnel. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/tools-resources/essential-conditions/skilled-personnel International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Student-centered learning. Retrieved from http://www.iste. org/standards/tools-resources/essential-conditions/student-centered-learning Israel, M., Ribuffo, C., & Smith, S. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Recommendations for teacher preparation and professional development (Document No. IC-7). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovationconfigurations/ Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., & Salen, K. (2013). Connected learning: an agenda for research and design. Watkins, SC: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Ivers, K. S. (2009). A teacher’s guide to using technology in the classroom (2nd ed.). Libraries Unlimited. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: The John D.and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/ JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R. M., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). Pearson Education. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. Juniu, S. (2006). Use of technology for constructivist learning in a performance assessment class. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(1), 67–79. doi:10.1207/s15327841mpee1001_5 Kagan, M., & Kagan, S. (1998). Multiple intelligences: The complete MI book. Kagan Cooperative Learning. 298

Compilation of References

Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity theory as a conceptual framework for understanding teacher approaches to information and communication technologies. Computers & Education, 53(2), 436–444. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.003 Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2010). Teacher Learning Opportunities in a Shifting Policy Environment for Instruction. Educational Policy, 24(4), 563–601. doi:10.1177/0895904809335106 Kay, R. (2007). A formative analysis of how preservice teachers learn to use technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 366–383. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00222.x Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in k-12 online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185–200. doi:10.1177/0022487111433651 Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2013). How satisfied are you with your MOOC? A research study on interaction in huge online courses. In Proceedings of 2013 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications. Victoria: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Kids Count, R. I. (2016). 2016 Rhode Island Kids Count Factbook. Providence, RI: Rhode Island Kids Count. Retrieved from http://www.rikidscount.org/DataPublications/RIKidsCountFactbook.aspx Kimmons, R., Miller, B., Amador, J., Desjardins, C., & Hall, C. (2015). Technology integration coursework and finding meaning in pre-service teachers reflective practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 809–829. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9394-5 King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal Design for Learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 199–201. doi:10.2307/27740372 KKTC’de 2015 Yılı Sonu Itibarıyla Mobil Telefon Abonesi Rakamı Inanılmaz ! (2016, March 15). Kuzey Postası. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from http://www.kuzeypostasi.com/gundem/kktcde-2015-yili-sonu-itibariyla-mobil-telefonabonesi-rakami-inanilmaz/30751 KKTC’de Akıllı Telefon Kullanımı Yüzde 44’e Yükseldi. (2015, January 16). Ada Haber. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from http://www.kibrisadahaber.com/kktcde-akilli-telefon-kullanimi-yuzde-44e-yukseldi.html Kleiner, B., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2007). Educational Technology in Teacher Education Programs for Initial Licensure. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2008-040. National Center for Education Statistics. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 2(58), 97–101. doi:10.1002/jaal.314 Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation & Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Routledge. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102. Koehlher, M., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19. Koh, J., & Divaharan, S. (2011). Developing preservice teachers technology integration expertise through the TPACKdeveloping instructional model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 35–58. doi:10.2190/EC.44.1.c Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice.Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 98, 16-22.

299

Compilation of References

Koopman, B. L. (2010-2011). From Socrates to Wikis: Using online forums to deepen discussions. Phi Betta Kappan, 92(4), 24–27. doi:10.1177/003172171009200405 Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–1121. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014 Kornhaber, M., Fierros, E., & Veenema, S. (2004). Multiple intelligences: Best ideas from research and practice. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203164754 Kroski, E. (2013, March 12). A librarian’s guide to makerspaces: 16 resources. Open Education Database. Retrieved from http://oedb.org/ilibrarian/a-librarians-guide-to-makerspaces/ Lacina, J., & Griffith, R. (2012). Blogging as a means of crafting writing. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 316–320. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01128 Ladbrook, J., & Parr, J. (2015). Designing student learning for a networked world. In C. Koh (Ed.), Motivation, Leadership and Curriculum Design (pp. 161–172). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-230-2_13 Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lambert, J., & Gong, Y. (2010). 21st century paradigms for pre-service teacher technology preparation. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 54–70. doi:10.1080/07380560903536272 Latham, D., Gross, M., & Witte, S. (2013). Preparing teachers and librarians to collaborate to teach 21st century skills: Views of LIS and education faculty. School Library Research, 16, 1–23. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Lazear, D. (1999). Eight ways of knowing: Teaching for multiple intelligences (3rd ed.). Corwin Press. Lazear, D. (2000). The intelligent curriculum: Using multiple intelligences to develop your students’ full potential. Chicago: Zephyr Press. Lazear, D. (2003). Eight ways of teaching: The artistry of teaching with multiple intelligences (4th ed.). Corwin Press. Lee, C. J., & Kim, C. (2014). An implementation study of a TPACK-based instructional design model in a technology integration course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 437–460. doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9335-8 Lee, S., & Kim, B. (2009). Factors affecting the usage of intranet: A confirmatory study. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 191–201. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.007 Lee, Y., Waxman, H., Wu, J. Y., Michko, G., & Lin, G. (2013). Revisit the effects of teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 133–146. Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York, NY: Wiley.

300

Compilation of References

Lerner, C., & Ciervo, L. A. (2003). Healthy minds: Nurturing children’s development from 0 to 36 months. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press and American Academy of Pediatrics. Li, J. (2012). More freedom to spend less money: What happened when California school districts gained spending flexibility and budgets were cut? RAND Corporation Research Brief. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/ rand/pubs/research_briefs/2012/RAND_RB9665.pdf Library Research Service. (2015). School libraries impact studies. Retrieved from http://www.lrs.org/data-tools/schoollibraries/impact-studies/ Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education. A users’ guide (3rd ed.). London: SAGE. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2005). Learning to lead in communities of practice. In Teacher leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 245–255. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_6 Little, G. (2013). Massively open? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 308–309. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2013.03.004 Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature (2008-2012). International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 202–227. Lock, J. (2006). A new image: Online communities to facilitate teachers’ professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663–678. Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2014). Twitter as a tool to promote community among language teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(2), 187–212. Losey, B. (Ed.). (2007). The Handy 5: Planning and assessing integrated information skills instruction (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. Lowes, S. (2008). Online teaching and classroom change: The trans-classroom teacher in the age of the internet. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(3), 1–5. Mackness, J., Mak, S. F. J., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning. Hampshire: University of Portsmouth. Marauri, P. M. (2014). La figura de los facilitadores en los Cursos Online Masivos y Abiertos (COMA/MOOC): Nuevo rol profesional para los entornos educativos en abierto. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 17(1), 35–67. Margeson, A. (2015). High School English and Speech: People First, Things Second. In B. Nave (Ed.), Student-centered learning: Nine classrooms in action (pp. 179–201). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Marsh, R. M., Carr-Chellman, A. A., & Sockman, B. R. (2009). Why parents choose cybercharter schools. TechTrends, 53(4), 32–36. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0303-9 Martínez, J. M., Despujol, I., Medrano, J. R., & Ferrano, M. (2013). Formación de profesores en zonas desfavorecidas mediante cursos online multimedia. Paper presented at IV Jornadas Internacionales de Campus Virtuales. Martínez, F., Rodríguez, M. J., & García, F. J. (2014). Evaluación del impacto del término “MOOC” vs. “e-learning” in la literatura científica y de divulgación. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 185–201. Martusewicz, R. A. (2013). Reticence. Educational Studies, 49(1), 1–4. doi:10.1080/00131946.2013.752239

301

Compilation of References

Martusewicz, R. A. (2014). Warrior in an educational nightmare. Educational Studies, 50(2), 99–102. doi:10.1080/00 131946.2014.885758 Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagned audience. New Media & Society, 20(10), 1–20. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. doi:10.1037/h0054346 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). (2011). The Massachusetts Tiered System of Supports Blueprint. Malden, MA: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/sss/mtss Massaro, D. W., & Cowan, N. (1993). Information processing models: Microscopes of the mind. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 383–425. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.002123 PMID:8434893 Masters, K. (2011). A brief guide to understanding MOOCs. Internet Journal of Medical Education, 1(2), 1–6. Mazur, J. E. (1990). Learning and behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. McCombs, B., & Whisler, J. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. McCown, R. R., Driscoll, M. P., & Roop, P. (1996). Educational psychology: A learning-centered approach to classroom practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. McGrail, E., & Davis, A. (2011). The influence of classroom blogging on elementary student writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(4), 415–437. doi:10.1080/02568543.2011.605205 McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2014). Educational design research. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed.; pp. 401-412). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_11 McKenzie, W. L. (2005). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology (2nd ed.). ISTE Publications. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. London: Routledge. McShane, M. Q. (2014). Planes, trains, and teacher evaluation. Education Week, 34(1), 27–28. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle‐school science through design‐based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. The Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x Meisels, S. J., Wen, X., & Beachy-Quick, K. (2010). Authentic assessment for infants and toddlers: Exploring the reliability and validity of the ounce scale. Applied Developmental Science, 14(2), 55–71. doi:10.1080/10888691003697911 Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. MetaMetrics. (2015). The Common Core State Standards initiative: Using Lexile measures to assess college and career readiness. Retrieved from https://www.lexile.com/using-lexile/lexile-measures-and-the-ccssi/ Meyer, R. (1993, December). Preservice teachers’ literacy autobiographies and teacher development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC. Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer, & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13–35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

302

Compilation of References

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Milheim, W. D. (2013). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Current applications and future potential. Educational Technology, 53(3), 38–42. Milman, O. (2015, February 26). Australian researchers create first 3D-printed jet engine. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/26/australian-researchers-create-first-3d-printed-jet-engine Miron, G., & Gulosino, C. (2015). Virtual schools in the US 2015: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/emo-profiles-11-12.pdf Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too Cool for School? No Way! Using the TPACK Framework: You Can Have Your Hot Tools and Teach with Them, Too. Learning and Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14–18. MNE Brochure. (2005). Nicosia, Turkey: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Ministry of National Education. Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4 Monge, C., Gómez, P., & Montalvo, D. (2015). MOOCs in initial teacher training: Perspectives and learning-teaching needs. In E. McKay & J. Lenarcic (Eds.), Macro-level learning through massive open online courses (MOOCs). Strategies and predictions for the future (pp. 222–249). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Moolenar, N. M., & Sleegers, J. C. (2010). Social networks, trust, and innovation: The role of relationships in supporting an innovative climate in Dutch schools. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 97–114). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Moore, D. C., & Bonilla, E. (2014). Media Literacy Education & The Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from https://namleboard.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/namlemleccssguide.pdf Moreillon, J. (2013). Educating for school library leadership: Developing the instructional partnership role. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 54(1), 55–66. Moreillon, J. (2015). Building collaborative relationships through mentoring, modeling, outreach. School Library Monthly, 31(4), 27–28. Moreillon, J., & Ballard, S. D. (2012). Coteaching: A pathway to leadership. Knowledge Quest, 40(4), 6–9. Moreillon, J., Kimmel, S., & Gavigan, K. (2014). Educating pre-service school librarians for the instructional partner role: An exploration into university curricula. School Library Research, 17, 1–25. Morrison-Love, D. (2014). Promoting transfer and an integrated understanding for pre-service teachers of technology. Global Education Review, 1(4), 15–36. Mouza, C. (2004). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447–472. doi:10.1080/15391523.2008.10782516

303

Compilation of References

Mouza, C., & Karchmer-Klein, R. (2013). Promoting and assessing pre-service teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in the context of case development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 127–152. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.b National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2011). English Language Learner FAQs. Retrieved from http://www. udlcenter.org/advocacy/faq_guides/ell National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2013, April 17). What Does It Mean to Say that Curricula are Disabled? Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlcurriculum/disabledcurricula National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history, social studies, science, and technical subjects: Appendix A, Research supporting key elements of the standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/ Appendix_A.pdf National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2016). Standards in your state. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/ Nave, B. (2015). Student-centered learning: Nine classrooms in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Nelson, J. (2010). Library staffing benefits Latino student achievement. CSLA Journal, 34(1), 14-16. Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts database. (Accession No. 52595646) NETS Project, & Brooks-Young, S. (2007). National educational technology standards for students (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education. NETS-T, I. S. T. E. (2008). International Society for Technology in Education. The ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators for Teachers. Neudel, E. (2011). Lives worth living. [Motion picture]. Independent Lens. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u New York State Education Department. (2015). Educational technology learning standards for students: A crosswalk between ISTE’s standards and NYS learning standards. Retrieved from http://www.p12.nysed.gov/technology/TechLit/ literacy.html 304

Compilation of References

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1993). Five Standards of Authentic Instruction. Educational Leadership, (April): 8–12. Nichols, M. (2012). Using digital video production to meet the Common Core Standards. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 22, 52–55. Noble, A., McQuillan, P., & Littenberg-Tobias, J. (2016). “A lifelong classroom”: Social studies educators’ engagement with professional learning networks on Twitter. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2(24), 187–213. Norman, D. A. (1976). Memory and attention: An introduction to human information processing. New York, NY: Wiley. Northeast Foundation for Children (NEFC). (1997). Guidelines for the responsive classroom. Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children. Northrup, P. T., & Little, W. (1996). Establishing instructional technology benchmarks for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 213–222. doi:10.1177/0022487196047003008 Norton, H., & Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Teaching with technology: Designing opportunities to learn (2nd ed.). Toronto: Thomson-Wadsworth. Norton, P., & Sprague, D. (2001). Technology for teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., & Banaji, M. R. et al. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 36–88. doi:10.1080/10463280701489053 Novak, K. (2014). UDL Now: A teacher’s Monday morning guide to implementing Common Core standards using Universal Design for Learning. Wakefield, MA: CAST. November, A. (2010). Empowering students with technology (2nd ed.). London: Corwin Press. Onboard Informatics. (2015). Detail zip code profile. Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/zips/48234.html Öngün, M. (2012). Kuzey Kıbrıs’ta sisteme alternatif düşünmenin toplumsal ve ahlaki engellerini anlamak. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.alternatifim.org/2012/12/21/kuzey_kibrista_sisteme_alternatif_dusunmenin_toplumsal_ve_ahlaki_engellerini_anlamak_2 Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Educational psychology: Developing learners. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Brush, T. A., Strycker, J., Gronseth, S., Roman, T., Abaci, S., & Plucker, J. (2012). Preparation versus practice: How do teacher education programs and practicing teachers align in their use of technology to support teaching and learning? Computers & Education, 59(2), 399–411. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.014 Ozadmli, F. (2011). The experience of teacher candidates in developing instructional multimedia materials in project based learning. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3810–3820. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.378 Öztürkler, Z. (2014). Çağdaş eğitim nedir? Haber KKTC. Retrieved May 15, 2014, from http://www.haberkktc.com/ yazar/cagdas-egitim-nedir-3520.html Palladino, L. J. (2015). Parenting in the age of attention snatchers: A step-by-step guide to balancing your child’s use of technology. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications, Inc. Palmer, P. (1997). The heart of a teacher. Change, 29(November/December), 14–21. doi:10.1080/00091389709602343 Papalia, D. E., Olds, S. W., & Feldman, R. D. (1999). A child’s world: Infancy through adolescence. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

305

Compilation of References

Papay, J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J., & Laski, M. (2015). Learning job skills from colleagues at work: Evidence from a field experiment using teacher performance data. The National Bureau of Economic Research, No. 21986. Papert, S. (1987). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. Retrieved August 15, 2012, from http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html Papert, S. (1994). The children’s machine. New York: Basic Books. Parks, S. (2004). Inside HELP: Hawaii early learning profile: Administration and reference manual. Palo Alto, CA: VORT Corporation. Parry, B. (2013). Children, film and literacy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137294333 Patrick, S., & Powell, A. (2009). A summary of research on the effectiveness of K-12 online learning. International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Pearson, M., & Somekh, B. (2006). Learning transformation with technology: A question of sociocultural contexts? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4), 519–539. doi:10.1080/09518390600773353 Perrin, A. (2015). One-fifth of Americans report going online ‘almost constantly.’ Internet project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/08/ one-fifth-of-americans-report-going-online-almost-constantly/ Pflaum, W. (2004). The technology fix: The promise and reality of computers in our schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Picciano, A. G. (2006). Educational leadership and planning for technology (4th ed.). Pearson-Merrill/Prentice Hall. Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K.Sloan Foundation. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American K-12 Education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P. Sloan foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 127–135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.004 Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Pinker, S. (2007). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics. Piper, A. M., Campbell, R., & Hollan, J. D. (2010). Exploring the accessibility and appeal of surface computing for older adult health care support.Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2010). doi:10.1145/1753326.1753461 Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Retrieved from http:/www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20 -%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital %20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Prensky, M. (2013, August 10). Digital natives [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=jRR76Mz9NII Prensky, M. (2010). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Prituch, K., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 48(2), 222–224. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007 306

Compilation of References

Puentedura, R. (2009). As we may teach: Educational technology, from theory into practice. Retrieved from https:// itunes. apple. com/itunes-u/as-wemay-teach-educational/id380294705 Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (1998). Distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn in a learning by design environment. In A. S. Bruckman, M. Guzdial, J. L. Kolodner, & A. Ram (Eds.), ICLS 1998,Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, (pp. 35-41). Ragan, T. J., & Smith, P. L. (1996). Conditions-based models for designing instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 541–569). New York: Macmillan. Railean, E., Walker, W., Elçi, A., & Jackson, L. (2016). Handbook of research on applied learning theory and design in modern education (Advances in educational technologies and instructional design). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9634-1 Rallis, S. F. (1995). Creating learner-centered schools: Dreams and practices. Theory into Practice, 34(4), 224–229. doi:10.1080/00405849509543684 Range, B., Pijanowski, J., Duncan, H., Scherz, S., & Hvidston, D. (2014). An analysis of instructional facilitators’ relationships with Teachers and Principals. Journal of School Leadership, 24(2), 253. Rathus, S. A. (1990). Psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Ravitch, D. (2010). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. New York, NY: Basic Books. Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. Vintage. Redman, C., & Trapani, F. (2012, December). Experiencing new technology: Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceptions and reflections upon the affordances of social media. Paper presented at the Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney, Australia. Rehmat, A. P., & Bailey, J. M. (2014). Technology integration in a science classroom: Preservice teachers perceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 744–755. doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9507-7 Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (Vol. 1). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1987). Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reksten, L. E. (2000). Using technology to increase student learning. Corwin Press, Inc. Renaissance Learning. (2015). ATOS text complexity analyzer. Retrieved from http://www.renaissance.com/products/ accelerated-reader/atos-analyzer?type=3 Revenaugh, M. (2006). K-8 virtual schools: A glimpse into the future. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 60–64. Richardson, W. (2009). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Richey, R., & Klein, J. (2014). Design and development research. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed.; pp. 141-150). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_12

307

Compilation of References

Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527859.pdf Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/ BF01405730 Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project‐based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 669–692. doi:10.1002/tea.20021 RobbGrieco, M., & Hobbs, R. (2013). A field guide to media literacy education in the united states. Kingston, RI: Media Education Lab. Retrieved from http://mediaeducationlab.com/news/field-guide-media-literacy-education-united-states Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011). Universal design for instruction in postsecondary education: A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24, 5–15. Robinson, R., Molenda, M., & Rezabek, L. (2008). Facilitating learning. Educational technology: A definition with commentary, 15-48. Robledo, P., García, J. N., Díez, C., Álvarez, M. L., Marbán, J. M., Caso, A. M., & de, . (2010). Estilos de pensamiento y aprendizaje en estudiantes de Magisterio y Psicopedagogía: Diferencias según curso y especialidad. Escritos de Psicología, 3(3), 27–36. doi:10.5231/psy.writ.2010.0707 Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching (4th ed.). Pearson-Merril/Prentice Hall. Roblyer, M., Freeman, J., Donaldson, M. B., & Maddox, M. (2007). A comparison of outcomes of virtual school courses offered in synchronous and asynchronous formats. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 261–268. doi:10.1016/j. iheduc.2007.08.003 Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., Mcqueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher Collaboration in Instructional Teams and Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514. doi:10.3102/0002831215585562 Rose, D., Meyer, A., Strangman, N., & Rappolt, G. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of literacy work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Roth, W. M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking Scientific Literacy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203463918 Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotskys neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. doi:10.3102/0034654306298273 Russell, G. (2004). Virtual schools: A critical view. Development and management of virtual schools: Issues and trends, (pp. 1-25). Academic Press. Russell, M., Bebell, D., ODwyer, L., & OConnor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310. doi:10.1177/0022487103255985 Russell, M., O’Brien, E., Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. (2003). Students’ beliefs, access, and use of computers in school and at home. Boston: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 PMID:10620381

308

Compilation of References

Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions In Psychological Science Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 110–114. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01243 Salen, K. (2011). Quest to Learn: Developing the School for Digital Kids. MIT Press. Salvat, B. G., & Quiroz, J. S. (2005). La formación del profesorado como docente en los espacios virtuales de aprendizaje. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 36(1), 3–17. Sample job description: School library media specialist. (2009). Knowledge Quest, 38(2), 80-82. Sanders, A. (2012). Rosenblatt’s presence in the new literacies research. Talking Points, 24(1), 2–6. Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Saphier, J., & Gower, R. R. (1997). The skillful teacher: Building your teaching skills. Acton, MA: Research for Better Teaching. Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting “The Culture of the Schools and the Problem of Change”. New York: Teachers College Press. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 8–20. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1002 Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. The American Psychologist, 54(3), 182–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182 PMID:10199218 Schacter, J., & Fagnano, C. (1999). Does computer technology improve student learning and achievement? How, when, and under what conditions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(4), 329–343. doi:10.2190/VQ8V-8VYBRKFB-Y5RU Schaik, P. (2011). Unified theory of acceptance and use for web sites used by students in higher education. In T. Teo (Ed.), Technology acceptance in education (pp. 159–182). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. doi:10.1007/97894-6091-487-4_9 Scheibe, C. L., & Rogow, F. (2011). The Teacher’s Guide to Media Literacy: Critical Thinking in a Multimedia World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Los Angeles: Sage. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544 Schneider, J. J. (2015). iText but iDont teach with it: An essay on illiteracy in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 37(2), 120–137. doi:10.1080/01626620.2014.969850 Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511571268 Scholastic, Inc. (2015). About the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI). Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/education/assessment/literacy/sri-index.htm Scholastic, Inc. (2015). Scholastic Reading Counts! The only Lexile-based independent reading program. Retrieved from http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/independent_reading/scholastic_reading_counts/index.htm 309

Compilation of References

Schweingruber, H., Keller, T., & Quinn, H. (Eds.). (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. SCOPEO. (2013). MOOC: Estado de la situación actual, posibilidades, retos y futuro. Salamanca: University of Salamanca Press. Scott, S., McGuire, J., & Shaw, S. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A new paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special Education, 24(6), 369–379. doi:10.1177/07419325030240060801 Seifert, K., & Hoffnung, R. J. (1991). Child and adolescent development. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Seigle, P., Lange, L., & Macklem, G. (1997). Open Circle Curriculum. Wellesley, MA: Reach Out to Schools Social Competency Program, The Stone Center, Wellesley College. Seiter, E. (2005). The Internet playground: Children’s access, entertainment, and mis-education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Group. Shanahan, T. (2012). The Common Core ate my baby: And other urban legends. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 11–16. Shelby-Caffey, C., Ubeda, E., & Jenkins, B. (2014). Digital storytelling use revisited: An educators use of an innovative literacy practice. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 191–199. doi:10.1002/trtr.1273 Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004 Siemens, G. (2013). Massive open online courses: Innovation in education? In R. McGreal, W. Kinuthia, & S. Marshall (Eds.), Open educational resources: Innovation, research and practice (pp. 5-16). Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning-Athabasca University. Silva, I., & Salgado, I. (2014). Utilización de los MOOC en la formación docente: Ventajas, desventajas y peligros. Profesorado. Revista de Currículo y Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 155–166. Silver, H. F., Strong, R. W., & Perini, M. J. (2000). So each may learn: Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publishing. Silvernail, D. L., & Lane, D. M. (2004). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop program on middle school teachers and students. Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI). University of Southern Maine. Sims, C. (2014). From differentiated use to differentiating practices: Negotiating legitimate participation and the production of privileged identities. Information Communication and Society, 17(6), 670–682. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.808363 Siwatu, K. O. (2011). Preservice teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-efficacy to teach in America’s urban and suburban schools: Does context matter? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 357–365. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.004 Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. doi:10.1037/11256-000 Slavin, R. E. (2000). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Slavit, D., Nelson, T. H., & Deuel, A. (2013). Teacher groups conceptions and uses of student-learning data. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 8–21. doi:10.1177/0022487112445517 Sluijsmans, D. M., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 59–78. doi:10.1080/1470329032000172720 310

Compilation of References

Smaldino, S. E., Russell, J. D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2005). Instructional technology and media for learning (8th ed.). Pearson Education. Smith Crocco, M., & Costigan, A. T. (2006). High-stakes teaching: Whats at stake for teachers (and students) in the age of accountability. New Educator, 2(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/15476880500486061 Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Snyder, T., & Dillow, S. (2013). Digest of education statistics 2012. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Southern Regional Education Board. (2012). Increasing online learning options for K-12 students: The role of school districts. Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/2012/12T01_Inc_Online.pdf Stafford, D. (2012). Blending technology into the common core standards. Middle Level Leader Archives. National Association of Secondary School Principals. Retrieved from http://www.nassp.org Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Stanton-Salazar, R., & Dornbusch, S. (1995). Social capital and the social reproduction of inequality: The formation of informational networks among Mexican-origin students. Sociology of Education, 68, 103–124. doi:10.2307/2112778 State of Washington, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2013). Crosswalk the Common Core and educational technology standards. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/EdTech/Standards/edtechcoresubjects/CCSS-Crosswalk.aspx Stefaniak, J. (2015). Promoting learner-centered instruction through the design of contextually relevant experiences. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. W. Tracey (Eds.), The Design of Learning Experience (pp. 49–62). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_4 Stewart, C. M., Schifter, C. C., & Selverian, M. E. M. (Eds.). (2010). Teaching and learning with technology: Beyond constructivism. New York: Taylor & Francis. Stockham, M., & Collins, H. (2012). Information literacy skills for preservice teachers: Do they transfer to K-12 classrooms? Education Libraries, 35(1/2), 59–72. Stotsky, S. (2013). Literature or Technical Manuals: Who Should Be Teaching What, Where, and Why? Nonpartisan Education Review / Essays, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v9n1.htm Stover, K., Yearta, L. S., & Sease, R. (2014). Experience is the best tool for teachers: Blogging to provide preservice educators with authentic teaching opportunities. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 10(2), 99–117. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1991). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Strickland, D. (2012). Planning curriculum to meet the Common Core State Standards. Reading Today, 29(4), 25–26. Strycker, J. (2015). Makerspaces: The next iteration for educational technology in K-12 schools. Educational Technology, 55(3), 28–32. Subramony, D. P. (2007). Understanding the Complex Dimensions of the Digital Divide: Lessons Learned in the Alaskan Arctic. The Journal of Negro Education, 76(1), 57–67. doi:10.2307/40026330

311

Compilation of References

Sullivan, F. R., & Moriarty, M. A. (2009). Robotics and discovery learning: Pedagogical beliefs, teacher practice, and technology integration. Technology (Elmsford, N.Y.), 17(1), 109–142. Swanson, K. N., & Legutko, R. S. (2008). The effect of book blogging on the motivation of third grade students. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/?id=ED506515 Tan, E., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2007). Unpacking science for all through the lens of identities-in-practice: The stories of Amelia and Ginny. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(1), 43–71. doi:10.1007/s11422-007-9076-7 Tejada, J. (2013). Professionalization of teaching in universities: Implications from a training perspective. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 10(1), 345–358. Tennyson, R. D. (2005). Learning theories and instructional design: A historical perspective of the linking model. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. van Schaack, & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology (pp. 219–236). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Teo, T. (2007). Perceived importance, enjoyment, and anxiety as correlates of computer attitudes. Psychological Reports, 100(1), 127–135. doi:10.2466/pr0.100.1.127-135 PMID:17451015 Teo, T. (2011). Technology acceptance research in education. In T. Teo (Ed.), Technology acceptance in education (pp. 1–5). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-487-4_1 Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2008). Development and validation of a computer attitude measure for young students (CAMYS). Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2659–2667. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.006 Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/index.php/ site/RE/pbl_research/29 Tomei, L. A. (2005). Taxonomy for the technology domain. Melbourne, Australia: Information Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-524-5 Tondeur, J., Braak, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2015). Time for a new approach to prepare future teachers for educational technology use: Its meaning and measurement. Computers & Education, 94, 134–150. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.009 Tracey, M. (2015). Design team collaboration with a complex design problem. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. W. Tracey (Eds.), The Design of Learning Experience (pp. 93–108). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_7 Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Troxclair, D. A. (2013). Preservice teacher attitudes toward giftedness. Roeper Review, 35(1), 58–64. doi:10.1080/027 83193.2013.740603 Turel, O., Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2007). User acceptance of wireless short messaging services: Deconstructing perceived value. Information & Management, 44(1), 63–73. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.10.005 Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2010). Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Retrieved from www.pbis.org U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2015). The Digest of Education Statistics, 2013 (NCES 2015-011). Author.

312

Compilation of References

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2005 and Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: Fall 2008; and unpublished tabulations. Author. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education. Washington, DC: Author. Ubelacker, S. (2016, January 11). 3D-printed hearts help doctors safely train to perform delicate cardiac surgeries. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/11/3d-printed-hearts-help-doctors-safely-trainto-perform-delicate-cardiac-surgeries_n_8952874.html United States Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school teachers. In United States: Results from the 2011–12 schools and staffing survey. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013314.pdf United States Department of Education. (2015). Every child succeeds act; Reauthorized elementary and secondary education act. (114th Congress S. 1177). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Valdés, A. A., Angulo, J., Urías, M. L., García, R. I., & Mortis, S. V. (2011). Necesidades de capacitación de docentes de educación básica en el uso de las TIC. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 39, 211–223. Valentine, G., & Holloway, S. (2013). Technophobia: Parents’ and children’s fears about information and communication technologies and the transformation of culture and society. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children, technology, and culture: The impacts of technologies in children’s everyday lives. New York, NY: Routledge. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. Viens, J., & Kallenbach, S. (2004). Multiple intelligences and adult literacy: A sourcebook for practitioners. New York: Teachers College Press. Viswanathan, R. (2012). Teaching and learning through MOOC. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3, 32–40. Wang, W., & Wang, C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 761–774. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.021 Wang, X., & Ching, C. (2003). Social construction of computer experience in a first-grade classroom: Social processes and mediating artifacts. Early Education and Development, 14(3), 335–362. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1403_4 Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. MIT Press. Warschauer, M., Grant, D., Del Real, G., & Rousseau, M. (2004). Promoting academic literacy with technology: Successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System, 32(4), 525–537. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.010 Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791 Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the one-to-one equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 46–62. doi:10.1080/10665684.2014.866871 Waters, J. K. (2011). Competing for the virtual student. T.H.E. Journal, 38(7), 28–30.

313

Compilation of References

Waters, L. H., Barbour, M. K., & Menchaca, M. P. (2014). The nature of online charter schools: Evolution and emerging concerns. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 379–389. Watson, J., Pape, L., Murin, A., Gemin, B., & Vashaw, L. (2014). Keeping pace with K-12 digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group. Watters, A. (2014). How will the ed-tech industry shape student reading? Knowledge Quest, 43(1), 16–21. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932 Wentworth, N., & Earle, R. (2003). Trends in computer uses as reported in computers in the schools. Computers in the Schools, 20(1-2), 77–90. doi:10.1300/J025v20n01_06 Wesley, P. M. (2013). Investigating the Community of Practice of World Language Educators on Twitter. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 305–318. doi:10.1177/0022487113489032 White, H. (1995). “Creating Problems” for PBL. Retrieved March 25, 2016 from https://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/jan95chem.html Whitehead, B. M., Jensen, D. F., & Boschee, F. (2003). Planning for technology: A guide for school administrators, technology coordinators, and curriculum leaders. Corwin Press Inc. Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2005). Research methods in education: An introduction (8th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wilhelm, J. (2014). Moving toward collaborative cultures: Remixing classroom participation. Voices from the Middle, 21(4), 58–60. Wilkens, C., Eckdahl, K., Morone, M., Cook, V., Giblin, T., & Coon, J. (2014). Communication, community and disconnection: Pre-service teachers in virtual school field experiences. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(2), 143–157. doi:10.2190/ET.43.2.c Williams, L., Scott, K., & Simone, D. (2015). #Socialnetworks: Making nonfiction trend in your classroom. The Reading Teacher, 69(2), 181–188. doi:10.1002/trtr.1357 Wilson, N. (2014). Interrogating the divide: a case study of student technology use in a one-to-one laptop school. Doctoral Dissertations 2014-Current. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/266 Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205. doi:10.3102/00028312039001165 Wiske, M. S., Franz, K. R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. Jossey-Bass. Wood, E. R. G., Wood, S. E., & Garrison, M. (1993). The world of psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Woodson, J. (2014). Brown girl dreaming. New York, NY: Penguin.

314

Compilation of References

Yalvaç, M. (2012, January 28). KKTC Milli Eğitim Sistemi: Sorun Durumu ve Gelişim Önerileri-1. Haberdar Gazetesi. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://neu.edu.tr/docs/byam/byam_(1).pdf Yin, R. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. Bolton: CETIS. Yusuf, N., & Al-Banawi, N. (2013). The Impact of Changing Technology: The Case of E-Learning. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6(2). Zaleski, A. (2015, September 25). Here’s why MakerBot is putting 3D printers in schools. Fortune. Retrieved from http:// fortune.com/2015/09/25/makerbot-3d-printers-in-schools/ Zeki, C. P. (2013, May 11). Neden Öğrenci Merkezli Eğitim. Haber Kıbrıs. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www. haberkibris.com/neden-ogrenci-merkezli-eğitim-2013-05-11.html Zhang, W. (2010). Technical capital and participatory inequality in edeliberation. Information Communication and Society, 13(7), 1019–1039. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2010.495988 Zhao, Y., & Bryant, F. L. (2006). Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to high levels of technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers’ technology integration after state mandated technology training. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 53–62. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00170 Zins, J., & Elias, M. (2007). Social and emotional learning. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/educators/ elias_zins.pdf Zucker, A. (2004). Developing a Research Agenda for Ubiquitous Computing in Schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 371–386. doi:10.2190/BYR8-CGFC-WVHV-T0TL

315

316

About the Contributors

Mary Grassetti, is an associate professor in the College of Education at Framingham State University in Massachusetts. Dr.Grassetti teaches mathematics and science methods courses in the early childhood and elementary teacher education programs and supervises student teachers in the field. Her research focuses on mathematics teacher education, technology and education and motherhood and education. Her work has appeared in the educational journal Perspectives and the Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement. She co-authored a book chapter in Drew Polly’s (Ed) Common Core Mathematics Standards and Implementing Digital Technologies. Dr. Grassetti is a reviewer for numerous journals within the field of education and currently serves as president of the New England Educational Research Organization. Silvy Brookby, PhD. is an Assistant Professor at Framingham State University. She teaches elementary and early childhood science and mathematics methods courses as well as monitoring student teachers. Dr. Brookby’s research interests include attitudes and beliefs about mathematics ability in pre-service teachers as well as early teacher’s approaches to teaching and learning mathematics. She co-authored a book chapter in Drew Polly’s (Ed) Common Core Mathematics Standards and Implementing Digital Technologies. *** Gary Lee Ackerman began his career as a science and math teacher, but has been teaching and supporting technology-using students and teachers for more than 20 years. Currently, he serves as the digital project leader at Rivendell Academy in Orford, New Hampshire and he is an instructional designer for Mount Wachusett Community College in Gardner, Massachusetts. Erold Bailey is an Assistant Professor of Education at Westfield State University in Massachusetts, where he teaches courses in curriculum studies, and computer technology in education. His research focuses on teacher education, postcolonial studies in education, and diaspora studies. He has published and presented papers in these areas. Kevin Bower has 13 years of elementary teaching experience, and he is a part-time instructor at Millersville University. The Penn Manor School District awarded him the Elementary Educator of the Year in 2010, and he was the keynote speaker at the 2012 IU13 Elementary Technology Conference. Kevin is also a MySciLife Teacher Ambassador and a contributor for The Source for Learning. Mr.  

About the Contributors

Bower has presented nationally, and various publications have cited his teaching practices. Most recently he published a collaborative article on infusing technology into the balanced literacy classroom with Dr. Jennifer Shettel. Mr. Bower’s research interests focus on using technology to best meet the needs of students with diverse abilities. James Cressey has worked closely with students, families, and educators as a direct care provider, special education teacher, psychologist, and consultant since 1999. He has experience in diverse urban and suburban communities, as well as rural communities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Dr. Cressey’s teaching and research are informed by social-emotional learning (SEL), positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), and universal design for learning (UDL) theories. Dr. Cressey also approaches education through a lens of sociocultural theory and culturally responsive practices. His work focuses on prevention, intervention, and inclusion practices for students with and without disabilities. Oliver Dreon is an associate professor and director for the Center for Academic Excellence at Millersville University of Pennsylvania. He teaches a wide variety of education and instructional technology courses both in face-to-face and online formats, and also coordinates the university’s Digital Learning Studio. He is the co-author of the book Authentic Instruction with Technology: A Student-Centered Approach and has published in various journals, including the Middle Level Journal, TechTrends, Teachers and Teaching, Science Education, Online Classroom and Teacher Education & Practice. Dr. Dreon also contributes to Faculty Focus, an online newsletter providing pedagogical and technological strategies for higher education. Dr. Dreon has spent over twenty years teaching in various educational environments. His research examines how technology can be used to support student learning through online, blended and hybrid environments. Dr. Dreon also examines the role that technology plays in supporting communities of practice for educators across the educational landscape. Ramadan Eyyam is the Director of Foreign Languages and English Preparatory School in Eastern Mediterranean University. He holds a Ph.D. in Education, and an M.A. in ELT and Educational Studies. He teaches General Academic English at Foreign Languages and English Preparatory School and core courses in the Educational Sciences Department at Eastern Mediterranean University in North Cyprus. His main professional interests are in various aspects of language teaching and assessment, syllabus design, testing and evaluation, and instructional technology. Yonty Friesem is the associate director of the Media Education Lab and an assistant professor at Central Connecticut State University. With eighteen years of experience in media literacy education, Yonty combines his creative work as a media producer, passionate teaching experience, and advocacy for digital empathy in his daily work. He provides professional development in digital and media literacy for K-16, teaches media production to undergraduate and graduate students, and research the effect of media production on students and teachers. He has a PhD in education from the University of Rhode Island and Rhode Island college, a M.A. in management and policy in education from the University of Tel-Aviv, and a B.A. in Social Sciences and Humanities from the Open University of Israel. Joan Giovannini received her M.Ed. in Educational Policy, Research and Administration from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst in 2005 and a Graduate Certificate in Instructional Design from George Washington University in 2016. She is a faculty member in the Education Department at Holyoke 317

About the Contributors

Community College in Holyoke, Massachusetts where she coordinates the Elementary and Secondary Education pre-service teacher transfer tracks. She is interested in technology-based strategies for supporting teaching and learning. Patricia Gómez Hernández is a PhD candidate in Communication, Education and Society. She is Predoctoral Fellow in the Department of Educational Sciences at the University of Alcalá and a member of the Research Group “Aprendiz.es” in the same institution. Her main lines of research include turn around educational innovations and e-learning. Currently, she is developing a research project examining video games and mobile phones as educational resources in the classroom. Brien J. Jennings is the Library Media Specialist at Narragansett Elementary School where he has worked for the past fourteen years. Along with his work in education, he has also worked for nearly twenty years in media production, working as a broadcast photojournalist, television producer, and documentary filmmaker. He is active in Rhode Island youth media and has taught and coached film workshops for GiveMe5, the Jamestown Arts Center, and the VSA Arts program at the Providence Community Library. He has a Masters in Library and Information Studies, and a B.A. in English, both from the University of Rhode Island. Charlene Jones is an instructional specialist for the In-School program at Wayne State University. The In-School program mostly services students in urban Detroit public or charter schools. She provides instruction for students, long-term professional development for teachers, consultant services for administration, and a framework to establish a positive culture in schools. Charlene has been a mathematics teacher since 1995. Initially, her primary interest in education was nurturing confident mathematics students and changing the negative perception about the study of mathematics. Now, this focus has shifted to schools in urban areas for the purpose of getting students to imagine a future influenced by education absent of violence and fear. Charlene earned a Bachelors of Arts at Wayne State University with a major in Applied Mathematics and a minor in Computer Science. In 2001, she acquired a Master of Arts from the University of Detroit in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science. Currently, she is working on a doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis on Mathematics Education at Wayne State University. As a teacher, she will work tirelessly to convince students that they are capable mathematicians and that when faced with challenges they are to never give up. Suzan Kommers is a Ph.D. candidate in the Educational Policy, Research and Administration Department in the College of Education at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. After completing her masters in Educational Science at Utrecht University in The Netherlands, she now specializes in higher education and new technologies. Suzan received the C. Lynn Vendien Endowed Scholarship for 2015-2016 and is involved in several research projects. Suzan recently presented “Unleashing Students’ Creativity: How Teachers Learn to Use 3D Printers to Transform Students from Passive Consumers to Active Creators” at the 2016 Technology in Education Conference. Robert W. Maloy, Ed.D., is a senior lecturer in the Department of Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies in the College of Education at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he coordinates the history and political science teacher education programs. His research focuses on technology and educational change, teacher education, democratic teaching, and student learning. He is coauthor of seven 318

About the Contributors

books, most recently: Transforming Learning with New Technologies: Third Edition (Pearson, 2017) and We, the Students and Teachers: Teaching Democratically in the History and Social Studies Classroom (State University of New York Press, 2015). Robert has received a University of Massachusetts Amherst Distinguished Teaching Award (2010), the University of Massachusetts President’s Award for Public Service (2010), a School of Education Outstanding Teacher Award (2004), a University Distinguished Academic Outreach Award (2004), and the Chancellor’s Certificate of Appreciation for Outstanding Community Service (1998 and 1993). Patrick J. McQuillan, a cultural anthropologist, is an Associate Professor in the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. His current research interests focus on educational change, with an emphasis on leadership and school reform in urban contexts. His publications include Reform and Resistance in Schools and Classrooms: An Ethnographic View of the Coalition of Essential Schools (Yale University Press, 1996; co-authored with Donna Muncey) and Educational Opportunity in an Urban American High School: A Cultural Analysis (SUNY Press, 1998). Carlos Monge López is a PhD candidate in Educational Planning and Innovation. He is a Predoctoral Fellow in the Department of Educational Sciences (area of Didactic and Scholar Organization) at the University of Alcalá and a member of the Research Group “Educational Inclusion and Improvement: Coexistence and Cooperative Learning” in the same institution. His main lines of research include turn around educational innovation and teacher training. Currently, he is developing a teaching innovation project about “Teaching in improvement of educational inclusion and coexistence.” resulting in the development of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). Anna Noble is a doctoral student in the Curriculum and Instruction program at Boston College. Her research interests include technology, teacher networks and teacher professional development. Carolyn Obel-Omia is an Assistant Professor of Elementary Education at Rhode Island College. Her career has been guided by a passion for developing a love of reading and writing in students from preschool through college. Her elementary school teaching experience includes classroom teaching in public, charter, and independent elementary schools. Her research interests include reading and writing instruction, and parent involvement. Kelly Paynter is an Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology and Library Media at Jacksonville State University in Jacksonville, AL. She has also worked as a classroom teacher and library media specialist. Carol Prest is a grade 4 teacher who loves teaching and learning about digital literacy. She wants to learn how to teach effectively with all forms of media and wants to help students become thoughtful digital citizens. Jennifer Shettel is an Associate Professor at Millersville University in the Early, Middle, and Exceptional Education department where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in all areas of literacy theory, instruction, assessment, and leadership. Her research interests include the intersection of literacy and technology as well as innovative practices in literacy education. 319

About the Contributors

Kate Soules is a doctoral student in the Curriculum and Instruction program at Boston College. Her research interests include teacher education, civic education, and religion and public schools. Torrey Trust, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Learning Technology in the Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies Department in the College of Education at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her research focuses on how technology can support K-12 teachers and higher education faculty in designing contexts that enhance student learning. Her work has been published in the Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning, eLearningIndustry, eSchoolNews, and ASCD Express. Dr. Trust is the president-elect of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Teacher Education Network and she will begin her 2-year term as president in fall 2016. Shaneé Wangia is a PhD student in Curriculum and Instruction at Boston College. Her research interests include urban education, teacher preparation, and principal licensure and leadership. Nicholas Wilson is Senior Associate for Research and Evaluation at Boston University’s Center for Teaching and Learning. His work takes a sociocultural approach to understanding digital education inequities, and how youth from non-dominant communities use technology and digital media for learning, and specifically to navigate, bridge, and challenge privileged social structures and discourses.

320

321

Index

3D Modeling 163, 167, 170, 172-174, 178 3D Modeling Software 163, 178 3D Printer 161-163, 165-168, 178

A ADDIE Model 158 American Association of School Librarians 268, 272, 280 Apps 52, 54, 61-62, 64, 71, 76-77, 81, 114, 269-270 Assimilation 69 Assistive Technology 54, 56, 59, 105 Asynchronous 11, 109, 201-202, 209-210, 212-214, 217 Authentic Assessment 94, 181, 199, 274 Authentic Tasks 4, 81, 91-92, 95, 98

B Behaviorism 62, 64-66, 68 Behaviorist Theory of Learning 66, 81 Blended Learning 93, 201-202, 208-212, 217 Blogging 107, 110-111, 113, 115, 261

C Case study 31, 56, 93, 150, 184, 209-210, 213, 222, 225-227, 245-248, 256-258 Cognitivism 64, 68-70 Cognitivist Theory of Learning 81 Collaborative 2, 30, 45-46, 48, 50, 56, 62, 66, 81, 9091, 95, 97-98, 104, 111, 113, 115, 148, 164, 166, 181, 186, 246, 248, 267, 271, 274-275 Collaborative Learning Teams 62, 66, 81 Common Core State Standards 2, 15, 38-39, 43, 45-46, 51, 82-83, 88-89, 91, 102, 104, 114, 205, 245, 257, 262, 280 Common Core State Standards Initiative 82-83, 88, 102 Computer 1-2, 7, 23, 31-32, 61-64, 66, 68, 70, 73, 76-78, 81, 83, 86, 91, 105, 120, 133, 144-145, 162-163, 178, 211-212, 221, 254, 264, 271

Computers 1, 3, 7, 10, 19-22, 28, 33, 44, 61-63, 81, 114, 124, 144-146, 203 Constructivism 29, 33, 62, 64, 72-73, 75, 126 Constructivist Theory of Learning 72-73, 81 Continuous Training 235, 238, 243 Co-Teaching 263-264, 275-276 Cross-Curricular Integration 263, 265 Cross-Implementation Experimental Method 119, 129 curriculum 1-2, 8-11, 13-14, 21, 26-29, 38-40, 43-44, 48, 51-52, 54, 82, 84, 88, 91-92, 94-95, 102, 109, 123-125, 132, 144-145, 156, 162, 166-167, 170, 172, 174, 182, 186-191, 206-207, 210-212, 214, 218, 222, 225, 238, 240, 251-252, 261, 270, 272, 274, 277 Curriculum Development 10, 13, 82, 91-92, 95 Cyber Schools 202, 217

D design-based learning 164 Differentiation 97, 193, 262-264 Digital and Media Literacy 245, 247-248, 250-252, 255-258, 261 Digital Divide 19-23, 114, 119 Digital Immigrant 86-87, 102 Digital Literacy 82-84, 103, 105, 107-109, 113-115, 246-247, 250-256, 261, 268, 270, 275 Digital Literacy Stories 107, 109, 114-115 Digital Native 86, 92, 98, 102 Digital Pedagogy 83-89, 93-97, 99, 102 Digital Products 268 Distance Education 201, 207, 217, 221, 230, 237 Distance Learning 201, 203-204, 206-207, 212-215

E e-Learning 201, 214 Elementary and Secondary Education Act 82, 102 Elementary Education 39, 103-106, 109, 115 Embedded Instruction 263, 272, 280

Index

Empowerment Approach 257, 261 Encoding 62, 69 Equity 21, 24, 26, 28, 43, 55-56, 78, 106, 113-114

F Flexible Scheduling 272, 280 Flipped Classrooms 149, 158

G Glogster 253, 255-256, 261

I IDDIRR Model 148, 151, 158 Improvement 38, 43, 59, 77, 150-151, 225, 237, 271, 275 Individualized Education Program (IEP) 59 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) 38, 43, 59 Information and Communication Technologies 235, 270 Initial teacher training 222, 225, 227, 230, 237 Initial Training 243 In-Service Teacher 161, 163, 165, 170-174, 178 Instruction 1-2, 19-21, 23-31, 39, 42-44, 46, 51-53, 61-62, 64, 76-77, 82, 88, 91, 93, 95-98, 103, 105-106, 114-115, 119-121, 123-127, 129, 131, 133-136, 144-145, 149, 155-156, 159, 182-184, 186, 192, 195, 202, 209-212, 217, 247, 253, 258, 263-267, 271-274, 276, 280 Instructional Design 5, 39, 82, 84, 91, 93, 95, 121, 126-127, 148, 151, 153, 155, 158 Instructional Technology 52, 66, 121, 124-128, 137, 143-145, 147-151, 155, 159 International Society for Technology in Education 1, 83, 102, 144, 149, 268, 280 Internet-Based Survey 243

Learning Commons 271, 281 Learning Theories 61-62, 64, 66, 76-77, 81 Library Media Specialist 245-246, 248, 250-251, 257, 261-262, 264, 266 Literacy Autobiography 107-108 Literacy Standards 267, 270, 275

M MakerBot 162, 167-168 Makerspace 164, 166-167, 170, 178, 271 Media Education 246, 251-253, 256-257 Media Library Specialist 261 Media Literacy 245-248, 250-252, 255-258, 261 Media Production 22, 24, 245, 247-248, 250-252, 256-258, 261 MOOCs 218-226, 228-240, 243 Multiple Means for Action and Expression 59 Multiple Means for Engagement 59 Multiple Means of Representation 42, 46-49, 51-52, 55, 59, 166 Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) 43, 52, 59

N New Literacies 104, 108-109, 115

O Online Discussion 42, 107, 109-110, 213 Online Learning 3, 96, 201-204, 206-209, 213-215, 217, 269 Opportunities 2, 19-21, 23-24, 27, 29-33, 39, 44, 47, 56, 64, 72, 77, 81-82, 84, 88, 91-92, 95, 97-99, 103, 105-107, 109-115, 122-125, 135, 137, 147-148, 151, 155, 164, 180-181, 183, 186-187, 189-190, 195, 199, 213, 215, 222, 226, 228, 231-232, 234235, 238, 252, 264, 269, 271, 274, 280

L

P

Language 5, 28-29, 40, 43-44, 54-55, 63, 86, 88-91, 97, 102-105, 108, 114, 129-132, 134, 170, 183-184, 207, 210, 213, 235, 247, 257, 262, 266-268, 280 Language Arts Instruction 97, 103 Learner–Centered 72, 76, 120, 149, 180, 190-191, 194-195, 201, 217, 255 Learning by Design 147-148, 159, 164

Pedagogy 2, 28, 77, 83-89, 91, 93-99, 102, 106, 123, 125, 148, 155, 162, 190-191, 199, 208, 245-246, 256, 269 Personal Learning Network (PLN) 55, 59 Perspectives 1, 52, 64, 73, 115, 172, 218, 222-225, 228, 240, 243, 247, 250, 267 Preservice Teacher Education 82, 84-91, 93-99, 102,

322

Index

106 Preservice Teachers 39, 43-48, 50-56, 82, 84-99, 102, 104-107, 110-112, 115, 143-153, 155-156, 162, 165, 171, 173-174, 178, 225, 262-263, 267, 269, 275-276 Problem-Based Learning 143, 148, 153, 155, 159 Professional Development 2, 8, 10, 23, 25, 27, 33, 39, 45, 49, 87-88, 92-93, 98, 102, 166, 174, 180, 184185, 190, 192, 195, 199, 225, 246, 250, 252-253, 256-258, 261, 273 Proposal 237, 239 Protectionism Approach 261

R Retrieval 62, 69, 90

S Schemes 69 Slicing Software 163, 178 Social Media 42, 55, 98, 104-105, 107-108, 111-113, 115, 119, 199 Social Support for Learning 181, 199 Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) 48-49, 59 Sociocultural Learning 30 STEAM 166 Storage 62, 69 Strengths 44, 55, 77, 105, 123, 182, 195, 226, 228, 232-233, 238, 264, 277 Student Empowerment 21 Student-Centered Learning 28, 32, 180-188, 191, 194196, 199, 213, 264 Students’ perceptions 134-136 Summer Institute in Digital Literacy 246, 250-252, 261 Synchronous 11, 201, 213, 217

T Teacher Beliefs 95 teacher education 38-39, 43-45, 49-51, 55-56, 76-77, 82, 84-91, 93-99, 102-103, 106-109, 113-115, 136, 143-145, 156, 165, 174, 218, 220, 225, 231, 235, 237 teacher learning 184, 196

Teacher Networks 199 Teacher of Record 201, 210, 212, 214, 217 Teacher Preparation 38, 44, 103, 105-107, 112-115, 145, 206 Teacher Training 27, 92, 97, 218, 222, 224-228, 230231, 237-240, 243, 264, 280 Teacher-As-Coach 181-182, 199 Teacher–Centered 25, 134, 182, 201, 217 Teaching-Learning Needs 225, 243 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) 84-88, 90-91, 93-99, 102, 143, 145-149, 151-153, 155, 159, 269 Technology 1-3, 5-8, 10-15, 19-33, 38-39, 42-43, 45, 47, 50, 52-56, 59, 62-64, 66, 76-78, 81-94, 96-99, 102-109, 111-115, 119-121, 124-128, 132-137, 143-152, 155, 159, 161-162, 166, 170, 172-174, 190, 201, 204-206, 208, 211, 214, 217-218, 221, 227-228, 237, 246-248, 252-256, 258, 262-263, 265-271, 276, 280-281 Technology Acceptance 1-5, 7, 12-15 Technology Innocence 63, 81 Technology Integration 19-24, 26-29, 31-33, 82-93, 95-96, 98-99, 120, 124-125, 128, 132, 135, 137, 145-146, 148-149, 256, 262-263, 268-269 Technology Planning 5-7, 10, 12 Technology Support 2, 4, 11, 13, 270 Text Complexity 267-268, 281 Threats 25, 32, 222, 226, 228, 232-234, 238 Tinkercad 163, 166-167, 169-174, 178

U Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2-3, 15

V Virtual and Cyber Schools 217 Virtual Schools 202-204, 206-207, 209

W Weaknesses 77, 182, 195, 211, 228, 231-233, 238

323