Bob Keller Hr Metrics Presentation Indiana Shrm 8-29-06 - Final 8-21-06
John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana
description
Transcript of John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana
![Page 1: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Professional development that increases technology integration by K-12 teachers:
The influence of the TICKIT Program. John B. Keller, [email protected] H. Ehman, [email protected] J. Bonk, [email protected]
Indiana University
AERA
April 21, 2003
Chicago
![Page 2: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
TICKIT
Teacher Institute for Curriculum Knowledge about Integration of Technology
http://www.iub.edu/~tickit
![Page 3: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Overview of TICKIT• In-service teacher education program
• Rural schools in central & southern Indiana
• Supported by participating school systems, Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and Indiana University
• Cohorts of 4-6 teachers from 4-6 school corporations
![Page 4: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
TICKIT Goals
• Knowledge, skill, & confidence
• Thoughtful integration of technology
• Leadership cadres in schools
• Link schools and university
• Help schools capitalize on their technology investments
![Page 5: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Program Structure
• Teachers attend three workshops at I.U. for a total of 4 days
• Reports to colleagues and school “giveback”
• Curriculum-based, technology supported classroom unit or lesson each semester
• In-school workshops to support teachers in their unit or lesson design
• Final products are two action research reports
![Page 6: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Program Structure• Various online activities using a course
management tool (COW, Virtual University, Blackboard, Web CT, Oncourse)
– Article critiques
– Chats with technology experts (Bernie Dodge, Annette Lamb)
– Free Tool Reviews
![Page 7: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
TICKIT Project Gallery
![Page 8: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Example Projects
![Page 9: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
TICKIT Teachers
![Page 10: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Research QuestionDo teachers who have been through the TICKIT program differ from teachers who have not on dimensions of computer integration?
![Page 11: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Structure of Paper
• How the TICKIT program compares with the literature on effective professional development.
• Results of the study.
• Discussion of the relative impact of the TICKIT program.
• Limitations, Future Directions, Conclusion
![Page 12: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Professional Development Literature
New Vision:• Darling-Hammond (‘97)• Palincsar (1999)
– Technical vs. Intellectual View of teaching
• Richardson & Placier (‘01)– Normative-Reeducative
Characteristics of:• Little (1993)• Loucks-Horsely et
al. (1998) • Hawley and Valli
(1999)
![Page 13: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Effective Professional Development
Components Description
Form Reform vs. traditional (Study groups or networks vs. workshops or conferences).
Duration Number of hours and span of time.
Collective participation
Participation by established groups (same school, grade, department vs. educators from various schools).
Content focusProfessional development aimed at increasing disciplinary knowledge.
Active learningMeaningful analysis of teaching and learning (examining student work, getting feedback on teaching).
CoherenceDegree of consistency between professional development and teachers’ goals, standards and opportunities for continued professional communication.
Structure
Core
Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Suk-Yoon, 2001
![Page 14: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Effective Professional Development
Garet et al. TICKIT
Form
Duration
Collective participation
Content focus
Active learning
Coherence
Structure
Core
Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Suk-Yoon, 2001
??
![Page 15: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Methodology 1/3Study Design
• TICKIT Completers– Teachers from the first four years of TICKIT– The survey is a post measurement– Dropouts. . .
• TICKIT Applicants– Teachers who applied for the fifth year of TICKIT– The survey is a pre measurement
![Page 16: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Methodology 2/3Participants
• Schools– Rural– Central and southern Indiana– Better than average technology infrastructure
• Teachers– Cohorts of 4-6 teachers from each school– Average teaching experience 11.5 years
![Page 17: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Methodology 3/3Instrumentation
Two Part Survey
– Demographics and TICKIT-Related Questions
– Levels of Technology Implementation Survey (LOTI) Moersch (1994, 1995, 2001).
![Page 18: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Results 1/3Survey Returns= 79 %
CohortSurveys
SentSurveys
ReturnedReturn
Percentage
1998-99 25 16 64%
1999-00 29 21 72%
2000-01 30 22 73%
2001-02 22 20 91%
2002-03 Applicants 27 26 96%
Total 133 105 79%
![Page 19: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Results 2/3Factors Description Reliability
Technology Integration
Frequent/regular use; learn with and about; variety of learning tasks; often thematic or project-based instruction
.93
Technology Limitations
Perceived access to technology .78
Technology Resistance
Technology use that supports only traditional pedagogy, reticence about computer use based on skill level or time constraints, and lack of perceived pedagogical value
.66
Computer Proficiency
Computer proficiency is an index of one’s general comfort level and confidence in using computers
.80
Learner-centered Instruction
Personal needs of students, lessons and curricula that are in some measure responsive to student interests, and assessment strategies that are performance oriented
.79
![Page 20: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Results 3/3
Factors
Means
TICKITCompleters
TICKITApplicants t Sig.
Effect Size
1. Technology Integration 74.05 38.25 7.663 .000*** 1.81
2. Technology Limitations 11.60 15.79 -3.281 .002** .63
3. Technology Resistance 4.37 7.91 -3.143 .003** .80
4. Computer Proficiency 25.51 18.84 4.614 .000*** 1.20
5. Learner-centered Instruction
18.29 12.40 5.120 .000*** 1.22
**p< .01 ; ***p< .001All effect sizes favor TICKIT groupLower scores on factors two and three indicate more positive responses The ‘n’ for each comparison varies due to incomplete data. We used list-wise deletion of missing data (Completers n=66-77; Applicants n=18-20)
Possible High Score
126
28
56
35
28
![Page 21: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Relative Impact 1/2Source of Influence
1st choice
2nd choice
3rd choice
% Ranking this 1,2
or 3
Peer Teacher Support 3 5 4 15%
Grant Money 0 2 2 5%
Administrative support 4 3 4 14%
Undergraduate Training 0 1 3 5%
Stipends 1 1 0 3%
Curriculum technology integration expectations 3 5 5 18%
Graduate courses outside TICKIT 2 4 4 13%
Personal ambition and interest in technology
34 16 12 78%
Parental and community expectations 1 2 3 8%
TICKIT professional development 15 23 16 68%
In-school professional development other than TICKIT 4 6 15 32%
Conferences, institutes, and other external 5 9 8 28%
Other 5 2 1 10%
![Page 22: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Relative Impact 2/2Source of Help % Choosing as one of their choices
Business Partner 1.9%
Classroom Teacher 62.9%
District Coordinator 10.5%
University Professor 14.3%
Site Principal 8.6%
Student 14.3%
Technology Coordinator 76.2%
Other (Internet, friends, family, other school personnel)
21.9%
From which individuals do you seek primary guidance, information, and/or direction relating to the integration of technology into your curriculum?
Multiple Sources
![Page 23: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Internal Motivation Influences
I want to be able to help provide the most challenging, interesting lessons for students. As a result of this I need to keep current.
I’m not required to use the technology but do so to learn for myself and help the students.
Even before the TICKIT experience, I was looking for ways to integrate technology into my classroom. I am enthusiastic and committed to this.
![Page 24: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
TICKIT Teacher Voices“This class was very helpful. I gained a lot of confidence as a technology user from this class.”
“The door is now open. I will continue to try to find technological ways to teach them.”
“This was the best program I have ever been involved with as a teacher.”
![Page 25: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Limitations• Non-random sample• Participants not representative
– Above average infrastructure– Above average interest in technology
• Self-reported data• No correlation to corroborate the constructs identified by factor analysis• Ex post facto analysis limits ability to infer change due to the TICKIT program
![Page 26: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Impact
• Researchers and Teacher Educators
• K-12 Teaching and Administrators
• Government Officials and Politicians
![Page 27: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Future DirectionsAdditional Research• Growth of current cohort over the course of this year
• Correlation of other data sources with current findings (i.e. observation, document analysis)
• Impact of technology integration on student learning
![Page 28: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Discussion/Questions
![Page 29: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
References 1/2Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Loucks-Horsely, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
![Page 30: John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070415/56814fdc550346895dbda3fb/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
References 2/2Moersch, C. (1994). Levels of Technology Implementation. Retrieved February 13, 2002, from http://www.learning-quest.com/LoTi/lotihome.html
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology Implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 40-42.
Moersch, C. (2001). Next steps: using LoTi as a research tool. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(3), 22-27.
Palincsar, A. (1999). Response: A community of practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 272-274.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905-950). Washington D. C.: American Educational Research Association.