Modeling, Relationships, and Blended Environments: Three Teachers’ Narratives of Meaningful...

8/2/2019 Modeling, Relationships, and Blended Environments: Three Teachers Narratives of Meaningful Technology Learning

1/55

Modeling, Relationships, and Blended Environments:

Three Teachers Narratives of Meaningful Technology Learning and Use

By

Monica Batac

A research paper submitted in conformity with the requirements

For the degree of Master of Teaching

Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

ShareAlike 2.5 Canada License


2/55

2

Abstract

There is no one way for a teacher to learn about and integrate technology in his or

her practice. In a qualitative narrative study, three Ontario teachers were interviewed,

chosen for their exemplary use of technology in their classrooms. Publicly promoted and

vetted as model educators, these teachers are at different stages in their careers and have

undergone different forms of professional development and training regarding

educational technology. Their classroom practices and uses of technology also differ, but

all are grounded in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra

and Koehler, 2006). In discussing their experiences with technology integration,

interesting connections among their practices emerge. The three teachers emphasize the

need for authentic modeling of technology use and mentorship/relationship building with

other educators. They highlight the need to build and maintain professional relationships

with both face-to-face and on-line peers. This paper also explores some of the unique

aspects of the lived experiences of these teachers. Despite the tensions and differences

between their individual experiences, these teachers perspectives shed light onto

considerations and possible avenues/models for professional development - for individual

teachers, whole school, and board-wide initiatives.


3/55

3

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my research supervisor, Dr. Kim

MacKinnon and program director, Dr. Jim Hewitt. These two professors sparked my

interest and passion in educational/instructional technology and have fully supported my

exploration of diverse interests, research, and projects in education. I would also like to

thank my research participants for sharing their classrooms, pedagogies and philosophies

in education. Most especially, thank you for continuing the dialogue and collaboration

beyond the interviews. You three are my mentors and inspire me to continue to learn

with and from others, and share my own learning and experiences. You three, alongside

our educator friends in Ontario and abroad, serve as exemplary practitioners of authentic,

self-directed teacher learning in blended environments. My research simply serves to

share our stories and experiences, to stress the importance of meaningful mentorship,

sharing, and continuous growth as educators, life-long learners and professionals.


4/55

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

Abstract 2

Acknowledgements 3

1. INTRODUCTION 6

Researchers Narrative: Background of the Study 6

Purpose of the Study 9

Research Topic/Questions 10

Overview ` 10

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 11

Different Factors Affecting Teachers Technology Use, 11

Integration and Learning

Understanding Technology in Teaching and Learning: TPACK 14

3. METHODOLOGY 17

Instruments of Data Collection 17

Participants 18

Data Collection and Analysis 20

Ethical Review Procedures 20

Limitations 21

4. PARTICIPANT NARRATIVES 23

George 23

Georges Technology-Enhanced Teaching 23

Georges Technology Use 24

Before, During and After: George as Technology Learner


5/55

5

and Consultant 25

David 28

Davids Technology-Enhanced Teaching 28

Davids Technology Use 29

Before, During and After: David as Technology Learner

and Expert 30

Lisa 33

Lisa Technology-Enhanced Teaching 33

Before, During and After: Lisas Technology Use, Learning

and Trials 34

5. SHARED EXPERIENCES 37

Authentic modeling of technology use for student and teacher learning 33

Mentorship/relationship building with other educators 39

Blended environments for mentorship and learning opportunities

(face to face and on-line) 40

6. IMPLICATIONS AND NEXT STEPS 44

REFERENCES 49

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Participant Letter of Information and Consent 53

Appendix B : Interview Protocol 55


6/55

6

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

Researchers Narrative: Background of the Study

My introduction to technology for teaching and learning occurred during my first

year in the Master of Teaching program at the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education

/University of Toronto (OISE/UT). Dr. Jim Hewitt and Dr. Kim MacKinnon modeled

many forms and uses of educational technology in their courses. I also learned that their

research interests involve teacher education in technology integration. This sparked my

interest. Thus, in the summer of 2011 I enrolled in an on-line elective graduate seminar at

OISE/UT with Dr. MacKinnon entitled Computers in the Curriculum.

For six short weeks, I was immersed in virtual discussions with other graduate

students and Dr. MacKinnon revolving issues and practices of technology use in and

outside the classroom. Nearing the end of the course, I began to wonder how I would

continue this dialogue and learning. An excerpt from my final course reflection

illustrates this questioning and curiosity:

For me, I think the entire course was pivotal in showing me a huge spectrum of

teachers' practices and perspectives regarding technology for teaching and

learning. It has helped me be more sensitive and aware of individual experiences

with technology and how that impacts its use/misuse/neglect in classroom

practices. I really enjoyed working with my Module discussion leader group and

participating in online discussions with everyone in the class. I am very much

an advocate for thoughtful integration of technology for teaching and learning.

Now I'm curious about the ways in which I can assist others in implementing

[educational technology] practices in their teaching/learning.


7/55

7

I am honestly a bit sad that this course is ending... it's nice to have a

responsive and reflective community to discuss a topic and area of my own

personal interest and passion. I'm actually wondering where I am going to

maintain this dialogue and learning.

In order to maintain that dialogue and learning around technology in education, I found

myself booking a flight to Philadelphia for the International Society for Technology in

Education (ISTE) annual conference in June 2011.

I went to Philadelphia alone and with few formalized plans. Before the ISTE

conference began, I attended the EduBlogger Conference. It was an un-conference or

dialogue-driven day of learning, where participants drive the topics and facilitate

conversations. I spent the day talking about multiple issues relating to technology in

education with American educators. I enjoyed this format as I was able to sit in and

participate in topics of personal interest.

When the formal conference began, there was a multitude of workshop sessions to

attend. It was almost overwhelming. In selecting workshops and presentations, I began

to note that I was choosing sessions that shared and discussed how educators learn about

technology use in pre-service and graduate teacher education or in professional

development. However, the majority of the sessions were instructional sessions on

particular software and hardware for specific instructional approaches/activities. In the

sessions I attended, I was often the youngest attendee. I found out that many of the

people in the workshops were staff and faculty from different Faculties of Education or

school district/board administrators. Regardless, I began commenting and sharing some

of my learning on-line via Twitter and Facebook. I enjoyed the in-person and on-line

dialogue with people at the conference.


8/55

8

I attended a few workshops by myself. Feeling a bit lonely and out of place, I

began to think that I may have attended the wrong technology conference for my personal

and professional interests. However, the feelings of isolation and displacement were

quickly dissipated, as I happened to coordinate meeting a few Ontario and Canadian

educators face-to-face. They had connected with me on-line. I found myself enjoying

their company and this began a wonderful social learning experience. We often ended up

skipping many of the formal sessions in favour of meals and conversations. They

connected me with other colleagues from Ontario and abroad. As the conference went

on, we maintained our conversations on-line to coordinate locations and places to meet,

to continue the jokes or questions after we had retired for the night. When the conference

wrapped up, my new Ontario educator friends and I parted ways with promises to

continue the dialogue and relationship building once back to our respective hometowns.

On the flight back to Toronto, I began to reflect on this learning trip. I chuckled

to myself at how I traveled to Philadelphia and ended up meeting and learning with/from

colleagues who lived (relatively) close to home. We met either first on-line or face-to-

face through mutual connections and maintained these connections and conversations via

Twitter, text, and email when we were not together in person. This was such a rich

experience for me. As I was just developing my career and interests in educational

technology, I wanted to explore how some of my new friends came to learn about

technology for teaching and learning.

Over the course of 6 months, the core group I met in Philadelphia introduced me

to more K-12 educators locally and abroad. Many of us have been able to meet face-to-

face at different conferences or scheduled socials and dinners. I developed professional

and personal relationships with these educators; they began to mentor me in different


9/55

9

personal and professional interests: from blogging to action research, baking to media

literacy, philosophy to hand held devices, reflective practice to running. As my interests

in educational technology grew, I developed a strong desire to explore more in depth the

experiences and beliefs of a select few teachers who were effectively integrating

technology into their classrooms.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to explore three teachers lived experiences in

learning about technology use and technology integration. They are glimpses of

individual teacher experiences. By no means are they to serve as representative of any

general teacher populations. But their stories and the stories of other teachers that have

yet to be shared publicly can shed light on possible considerations, avenues and modes

of teacher learning and support.

I seek to share the teachers experiences in light of my own experience in

Philadelphia. As a new teacher, learning about how exemplary teachers gained their

knowledge and expertise enables me to consider possible learning opportunities and

approaches I may not have known about had I not asked about their experiences. I have

recognized the importance of asking experienced teachers about their own successes,

challenges, and milestones. What I have learned from and in dialogue with educators in

the past two years would not have been possible through the slower processes of

independently reading lengthy books and articles or attending workshops and

conferences. This study explores how the teachers got to their respective points of

technology use and integration what values and experiences they deem important and

essential to their own learning. Through this exploration, I have been able to relate and

reflect on my own experiences and how I can further my own learning and encourage it


10/55

10

with peers. At the heart of this study is the illustration of the lived experiences of these

teachers, then to possible commonalities in their stories.

Research Topic/Questions

The main research question for this paper is: How did the teachers come to the point

they are at in regards to technology integration? Focusing on the stories, experiences,

and perspectives of teachers, this study is also guided by the following sub-questions:

1. What are the reported key values and ideas in understanding technology use andintegration?

2. What role does collaboration and dialogue play in the teachers acquisition anddevelopment of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?

3. What kind of training or support do teachers seek when trying to implementtechnology in their classrooms?

4. What kind of training or support is necessary for technology implementationbeyond the individual classroom?

Overview

Chapter 1 includes the introduction of my involvement in this topic and study, the

purpose of the study, and the research questions. Chapter 2 contains a selective review of

literature on this topic. Chapter 3 describes the methodology and procedure used in this

study including information about the participants, data collection instruments, and

limitations of the study. Chapter 4 provides the narratives of the three teacher

participants. Chapter 5 discusses common themes in their experiences. Chapter 6

considers implications of the study and Next Steps. References and a list of appendices

follow at the end.


11/55

11

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Different Factors Affecting Teachers Technology Use, Integration and Learning

Mishra & Koehler (2006) maintain that integrating technology in the classroom is

complex and contextual. Numerous factors play into the success of or difficulties in

technology use for teaching and learning. Many studies seek to explore the multi-faceted

and numerous factors that affect technology use and integration (Banas, 2010; Cuban,

2001; Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001; Franklin, 2007; Granger, Morbey, Lotherington,

Owston & Wideman, 2002; Palak & Walls, 2009; Rakes, Fields & Cox, 2006; Russell,

Bebell, ODwyer & OConnor, 2003; Wozney, Venkatesh & Abrami, 2006). Among

these studies, Palak & Walls (2009) note that schools abundant with technology tools do

not guarantee use; one of their participants in a technology-scarce school was one of

strongest purposeful practitioners of technology for student-centered and collaborative

learning. Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck (2001) also maintain that access to technology does

not equate technology use. They claim lack of time and lack of opportunities for teacher

learning are key barriers to more widespread and frequent technology use. The

researchers note the anomalies in their study were teachers advocating for more

technology and also using computers frequently at home. While Cuban, Kirkpatrick &

Peck did not want to generalize this correlation, Rakes, Fields & Cox (2006) found that

teachers increased and immersed personal use of technology translates into increased

constructivist uses in the classroom. However, Palak & Walls (2009) noted the opposite

in their case study of Sandy. There are teachers who use technology at home yet find

little value in classroom use and as a result, choose to limit its use for teaching and

learning (p. 431-433). Existing research focuses and emphasizes on different, sometimes

contradictory factors influencing teachers technology integration and use. The


12/55

12

commonalities and discrepancies illustrate that technology use and implementation in

the classroom is a complex endeavour. As Mishra & Koehler (2006) maintain, merely

knowing how to use technology is not the same as knowing how to teach with it (p.

1033).

Quantitative and qualitative studies have also been conducted exploring and

analyzing teacher use (or non-use) of technology in classrooms and teacher beliefs

around technology (Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001; Palak & Walls, 2009; Wozney,

Venkatesh & Abrami, 2006). For instance, Palak & Walls (2009) quantitatively and

qualitatively analyzed teacher beliefs and technology practices to find that teachers

typically use technology merely for lesson planning, organization and teacher-directed

practices. Even though teachers reported that technology was used in their classrooms

for technology for independent and/or student-directed learning, it was observed that it

was contrary to actual practice.

There have also been numerous studies on different teacher education and

professional development programs and models for technology use and integration

(Banas, 2010; Blocher, Armfield, Sujo-Montes, Tucker & Willis, 2011; Cardelle-Elawar

& Nevin, 2004; Chai, Koh, Tsai & Tan, 2011; Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber & Miller,

2009; Galanouli, Murphy & Gardner 2004; Granger, Morbey, Lotherington, Owston &

Wideman, 2002; Guzey & Roehrig, 2009; Harris & Hofer 2011; Jones & Moreland,

2004; Mouza, 2011; Polly, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c). For instance, Granger, Morbey,

Lotherington, Owston & Wideman (2002) found that in Canadian schools noted for

exemplary technology practices, teachers value and desire informal learning

opportunities, collaborative relationships, and supportive administrators. These three

factors contribute to successful classroom technology use and integration.


13/55

13

While there is much research into particular models and cases of teacher

learning for technology use and integration, the focus is on the model of professional

development itself. The teachers narratives are often part of the data collection

instruments in case and phenomenological studies of technology integration. This study

is to illustrate and focus on the teachers lived experiences themselves.

At the time of the original literature review, only a few qualitative research studies in

technology integration and learning were found to be narrative inquiries. Those that were

found were focused on a particular tool or location, also integrated another qualitative

research method or were self-studies or reflections. Hoge (2010) focuses on Sandys

self-efficacy and learning around the use of document cameras. Friesens (n.d.) narrative

case study shares Lisas lived experiences with integrating technology in her writing

course. Strehle, Whatley, Kurz & Hausfather (2002) share the situated narratives of four

teachers working at the same college participating in a collaborative professional

development and inquiry group for technology integration.

The Technology in Rural and Small Schools (1995) report provides four

descriptive narratives of teachers using technology in the early 1990s. These teachers

were nominated by their administrators and received recognition for their technology use

in the classroom. The report serves to celebrate and share their stories, relating back to a

particular technology-enhanced project for which they received the recognition.

Power (2011) shares Adriennes narrative of her technology integration. An

illustrative study, this narrative emerged from and is part of an extensive and extended

study of an Australian education institution and school boards professional learning

support program. As well, Adriennes journey is not limited to her technology learning.


14/55

14

Two instances were true narrative inquiries and also self-authored. Chen (2011)

shares her journey in technology integration as an EFL teacher. In How I Arrived on the

Web: A History Teacher's Tale. Wach (2002) shares his journey with technology for

instruction and student learning. Wach and Chen both provide detailed, extensive

descriptions of their lived experiences. However, these narratives have not been

negotiated through dialogue with a writer/researcher or another individual.

This study seeks to bridge the gap in the research in narrative inquiry illustrating the

lived experiences of teachers who use technology in their classrooms. This research looks

at teachers not in particular cases or contexts, but rather in different geographic locations

and with diverse positions and prior experiences in education. While a few researchers

and teachers share their stories about their technology learning, they are often self-

reported narratives. In this study, the researcher explores the teachers lived experiences

of technology use and learning for personal and classroom use, providing a somewhat

more objective look in and comparison of these three individuals stories.

Understanding Technology in Teaching & Learning: TPACK

This study relies on Mishra & Koehlers (2006) framework for understanding

technology use in education. The variety and diversity of the existing research illustrates

that teaching and learning with technology is complex, contextual, and multidimensional.

There is no one way for a teacher to implement and use technology in his or her practice

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Bebell, Russell & ODwyer, 2004; Granger, Morbey,

Lotherington, Owston & Wideman, 2002). Teaching and learning is often dependent on

many factors, including course/curriculum content; physical/digital environments;

students prior knowledge, skills, and current attitudes and practices using different


15/55

15

technologies; and the teachers own skills, knowledge, attitudes, and approaches to

teaching and learning with or without technology.

Expanding the work of Shulman (1986), Mishra & Koehler (2006) created a

comprehensive theoretical framework to understanding and implementing technology for

teaching and learning. A grounded theory developed through a design experiment with

both K-12 and higher education teachers/instructors, the Technological Pedagogical

Content Knowledge framework (TPACK) encourages an intertwined and purposeful

approach towards technology integration in education. In blending pedagogical,

technological, and content knowledge, TPACK provides a purposeful approach to

technology use in the classroom that encompasses all three arenas [Figure 1].

Figure 1: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (reproduced

with Rights free permission from http://tpack.org)

Superficial professional development and teacher training for technology use and

integration, according to Mishra & Koehler (2006), is often unsuccessful. Focusing on

pedagogical knowledge about effective approaches to teaching and learning and

combining it with both technological and content knowledge will provide a holistic and


16/55

16

purposeful implementation. Thus, technology integration is not so much about what

the technology can do, but how we can use it for teaching and learning.

As the main research question for this paper is How did the teachers come to the

point they are at in regards to technology integration?, the literature review aims to

inform myself and the readers on this studys narrative emphasis in light of the different

emphases in research on teachers technology learning and integration, as well as the

complexity of technology use and integration in and of itself.


17/55

17

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY

This research study is grounded in the narrative inquiry work of Clandinin &

Connelly (2000). Narrative inquiry was chosen as the qualitative research method in

order to capture the participants experiences and possibly uncover shared experiences in

the teachers learning for technology integration. Such a research approach enables the

researcher to seek the nuances of the teachers experiences.

Instruments of Data Collection

Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were used as the primary mode of data

collection as they would allow the participants to share their experiences in detail while

providing the interviewer opportunities to ask follow-up questions. The protocol allowed

for general exploration of pedagogies and practices as well as conversations about

particular experiences of teacher learning and support for technology integration.

The interviews took place in the schools in which the participants worked. It is

important to note that these situated interviews were intentional. I was able to see and be

present in their learning and work environments. Informally, I spent time observing some

of their instruction. This allowed me to experience firsthand their teaching approaches

and practices.

Clandinin & Connelly (2000) discuss the importance of the research interview:

The way an interviewer acts, questions, and responds in an interview shapes the

relationship and therefore the ways participants respond and give accounts of their

experience (p. 110). Thus, before conducting the interview, I explicitly framed it as a

conversation. In my email correspondence to the teachers, I wrote: Its [the interview]

more of collaboration and discussion - a conversation - more than an analytic piece. I'm

not so much analyzing your responses, but rather trying to find connections or uniqueness


18/55

18

in your experience versus a few other teachers. I suggested a 40 minute time frame

for the interview. Two of the three interviews ended up being an hour and 15 minutes.

Had the third participant not have scheduled commitments, perhaps the conversation may

have extended beyond 45 minutes.

As well, a limited search and review of the research in teacher learning for

technology use and integration in the classroom was conducted (as reported in Chapter

2). Clandinin & Connelly (2000) discuss how many of their graduate students would

often write their narrative inquiry dissertations without a specific literature research

chapter. Cresswell (2007) states that narrative begins with the experiences as expressed

in the lived and told stories of individuals (p. 54; italics mine). It was my intention to

delay the literature review until after the research interviews were conducted. I wanted to

avoid merely confirming the existing literature through these narratives. Instead, I began

this study focusing solely on the experiences of the participants. The literature review is

also limited in scope and depth due to the time constraints and program obligations of the

Master of Teaching program.

Participants

The search for participants was focused and in-depth. Over the course of four

months, a large number of Ontario educators were considered.

Prior to asking any teacher to participate in this study, prospective interviewees

on-line contributions (websites, blogs, and tweets) were read. Their explicit and

intentional sharing of their teaching philosophies, classroom experiences, and ongoing

learning allowed me to envision their classrooms without visiting them yet. Extended

exploration and consideration of their experiences and pedagogical/instructional

approaches allowed me to get a grasp of their personalities, teaching values, and


19/55

19

classroom instruction. The final three participants, George, David, and Lisa, were

intentionally chosen as they have all been publicly promoted and vetted as model Ontario

educators using technology. They teach in different schools across the province. They

were chosen for their knowledge and integration of technology for professional and

student learning.

While technology serves as a common link between them, the teaching

approaches, philosophies, and personalities of the three teachers are diverse. Their

classrooms practices and uses of technology differ. They were also intentionally chosen

by virtue of the diversity of their technology-enhanced instruction.

It was also noted that George, David, and Lisa have undergone separate and

dissimilar professional development and training regarding educational technology. They

vary in their years of experience of classroom teaching. The roles they previously and

currently hold and their instructional emphases are also different.

Originally, I considered 5 possible participants in this research study. However,

after the three interviews with the final participants, the sheer complexity and depth of the

conversations provided ample data for consideration. As this is a narrative study,

additional participants may have served as a hindrance in adequately sharing George,

David, and Lisas stories.

George and I had met at a conference on instructional technology. Immediately

taking on a mentoring and father-like persona, George introduced me to many of his close

colleagues. He took the time to learn about me what brought me to the particular

conference, my professional and personal background, and so on. After we had parted

ways at this conference, George and I maintained contact via Twitter.


20/55

20

I was first introduced to David and Lisa, the other two participants, on-line by

reading their professional and/or classroom blogs. It was not long until I met David in-

person at a conference. When informally asked, he spoke highly of Lisa and her effective

classroom instruction and technology integration.

Data Collection and Analysis:

This narrative inquiry seeks to explore and share the participants told

experiences and perspectives. Each semi-structured interview was digitally recorded and

a reflective memo was written shortly after the interview. The interviews were

transcribed by the researcher and written analytic memos followed. The transcripts and

memos were read and re-read multiple times in search of common themes and unique

experiences and statements.

These common themes have been discussed at three different conferences prior to

the final draft of this research paper. I shared my interpretations and the dialogue, and

the questions and comments received have influenced further interpretation and

alternative considerations. In short, I am continuously sharing and discussing the

participants experiences and the studys findings. The learning, interpretations and

dialogue continue beyond this papers publication.

Ethical Review Procedure

The study followed the ethical review approval procedures for the Master of

Teaching program. All three teachers provided written, signed consent of their voluntary

involvement and were aware of their ability to withdraw, at any point, their participation.

The teachers were assured of anonymity and that they could decline to answer any

questions. The transcriptions and findings were all shared with the participants;

clarification and feedback was encouraged. The participants all received a copy of the


21/55

21

final draft of this research paper and are informed and invited to the conference

presentations and discussions that involve this study.

Limitations

As already discussed, this research study has been intentionally small in its

sample size and review of the literature. The study was conducted within the time

constraints and requirements of the Master of Teaching program. Additional time would

have allowed for extended and deeper discussions with the participants and a deeper,

interwoven, and comprehensive literature review.

The narrative inquiry approach is often deemed not theoretical enough, as

discussed by Clandinin & Connelly (2000, p. 42). The tension remains and is maintained

Clandinin & Connelly, leading narrative inquiry researchers, seek to explore the

dynamics of narrative inquiry, rather than to define it (p. 49). Similarly, this research

study does not seek to define important experiences, approaches, and supports for

technology integration, but rather to explore specific, shared instances.

Clandinin & Connelly (2000) state that:

There is no such thing as a pristine text, one that is relentlessly and exclusively

narrative from beginning to end. All writers, each time they write, work through

the tensions and compose a text that can always be otherwise, always be

improved, a text that is inevitably only a step, a kind of placeholder, from which

still other inquiries with still more field texts may be imagined and pursued (p.

156).

They maintain that narrative inquiry is always a work in progress (p. 167). The ideas

and interpretations stemming from a narrative study are forever developing and changing.

Narrative inquiry often seeks to explore the chronology and development of particular


22/55

22

experiences. In conducting this narrative study, I continue to extend the knowledge and

understanding of the participants experiences and the multifaceted implications. There

has been a tension for me in terms of formal writing and publication. As soon as this

paper is written, there is the opportunity to revise my understanding and retell the

participants stories in different ways, for different purposes, and for different audiences.


23/55

23

Chapter 4: PARTICIPANT NARRATIVES

George

Currently George has a special role in his K-6 school. His time is divided

between teaching Grade 3 and 6 Physical Education and Gym classes and providing

technology and/or media literacy support for other teachers in the school. Starting his

career first as an Education Assistant then teacher, he served 17 years in classrooms

before serving as an educational technology consultant with his board for 12 years.

Georges current principal is aware of his skills and experiences as a technology support

and has ensured that George is available to co-teach with other teachers.

Georges Technology-Enhanced Teaching

Georges teaching philosophy is grounded in developing meaningful relationships

with students and having them explore their passions. He shares, I basically base my

entire professional self on developing a personal relationship with the students, taking

interest in what they do, finding out how they learn and what their passions are, and

going from there [in terms of planning instructional activities]. He brings technology

into the classroom so students can share their life stories and interests in multiple formats.

He was proud to share the reported benefits of digital storytelling for student learning and

motivation, especially with boys. George encourages students to tell personal narratives

and non-fiction stories about their lives. He finds that this ensures the activity is

meaningful, and at times transformative. George shares:

One particular story that I remember was a little boy in Grade 7 who had been

bullied and he had to change schools. He wrote a very passionate story about how

he was bullied and what changes he had to make in his life, and the changes his


24/55

24

parents helped him make. He put it all in about a 250 word story, added images

and some music, and it was very powerful

[Another example] One girl she had never talked about or written about her

mother dying from cancer when she was three. At Grade 8, she was finally able

to talk with her grandma and her dad and get some information about that event in

her life, which was very meaningful. She wrote this incredibly touching story

about her mother and what she meant to her... how she missed her when she

wasnt there. The teacher then said to me, She really needed to write the

story. thats part of that transformation. Its just meaningful, its heartfelt. At

one point, we were debriefing and I had my supervisor there and the teacher stood

up and said, Well, this is the probably the most meaningful writing weve done

all year.

Georges Technology Use

George has experienced and seen the rapid developments of technology over the

course of his adult life and professional career. George was proud to talk about his

constant and embedded technology use: I carry around technology on my person. I use

it all the time I just breathe it every day. I have the Internet in my pocket and connect

with you, with the world, and learn. Any-time learning, 24/7.

George uses technology for social learning learning about different topics with

individuals who share common interests. He primarily writes and reads both blogs and

tweets. George blogs and tweets himself not merely to just send out or receive

information, but to build two-way relationships: Its really to connect to other people, to

come in [virtually] and chat with me about what they think about it [ideas and practices].


25/55

25

Maybe they have some new ideas, something to change or do. During our interview,

George paused for a moment to think about what he shares and writes about on-line.

Mirroring his instructional focus on personal experience, he blogs to discuss the

affective domain of teaching: the personal and professional [experiences, rather] than

the actual technology. Georges on-line contributions go beyond sharing his technology

learning and use; rather, he writes about the relationships and interactions in and outside

the classroom with students and colleagues alike.

Before, During and After: George as Technology Learner and Consultant

In the 1990s, George took two of the Computers in the Curriculum Additional

Qualifications in on-line learning environments. Learning on-line was new to him, I

never had more difficult courses in all of my life. Ill never forget it... it was so

challenging, so interesting, so much work. Reflecting back, he talks about this turning

point in his professional learning:

I realize[d] that I can work on-line collaboratively with 24 other people and the

professor, doing research projects together as a group, on-line, which was unheard

of back then. But that flipped the switch for me - that I can learn in that [on-line]

environment. That gave me the confidence that I could carry on and keep

learning that way.

Around the same time of these AQ courses, Georges technology team leader was

appointed by an Ontario Faculty of Education to develop its first AQ courses on

technology. He had asked George to co-develop some of the courses. George then co-

taught some of these AQs, one being the first blended course a mix of face-to-face and

on-line. Soon after, George began his consultant position with the board.


26/55

26

Reflecting back to his first influential experience in his technology learning,

George shared how he began to learn about technology from this technology team leader

from his board:

Actually, my very first mentor for all of this back in 1998 was my team leader...

He was a project-based learning type of guy I think he saw in me that I was

self-directed. In 1998, he was asked by a university to write the AQs for what they

used to call Computers in the Classroom, Part 1, 2, 3. I actually ended up

writing Part 2 we sat with the other writers, talked about writing courses, adult

learning, lots of neat things. And then we ended up teaching the face-to-face

course together and then the university asked us to teach the very first hybrid

course, that was in 1999 it was 2/3 face-to-face, 1/3 on-line so I had to learn

[the software]. This was the turn of the century so he was an incredible mentor

to me. He encouraged and supported me to apply for the job that I ended up

getting. He continued to be a mentor and I still talk to him.

George spoke positively about his time as an educational technology consultant.

However, he openly stated that he was not always the best instructional coach or mentor

for teachers in their technology integration. He first began by somewhat telling people

what to do. He mirrored much of the way he was supported by previous consultants.

Before he became a consultant himself, George said, I remember just being told what

to do. It didnt feel collaborative, it was more, Heres what to do, just go and do.

George reports it took him a few years to become the mentoring and collaborative

consultant, much like his first mentor. He now supports teachers much like the way he

supports young students: working from their interests. Additionally, he supports teachers

in ways that reflect his own affective, personalized, and meaningful learning.


27/55

27

Roughly 3 years ago, while still serving as a technology consultant, George was

starving for other people who were doing technology in a way that would be interesting

[to me] [for] someone to talk to about it. Similar to my experience, he happened to

meet a group of like-minded Ontario educators in person at a conference and continued to

maintain on-line professional relationships. Another pivotal experience for George, this

meeting rejuvenated and improved his professional learning:

After that, it was easy to find like-minded individuals, people who had different

ideas, that you can learn from. It didnt matter about the technology whether its

social media or RSS feeds or QR codes it didnt matter what it was. There was

somebody you could always talk to and get a dialogue going.

George delved into other educators practices by reading and commenting on their blogs

and tweets, as well as writing and tweeting about his own experiences.

This dialogue-driven and teacher-focused approach is integral to Georges current

coaching mentality and mantra:

Now its all about working together. Nine out of ten of the ideas are coming from

the teachers. I just kind of suggest and guide. They usually have an idea of where

they want to go I just come in with little technology tweaks They have an

idea, they just dont know how to get it going I think, part of my role is to

suggest what would be meaningful and doable.

At his school, George has worked with at least 25 teachers. At the time of our

conversation and interview in December 2011 three months into the school year he

had taken the time to talk to every single staff member about what they might like to

explore with technology. His smile and demeanour illustrated his enthusiasm to improve


28/55

28

and promote technology use in his school. George motioned to pause our

conversation, Come on, Ill show you all the cool stuff were working on.

David

David is a Grade 7 teacher. Despite only being in his 9th year of teaching, David has

taken several leadership positions within and outside his school board, presenting and

consulting on numerous areas in education, including effective literacy instruction,

educational technology, technology integration support, social/digital media for teaching

and learning, and educational change/reform. While teaching full time, David is working

on many projects. His involvement enables him to learn about and utilize cutting-edge

technologies and leading research in his classroom. He extends and shares the practices,

research and resources by organizing and leading professional learning opportunities with

colleagues in and outside of his board.

Davids Technology-Enhanced Teaching

As soon as I began the interview, David stated four key values of technology:

creativity, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking. Technology can help

develop these four skills with students. David spoke openly and eloquently about using

technology to drive student-centered learning, that it allows him to release power to his

students.

Im most proud of the fact that I use technology as a means of releasing power to

students, as opposed to gaining power over students. What I mean by that, you

can use technology in a lot of different ways in education. One of the ways you

can actually use it is as a means of maintaining more control and helping to

maintain status quo, in terms of traditional, in some cases outdated, forms of

pedagogy. I am very proud of the fact that I try my best to leverage technology to


29/55

29

learn in new ways so that students will leave with skills that will enable them to

be greater people.

He spoke of key applications and software that allow the students to develop those four

skills, values and power. David is an advocate for social media and Web 2.0 tools:

Im most proud of the fact that were using the tools in an embedded way, not just

as a means of doing culminating projects or to decorate or fancy up something

that could have otherwise been done on paper. Were trying out best to do things

that actually arent possible in any other way. For example, connecting on-line as

a group, collaborating on a document, sharing work in a transparent way so that

people can write feedback on it, and so on its not really possible in any other

way without that technology.

As I note the different devices around the classroom, David continues to describe his

philosophy behind handheld devices: I try to bring the students every day lives and the

tools they would normally seek to use in trying to connect for social purposes into the

learning environment. He encourages a BYOD Bring Your Own Device program

and embeds the technology in every day learning activities: I am really hoping that in

my class, we can move far beyond that to the point that its [the technology] not really

considered a novelty in any way its more something thats just part of learning.

David Technology Use

David is not only an advocate for handheld devices, but also a true practitioner.

At school, he uses multiple devices for different instructional needs. Calling them his

assistants and external brain, David believes technology allows him to be a more

efficient and effective teacher. He speaks openly about cloud computing and device

syncing:


30/55

30

If I have to write down an assessment note about a kid, I can do it quickly,

either by recording or writing a[n electronic] note down, then it will sync to all of

my devices. For me, I dont go home with a big box full of stuff. For me, every

day when Im leaving my classroom, Im like, Do I have my laptop? Ok, Im

ready to go. I go home, I open up my laptop everything is there.

At home, he uses technology for social purposes just like his students. A frequent

blogger, Tweeter, and amateur photographer, David shares aspects of his personal and

family life openly with his students, colleagues, and the world.

Before, During and After: David as Technology Learner and Expert

Davids use of handheld devices and cloud technology speaks to his exemplary

technological skills and understanding of the pedagogical benefits of the tools.

Interestingly, Davids career interests in educational technology was actually a chance

introduction:

At first I think it was just circumstance. I was never really a computer geek or

anything, I wasnt like one of those people who came into teaching already being

a computer nerd. Its hard to even pinpoint. My first teaching position involved

using some technology, where I was the computer teacher. It sort of just happened

from there. I kind of had to learn some stuff on the computer, when I was literally

teaching a class called Computers, and then its just one of those weird things.

The ball started rolling in this direction.

David claims he gained his technology expertise and experience through meeting and

working with other practitioners. Mentors were integral to his learning. I was lucky

enough to meet people who tapped me on the shoulder and was like, You need to go and


31/55

31

do this and learn. I met people who helped me be a better teacher. David learned

from a network of exemplary teachers. They mentored him to share his learning and

continue learning with others. Over the first few years of teaching, David shares how he

learned of and experienced the power of networking in education:

[I learned] very slowly but surely to become a networked professional. To

surround myself with people I looked up to and learn with them, instead of

learning by myself or only in my school. [Its] reaching out to people beyond my

school as well. I can always bounce ideas off [them], and in some cases literally

learn from people, like receive actual instruction about how to be a better teacher.

Arguably, David has become an exemplary and expert techie teacher. Although he is

publically known for and sought out for his expertise on educational technology, David

hinted that he was not too fond of this fame. Many media outlets have reported on his

classroom practices; as well, external companies and boards seek his consultation and

expertise. David seems a bit critical of this spotlight on his practice. He maintains that

he does not want to make it seem like he is doing anything novel or out there. He uses

technology to improve student learning, not to be deemed some expert, some person

people want to mimic. David does not use technology to receive compliments and

praises from education or technology circles. Its very easy to make a name for yourself

just by saying you know how to do it [use technology], he says. He is extremely critical

of the self-named technology integrationalists.

Near the end of our conversation, David shared his current questions in another

area in education: effective mathematics questioning and problems to promote higher

order thinking.


32/55

32

D: Like right now, I want to be a better math teacher. I want to know: How do

you ask questions in a math class so that theres better learning? What dont you

do? What do you do? What resources do you use? How do you make a math

problem so that it brings out the most high-level thinking in your students? Those

kinds of things.

M: So how do you hope to get that knowledge or tap into that resource bank?

D: To connect myself with the people that are recognized as, I guess experts.

Even though thats a dirty word, a little bit.

M: Do you do that face-to-face or on-line or a combination of both?

D: A combination of both, for sure, but definitely with a face-to-face element to it.

Not resting on his awards, recognitions, and digital laurels, David seeks to become a

better educator. He utilizes technology to support his own learning. Seeking instructional

leaders in his board and asking questions to his on-line colleagues, David seeks to find

mentors to support and extend his professional learning in mathematics instruction. David

gives credit to his colleagues who have ensured that he continues to innovate and develop

his practice.

Thats why I feel lucky. Part of it was by choice, partly by fate, I ended up being

surrounded by people who did ask those [pedagogical] questions, who didnt

make me feel like, You rock, David, because you know how to align the

SMART board. Thats when I realized you need to be around people who push

you in that way.


33/55

33

Interestingly enough, in our interview, David pushed my own thinking around

technology use. His integrated BYOD program was intriguing. I mentioned to him that I

would like to return to learn more about his digital workflow, device syncing, set-up for

student portfolios, and assessment using multiple technologies. For sure, he replied, as

he pulled out his iPhone to check his messages.

Lisa

Lisa is a Grade 3 teacher teaching Literacy and Math and is also in her third year as a

Literacy Coach for Kindergarten to Grade 4. With 20 years of teaching experience, Lisa

also spent three years as a curriculum consultant. Lisa has been part of an iPad pilot

project with her board.

Lisas Technology-Enhanced Teaching

As she works with young learners, Lisa integrates technology to support her

primary goal of developing confident readers and writers. In addition, technology

supports her daily media literacy instruction. Lisa sums up her classroom goals:

The big picture, I want them to all feel like theyre confident readers and writers

and that they have an understanding of media literacy, so that they are not easily

persuaded by different texts they see. I want every student in my room to leave

being able to be successful encounter a variety of texts and know how to decode

them and find out the purpose behind them.

To achieve this, she teaches the students to use different applications and assistive

technologies to support writing and reading processes. Her instruction and student

products incorporate multiple literacies or modalities including visual and audio texts

for multiple opportunities for engagement and success. She shares their current writing

project:


34/55

34

[Using the iPad,] The students have been using first [1] Audio Memo to record

and talk through their stories and brainstorm and then listen back, and then [2] use

Dragon Dictate, so they record their voices and it converts it into text. And theyre

not perfect at that, and we have to work through with fixing it and working with

them on Dragon Dictate. Through Dragon Dictate, [3] they then go into Puppet

Pals and publish a story thats all about their ideas There are no words on

Puppet Pals, its just movement and recording their voices. When we show that to

the whole class, when we have our Puppet Pal show, every kid feels successful

and feels like theyre work is equal, as opposed to holding up their page and at the

end its like a mess or theyre not able to read through what they have.

Lisa also incorporates current events and commercials to bring the outside world

into our classroom. Lisa maintains a classroom blog for parent communication and

sends weekly emails. Her classroom has various technologies, including desktop

computers, iPads, iPods and a SMARTboard.

Before, During and After: Lisas Technology Use, Learning and Trials

Lisa discussed her on-going learning process and journey with her iPad pilot

project. She explicitly focused on her pedagogical and curriculum aims, instructional and

student needs, and the affordances of particular software.

When she began the iPad implementation pilot, Lisa was the sole educator in her

school using the device for primary literacy instruction. She needed support. The

learning curve was steep as she was one of few in her board using the devices. Lisa

tapped into internal resource supports such as the boards IT and Curriculum

departments. She also connected with educators on-line and collaborated with them in

the iPad integration. Lisa shares her experience so far:


35/55

35

Its actually been a frustrating process, the iPad pilot project. Last year there

were only two classes. We were given 10 ipads in our classrooms we had to

prove whether it worked or if it didnt, what obstacles were in place, and how we

could get past them. I had no idea, I hadnt used one before either. The first part

was the purpose of it, trying to establish what the purpose was. [The other iPad

pilot project teacher] and I did a lot of emailing and Skype we have created a

few projects together we would share, and it was amazing because my Grade 2s

could give feedback to Grade 7s It was really good for my kids to see that it

was real learning that they were equals. Ive involved my computer resource

teacher as well as curriculum consultants they both support the implementation

of the iPads. I had to learn how to sync them, how to manage them, so Ive relied

a lot on Twitter first, just asking who else is using iPads. I connected to a school

in Australia through their blogs and their troubleshooting. And then I started my

own blog, and now people are contacting me to find out how to do integration.

Lisa has been able to locate supports for different needs, using them as a springboard,

asking questions like, Im thinking of this, do you think it will work? What could I do

to make it better? Lisa does not see her technology integration and learning as

something done in isolation. She learns with and from different communities and

networks. Previous to these communities, she did indeed feel isolated and alone.

Particular to the iPad, Lisa was often tempted to purchase many applications. She

had to pause and think:

There are tons of apps in the app store that are fun, engaging, look like theyre

entertaining, could keep them busy. But I always have to be really critical about what

app Im using, what the purpose is, and how that will help student achievement.


36/55

36

As she desires her students to become critical consumers, Lisa shares this learning

process with the class. She even has them test and review similar applications, to figure

out the best tool for particular purposes, design, and so on. It is her aim to have the

students go into Grade 4 knowing what tools are available to support their learning. Lisa

also reviews iPad applications, sharing her thoughts with educators around the world also

seeking effective classroom uses for the iPad.

Lisas learning about iPad integration has been trial and error, reflection, and

connection with other educators. Lisa blogs about the iPad pilot: I started my blog to

glean on each struggle and success and document it, so others can learn from that process.

So I really looked at how do I make all my learning transparent, so that others can learn

from it? Having that is really important. Her honesty is helpful. Other educators can see

the full picture that iPad implementation has not been so easy. By no means does she

claim to be an expert iPad user or educator. But other educators in Ontario and

internationally now seek her guidance in their own explorations and integrations of the

device.

Lisa showed me around her classroom, shared some of her key teacher resources,

and thought out loud as she set up her classroom for the literacy block. For some

unknown reason, some of the iPads did not have the applications required for the days

activities. Lisa paused the interview to reinstall the programs. I wrote down the names of

the applications unknown to me, noting to download and explore them later that day.

However my delayed and independent play was rather unnecessary; Lisas students were

able to show and tell me how they worked.


37/55

37

Chapter 5: SHARED EXPERIENCES

The original research question of this narrative inquiry was How did the teachers

come to the point they are at in regards to technology integration? In sharing their past

experiences and current roles and projects, George, David and Lisa promote three

components behind their successful technology learning and support:

1. Authentic modeling of technology use for student and teacher learning2. Mentorship & relationship building with other educators3. Blended environments for mentorship and learning opportunities (face-to-face and

on-line)

Authentic modeling of technology use for student and teacher learning

George, David, and Lisa have strong understandings of why they use technology

for student learning. Their pedagogical stances are grounded in personal learning

experiences using technology. The three teachers understand the benefits to the particular

tools and hardware they choose to utilize. They use these technologies in and outside of

the classrooms.

Davids Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) approach reflects his personal use of

his handheld, synchronized devices. David remains skeptical of those who ask for advice

and mentorship about BYOD, as he believes teachers must practice what they preach:

If you want to do Bring Your Own Device, where you get students to bring their

own devices, do you bring your own device? Because thats not an event. Thats a

culture youre going to have to develop. And you have to be part of that culture

If you really want your students to use handheld devices for productive purposes,

show how you do it, without instructing on it. Literally just do it and the kids

notice.


38/55

38

Similar to BYOD, David is also critical of those who try to incorporate blogs and other

Web 2.0 tools in the classroom. An avid blogger and social media user, David believes

that teachers must understand the benefits of such tools for themselves before they

assume students will find them meaningful and useful.

George also utilizes technology on a daily basis and wishes for his school

colleagues to understand the benefits of any-time learning. Slowly but surely Georges

colleagues are starting to purchase technology for personal use. George happily assists

them with their questions before and after the purchases: In the last four months, there

have been some serious hardware purchases, just personal stuff for teachers. A big 24

inch iMac for one teacher. Those people tend to come and talk to me. As well, George

is trying to model the use of Twitter for professional and social purposes: We introduced

Twitter during our PD day. But there hasnt been any adoption of that yet, but our

principal is on it. He asked me, Come and teach me about this.

Lisa similarly models her learning and purchasing of iPad applications with her

students:

Every week theres something new out there. I have struggled to always want to

buy something new. I have to go back and ask if it meets my [instructional]

needs, or why am I changing my plan. Something better might be there, so

instead of wasting time on an app that is taking twice as long to do a product, I

might find one next week thats faster. I am always showing the kids my

learning.

Lisas focus on media literacy is also modeled here with technology consumption and

purchasing.


39/55

39

Mentorship/relationship building with other educators

George, David, and Lisa all maintain that personal connection and relationships

are key to their learning about technology integration and use. In some capacity, they all

serve as mentors for others.

Georges personal and professional experiences as learner, teacher,

designer/instructor, and consultant have shaped his current perspective and approach to

technology support.

You know what? Thats probably one of the most important things [Start from]

where theyre at. And thats been a skill I had to develop over the years. If you go

in with too much or something that cannot be followed up or supported, then its

not going to fly.

As previously mentioned, George is helping the school staff with their technology use for

both personal and teaching purposes. George attributes the staffs openness partly to his

explicit intention to build meaningful connections and start personal and personalized

conversations. George seeks to earn the teachers trust before they can collaborate,

illustrating his focus on the affective side of teaching and learning: Its all about

working together.

David attributes his success and professional satisfaction to his supportive

mentors within and outside his board. He also seeks to be a mentor for other educators or

to direct them to others: Im a much bigger fan of connecting people together so they

form relationships, networks of learning, helping people to become networked learners.

That whole idiom of teaching a man to fish. Teaching someone how to use technology

in the classroom is not just a technical conversation or hardware purchase. As David

maintains, [With] Bring Your Own Device, Im not actually talking about technology.


40/55

40

Im talking about student-centered learning [chuckling]. Im talking about

constructivism [chuckling]. David encourages the discussion and learning on pedagogy,

not tools:

If you had to ask me who Id want to work with, to facilitate and build their

capacity in technology use, I will always say I dont even care if they know

anything about technology. If they get pedagogy, its going to be easy. Someone

who understands, for example, the importance of assessment for learning or

descriptive feedback. If you say, Hey, did you know that theres a tool that helps

you do it at a ten-times better level, theyre never going to be like, No. Theyre

always going to be like, Oh, I have to learn. Whatever I do, I must learn to do it.

They understand how important that is for the learning in their class, so theyll

persevere to learn it. And then they wont worry about whether its in a pink case

or a blue case or a purple case, or all that stuff.

Lisa echos David and George positive sentiments and emphasis on collaborative,

professional mentoring relationships: You get energy from sharing and learning with

others... Everything is about mentoring and coaching each other, so that youre never

making decisions alone. You always have another sound board, you are always gaining

more information, very much a team-approach.

Blended environments for mentorship and learning opportunities (face-to-face and

on-line)

Lisa, David and George emphasize authentic collaboration as an essential

component to their technology learning. Lisa values her on-line colleagues, primarily

because they have helped her tremendously with the iPad pilot:


41/55

41

I really, really need the on-line professional learning community because that

moves me forward in my thinking and learning. No one here knew [how to solve

issues]. I was the only one in the school, in the whole town who was using the

iPad [for learning] last year, so I didnt have anyone that I could really bounce

ideas off of. I needed that on-line community.

Lisa speaks positively of her meaningful, on-line professional relationships. She

emphasizes the importance of knowing about them in depth, about their families and

lifestyles.

There is a social aspect to it. You dont necessarily learn with someone if you

dont engage with them socially. I trust someone who I know a little bit about

their family, their work situation, as opposed to someone saying Read this

article. Why should I read that article? Oh, well, I know what youre about, what

you stand for, I know how you interact with others. If you suggest that article,

Im going to read it

I think there are certain people within the network who I feel very close with,

even though I havent met them face-to-face I still know about their families,

some of their struggles, I know what theyre doing in the classroom, and I feel

very connected to them, probably moreso than some of the people face-to-face in

my own building. Just because you see someone face-to-face doesnt mean you

have a rich conversation or connection I have to say that there are a few people

that I feel connected to and that I trust and will share back-and-forth, and reach

out to when things are rough.

Lisa now also supports and communicates with some of her face-to-face colleagues in on-

line environments. She describes their transition to a blend of face-to-face and on-line


42/55

42

interactions:

Two years ago, none of us [face-to-face colleagues] were on Twitter. We were

craving our face-to-face meetings. Wed get together & itd just be talk, talk, talk,

talk, talk. We wouldnt actually accomplish as much in our meetings because we

would have all these other questions to share and askNow, when we arrive, the

conversations continue because we are all on Twitter sharing follow[ing each

others] thinking Twitter is just a conversation, and when we meet now, its just

to pick up on our last tweet and go forward with our planning.

Similarly, David prioritizes the colleagues with whom he has both in-person and on-line

interactions. He describes his colleagues as follows:

I think there are three types of people in my life. There are people who I only

have a connection with face-to-face, people who I only have a connection with

on-line, then theres the people I have a much deeper connection with because I

have both. I can contact them at any time, on-line or through a text or something

like that, and I see them relatively frequently. Thats the deepest. Those are the

people I can learn with the most.

George also enjoys the face-to-face connections with his on-line colleagues:

Its more meaningful to connect with those people [in person] because youve

already been speaking about it with them and then when you can sit over coffee or

something its just magical, its wonderful. You just feel as if youre having a

good conversation. And thats what happened with [the last conference]. There

were a few people I hadnt talked to in a long time, four months! The last time I

spoke to them was on-line. We could sit and have a conversation, it was


43/55

43

wonderful.

George cultivates on-line relationships as he yearns for professional growth and

meaningful connection. As a technology leader in his school, he supports the teachers

learning for and with technology. His own technology and instructional interests are

explored on-line. However, unlike David and Lisa, Georges face-to-face and on-line

networks remain fairly separate:

I live in different worlds. The world of my Personal Learning Network in Ontario

and beyond, we talk about technologies and methodologies that are different from

the four walls that were in [the school]. Thats part of why Im here. Theres a

real dissonance

I appreciate my on-line network of Twitter people I seem to follow many, many

conversations but I do value a few number of conversations over the whole. Its

like in real life, if you connect with somebody, and you get each other, thats the

same thing on-line.

David, George, and Lisa all believe authentic modeling of technology and mentoring,

collegial relationships using blended environments are key supports for technology

learning and integration.


44/55

44

Chapter 6: IMPLICATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

Much of the existing research in teachers lived experience in technology

learning, use, and implementation is bounded to a particular context be it a curricular

subject, professional development model, school or institution, or singular narrative

voice. This study intends to fill the gap and provide three narratives. In sharing the lived

experiences of three teachers teaching in different subjects in different areas of Ontario,

with diverse professional development experiences, and varying years in the education

field, shared experiences have emerged. Indeed, these teachers are known for using

current, exemplary technology practices in their classrooms; however this was not always

the case. In sharing their development of their technology use and implementation,

David, George, and Lisa have reported three factors and experiences that are integral to

their successful implementation. They all share the importance of personal and authentic

modeling of the technologys affordances in learning. This personal internalization of

technology use and understanding ensures that teachers move beyond any short-lived

challenges. Lisa openly shares the challenges of her iPad pilot project. George provides

that modeling and support for both students and teachers in his school. David explains the

need for teachers to begin using technology to recognize the applications for student and

teacher learning alike. In going beyond the logistics and focusing on pedagogical

affordances of technology, any challenges or obstacles are irrelevant:

What I truly mean, there are some mechanics involved here, youre going to learn

that through trial and error. It depends on your building, on all these technical

things. If you really want to do it [use BYOD and more generally, use technology

in the classroom], thats not going to be a barrier

Id just like to see more people modeling it, just living it in the various levels of


45/55

45

our organizations. If that was happening, then it would not even be something

that you had to do to people. It would just spread like a virus. In particular,

people in positions of leadership. [David]

The teachers in this study emphasize different technological affordances and practices for

student learning in their classrooms; the one commonality is that they also personally

employ those practices. As George himself describes it, they all breathe technology:

not merely in action but also in essence. They understand the affordances and benefits of

the technologies, practice it themselves, and seek to share this with students and

colleagues.

Combining the second and third shared experiences, David, George, and Lisa note

the value of creating and maintaining both on-line and face-to-face mentoring and

collaborative relationships with other educators. They attribute much of their

professional success to these supports.

For a beginner teacher or teacher beginning his/her own learning for technology

integration, the experiences of George, David, and Lisa show that learning about

technology use in the classroom can be done at individualized levels and in meaningful

ways. Their experiences illustrate that the most meaningful and noted learning is not

from workshops and professional development sessions, but rather from dialogue and

connection with educators.

It is important to note that George, David, and Lisa incorporate modeling,

relationships, and blended learning environments not just for their professional learning

about technology, but any learning. Thus, their stories speak beyond technology

integration; they discuss how they use technology to support their own meaningful

professional learning and growth. They try to encourage and create similar experiences


46/55

46

for their colleagues. They model meaningful, blended learning relationships for their

teacher peers in hopes that they too will take to this personalized and meaningful

professional any-time learning. They share their classroom activities as well as their

technology integration learning their successes, struggles, and questions on-line for

others to read. This transparency speaks to their constant learning and growth as

professionals. True reflective practitioners, they aim to help other teachers participate in

meaningful instructional innovations and professional learning.

For new teachers, the question as to how to find effective mentors or supports is

one question. The self-directed nature of George, David, and Lisas professional learning

speaks to the need to be self-directed. Reflecting back at the original inspiration of this

research, I myself directed my own learning in technology integration. Flying out to

Philadelphia was a personal choice and that first step resulted in meeting many educators

who in turn connected me to other colleagues. The connections continue to expand and

also deepen. Along this journey, I met George, David, and Lisa.

The three teachers experiences speak to possible ways to support this type of

meaningful learning for technology integration and other instructional areas. Sharing,

collaboration, and dialogue are already common practices. The question is, how can we

provide this kind of support among colleagues within the same school?

George, David, and Lisa all focus on the pedagogical foundations of the

technological tools they employ. In their work with other educators, they all seek to learn

of the current pedagogies of their mentees. George claims the most effective technology

support is when one works from the teachers interests. David believes a strong

pedagogical grounding is the basis of sound technology integration. As an in-school

coach, Lisa maintains that working from the teachers context and within the classroom


47/55

47

enables them to try things out together, to use technology for student learning

immediately.

The goal of this study is to focus on the key experiences that supported the

participants technology learning and integration. However, David, George and Lisa all

discuss obstacles and challenges at the individual, school, and board level. The

limitations of this study do not permit exploration of these experiences and perspectives.

Further narrative inquiry can be written with the collected data or with further elaboration

and discussion with the participants. Regardless, their reported obstacles and challenges

are diverse. In their own ways, David, George, and Lisa are trying to combat different

obstacles in their own leadership and mentorship roles.

The multi-faceted experiences of David, George, and Lisa illustrate that there is

no particular way to learn about and develop meaningful and effective technology

integration. Mishra & Koehler (2006) emphasize this complexity and contextual

component to TPACK. All three teachers focus on pedagogy and maintain that it is not

enough to merely use technology for its own sake. David, George, and Lisas use of

technology are at the center of Mishra & Koehlers TPACK model [Figure 1]; they also

mentor their peers to place at the forefront the teaching and learning goals. Once the

pedagogical approaches and objectives are explicit, any technology tool can be easily

analyzed for its applications in the classroom.

The purpose of this narrative inquiry is to shed light on the individual experiences

of three teachers who integrate exemplary and purposeful technological practices in their

classrooms. From their narratives, we can begin to understand the complexity of teacher

learning and support for technology integration. Arguably, consideration of this


48/55

48

complexity should guide the ways in which we provide learning and support

opportunities.

Clandinin & Connelly (2000) maintain that as narrative inquiry researchers, We

ask others to read our work and to respond in ways that help us see other meanings that

might lead to further retelling(p. 60). In sharing my own experience and the experiences

of these teachers in our individual journeys in technology integration, it is hoped that

readers will be prompted to consider these narratives in light of their own experiences, to

begin or continue their own self-directed learning, then share their narratives with others.

In sharing the stories of David, George, and Lisa, I have already recognized that it

can instigate, inspire, or reignite teachers learning journeys in technology integration and

general professional learning. Prior to the publishing of this paper, I have had many

opportunities to share David, George, and Lisas narratives, as well as my own. These

lived experiences spark further discussion and the sharing of other educators narratives,

which in turn create the face-to-face and on-line mentoring connections these teachers all

emphasize.

Modeling, Relationships, and Blended Environments: Three Teachers’ Narratives of Meaningful...

Documents

Transcript of Modeling, Relationships, and Blended Environments: Three Teachers’ Narratives of Meaningful...