Running head: CFF CASE STUDYmhayden/mcep/portfolio... · EDUC 636- Advanced Topics in the Teaching...
Transcript of Running head: CFF CASE STUDYmhayden/mcep/portfolio... · EDUC 636- Advanced Topics in the Teaching...
CFF Case Study 1
Running head: CFF CASE STUDY
Classrooms for the Future Case Study: Preliminary Results and Findings
Mark Hayden
Dr. Wesley Pitts
EDUC 636- Advanced Topics in the Teaching and Learning of Chemistry
Master of Chemistry Education Program
University of Pennsylvania
CFF Case Study 2
INTRODUCTION
Review of Related Literature
An extraordinary amount of resources have been allocated to the implementation
of educational technology. State boards and local administrators encourage the use of
related tools and strategies through state standards and district-level initiatives. They aim
to align the goals of the education system with the needs of the rapidly changing,
technology-driven, global workplace that learners will enter upon graduation. (Peck et al.
2007) The total impact of these reform efforts is still unknown, as many are still in their
infancy. However, problems with and threats to the implementation of such plans have
been widely reported in educational research.
Budget constraints and other issues often prevent schools from providing teachers
with an appropriate number of devices or a reasonable amount of quality technical
support. Many districts aim to put computers in every classroom, leaving each individual
classroom with an insufficient number of machines, which severely limits student use
(Adelman et al. 2002). Teachers with sufficiently equipped rooms often encounter
technical difficulties as a result of inadequate hardware or software. Many educators
would rather avoid using technology instead of spending the unreasonable amount of
time needed to develop appropriate “backup plans” for every tech-rich lesson (Cuban et
al. 2001). Although support systems provide some relief, most IT coordinators and
professionals lack expertise in the use of technology for instructional purposes (Adelman
et al. 2002). This forces teachers to fend for themselves or to look to professional
development opportunities for guidance in incorporating technology into their lessons.
CFF Case Study 3
Richardson (2003) and numerous others have linked effective professional
development and training to meaningful change in education. This guidance is
particularly important for more experienced educators that often lack skills in an area that
Dun et al. (2000) refers to as “instructional technology pedagogical content knowledge.”
Unfortunately, these types of learning opportunities are often absent or ineffective, and
teachers have identified this as a primary concern (Peck et al. 2007). Becker (2001)
suggests that when deciding which instructional technologies to include in their teaching,
teachers generally consider their own knowledge, expertise, and experience instead of the
features of the technology or the expected educational outcomes. Girod and Cavanaugh
(2001) add that instead of modifying pedagogy to incorporate technology, many teachers
have simply used technology to improve existing strategies. In other words, the same old
techniques have just been delivered in a shiny package. The substance and experience
are still the same for learners. In these cases, students are no better prepared to enter the
21st Century workforce.
Research Context
Classrooms for the Future (CFF) is a three-year, $200 million initiative aimed at
increasing technology use in Pennsylvania’s high school classrooms and addressing some
of the roadblocks to success that were alluded to in the literature review. State funded
grants allow school districts to purchase technology and support its use with professional
development for teachers. The goal is to increase learning through technology-rich
lessons that provide students with skills needed to succeed after high school.
CFF Case Study 4
Districts receiving a CFF grant agree to participate in evaluation activities
including teacher/student surveys, classroom observations, and interviews. An evaluation
team lead by Dr. Kyle Peck and Mr. Robin Clausen of Penn State University has already
started the process of analyzing the data and reporting on the cumulative, statewide
results. They will help the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and the
legislature assess the initiative and make future funding decisions.
The purpose of this case study is to assess how technology and support from the
CFF initiative have impacted pedagogy, student engagement, and student and teacher
attitudes toward science and mathematics education. This is virtually the same as the
goal of the CFF evaluation team. However, the scope of my inquiry is much narrower,
ranging from one particular school district all the way down to one particular learner.
The results may help inform decision-making that occurs at the district, building, and
classroom level. The hope is that the results may also offer new insight into teaching and
learning with technology.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Petrosino (2004) suggests that case studies provide “rich descriptions, deep or
insider details, and highly focused data contextualized by situating it in the actual setting
of the phenomenon being investigated.” The case study approach was chosen because of
the multitude of research methods employed, the magnitude of data collected, and my
various roles in the process. It also provides for an appropriate mix of qualitative and
quantitative data.
CFF Case Study 5
The study also contains elements of primary action research. Reil (2007)
describes action research as a process in which cycles of experience and reflection lead to
“adaptive expertise.” A significant portion of my research occurred within my own
classroom through my own experiences with teaching and learning with technology. In
addition, my strategies were constantly changing as a result of my inquiry. One of the
ways in which I simultaneously gathered data and reflected on my teaching was with
what Tobin and Roth (2006) refer to as “praxeology,” or “talk about praxis.” This
occurred in a variety of ways including cogenerative dialogues with students (discussed
in METHODS) and collaboration with colleagues. Finally, some of the research
techniques were influenced by constructivism. The idea for co-teaching a technology-
rich lesson with a student came to me after reading about the “Critical Voice” and
“Shared Control” scales that are a part of the Constructivist Learning Environment
Survey (CLES) (Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L., 1997)
PARTICIPANTS
The Central Bucks School District is a large suburban school district outside of
Philadelphia. The district contains three high schools: West (W), South (S) and East(E).
The students come from primarily white, middle to upper income households. The
demographics of the faculty closely align with that of the students. Table 1.1 contains
information about the demographics of the student population at the start of the case
study:
CFF Case Study 6
Table 1.1- Student Demographics
HS
Ethnicity SES Totals
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
Asian
or
Pacific
Islander
Black,
not
Hispanic
Hispanic
White,
not
Hispanic
Reduced
Lunch
Free
Lunch Male Female Total
W 0 42 24 26 1332 24 45 740 684 1442
S 7 76 35 38 1589 26 35 911 834 1745
E 1 45 17 33 1413 16 13 758 751 1509
In general, students arrive at school with a willingness to learn and take part in
educational activities. Attendance and participation in extracurricular activities meets or
exceeds that of districts of comparable size and composition. Minor behavioral problems
exist, but do not contribute to significant disruptions in learning.
Nearly all of the students have the resources required to purchase traditional
school supplies such as notebooks, and many also purchase additional technology such as
calculators and flash drives. A majority access the internet from home and complete web-
related homework on a regular basis.
In 2007, the second year of the grant, the district received a $1.32 million CFF
grant for its high school science and mathematics classrooms. With these funds, the
district immediately purchased and implemented:
3 full-time technology coaches
80 Promethean interactive whiteboards
81 projectors
1430 laptop computers with educational software
52 digital cameras
CFF Case Study 7
51 web cameras
To remain in compliance with the CFF evaluation requirements, each district
appoints an individual to coordinate the collection of data. Often the individual is an
administrator or teacher within the district. Shortly after receiving word of the incoming
grant, I agreed to take on this role for the district. As a chemistry teacher and occasional
staff development workshop presenter, I had the unique opportunity to view the initiative
from many different perspectives.
During the 2007-2008 school year, I facilitated survey completion by 45 high
school science and mathematics teachers along with well over 1000 of their students. In
addition, I completed a total of 24 classroom observations which occurred at all three
high schools. I was assisted for the pre-window by a retired science teacher who
completed 12 additional classroom observations on my behalf.
For the 2008-2009 school year, the district received additional grant money for
the CFF initiative. It has used this money to extend the grant into its English and social
studies departments. I am currently collecting data to assess the impact of CFF in these
disciplines. At the end of this school year, I will have access to second-year data for
science and mathematics teachers and first year data from the English and social studies
teachers.
METHODS
This study employs a mixed methods approach containing both quantitative and
qualitative techniques. The teacher and student surveys, as well as the classroom
observations, were a requirement that came with accepting the CFF grant money. The
CFF Case Study 8
cogenerative dialogues, co-teaching, and informal interviews with colleagues were
completed independently of the grant. All methods used to collect data are discussed
below.
Teacher Surveys
The teacher survey used in this study was developed by CFF evaluation team lead
by Kyle Peck and Robin Clausen of Penn State University. The survey takes
approximately 15 minutes to complete. It contains 17 questions, many of which have
multiple parts. Most of the questions contain a Likert scale. The aim of the survey is to
provide feedback about the teacher’s philosophy and teaching style; classroom dynamic;
methods of assessment; attitudes about technology in general; attitudes about technology
as an educational tool; and attitudes and experiences with professional development in
technology.
Each of the 45 science and mathematics teachers completed a pre- and post-
survey containing the same questions. The pre-survey occurred in December of 2007,
before all of the classroom equipment was available for use. The post-survey occurred in
May of 2007, after teachers had started to integrate the technology into their lessons.
Once submitted by the teacher, the data was sent directly to a database maintained by the
evaluation team at PSU. Robin Clausen was then able to provide me with both the raw
data and graphical representations of the data for all three high schools.
Student Surveys
Once again, this survey was developed by the CFF evaluation team. The survey
takes approximately 25 minutes to complete. It was administered online, during school
CFF Case Study 9
hours. It contains 11 questions, each of which has multiple subsections. All of the
questions contain a Likert scale. Their aim is to provide feedback about the student’s
view of education in general; perception of the learning environment; attitudes about
learning; and use of technology in the classroom.
All 45 science and mathematics teachers administered this survey to one of their
classes at two separate times. The submission times for these surveys coincided with
window for the pre- and post- teacher surveys (December 2007 and May 2007). As with
the teacher surveys, responses were sent directly to the CFF database and were sent to me
in raw and graphical form at a later date by Robin Clausen.
Classroom Observations
Two digital software tools were utilized to collect quantitative and qualitative
classroom observation data. In both cases, laptop computers ran the software and
submitted the observations electronically to the CFF database:
1. Teaching Performance Record (TPR)
TPR is a research-based observation system developed at the University of
Virginia. The observer uses a laptop computer to collect data and reflect on
lessons. The system aims to decrease observer bias, while increasing validity
and reliability. This is accomplished by giving the user the option to easily
choose from over 100 pre-listed components that have been identified through
research as staples of good teaching. With this method, the results become more
quantitative and less subjective. To increase reliability, observers must
CFF Case Study 10
complete an online training course that includes videos and testing prior to data
collection.
The software divides the observation process into four sections titled
Planning, Interactive, Reflective, and Student Involvement and Behavior. In the
Planning section, which occurs at some point before the class of interest, the
observer meets with the teacher to discuss the planned objectives, activities, and
assessment strategies. This allows for the exchange of important lesson
materials such as worksheets, activities, etc. A second section, the Interactive
portion, occurs in three 4-minute cycles during the class.
The observer documents classroom management techniques, teacher-student
interaction, and feedback provided to students. In the Reflective section, the
observer takes a break from the events of the lesson to engage in personal
Figure 1- TPR software, Interactive section
section
CFF Case Study 11
reflection. Organization and presentation of information, as well as strategies for
monitoring behavior and assessment are the focus of this portion of the
observation. Finally, four students are selected for the Student Involvement and
Behavior section. The observer monitors each student for three, 15-second
periods and rates their involvement and behavior on a predetermined scale.
After collecting the electronic data, detailed printouts highlight various
components of each lesson. The focus of the TPR is on how teacher behavior
and practice impact student behavior and involvement. Although the software is
not geared specifically toward technology-rich learning environments or the CFF
grant, it will help identify changes in pedagogy and student participation as a
result of the initiative.
2. CFF Observation Tool
The CFF Observation Tool was also developed at the University of
Virginia. However, educational researchers created this software specifically for
CFF grant evaluation. The program allows the investigator to quantify changes
in instructional activity, classroom organization, and student engagement. It also
allows the user to document specific technology used by both teachers and
students.
In this system, each observed lesson is broken into 3 parts. The observer
monitors a variety of items including student and teacher activity, along with the
level of engagement exhibited by learners.
CFF Case Study 12
After the conclusion of the lesson, the observer is prompted to complete two
“wrap-up” sections. These sections focus on the use of the technology to teach
21st century skills.
Cogenerative Dialogues
Kenneth George Tobin and Wolff-Michael Roth are credited with developing this
technique in which a teacher meets with students to engage in a conversation about a
shared experience. The process allows teachers to reflect on teaching and learning by
“hearing from others about their teaching- what works and what does not, and especially
identifying practices about which the teacher is not aware” (Tobin & Roth, 2006). It is
important that teachers establish an environment in which learners feel comfortable being
open and honest. This is accomplished by leveling with students as much as possible,
maintaining participant anonymity, insisting that conversations are held in confidence,
and assuring participants that their comments will not impact their grade in the course. In
addition to providing new perspectives on teaching and learning, Tobin and Roth (2006)
CFF Case Study 13
suggest that teachers who are able to listen intently and respond appropriately are able to
establish an environment of mutual respect in which stakeholders take joint-ownership of
the learning process.
A total of six students were selected from two sections of my Honors Chemistry
courses. Three males and three females participated, and an effort was made to select a
group that was representative of both classes as a whole in terms of ability and
achievement. The dialogues occurred over two 30-minute lunch periods and were audio-
recorded.
I started the first session by asking students what they liked and disliked about the
way technology was used in the course. I tried to give the students the freedom to take
the conversation in whatever direction they wanted, but I did provide some focus on a
couple occasions by asking about specific assignments or strategies. By the end of the
first cogenerative dialogue, students were comparing their experiences with technology in
my course with those from their other classes. This was also the primary focus of the
second session.
Co-Teaching
Taylor, Fraser, and Fisher (1997) have written about the importance of
establishing “critical voice” and “shared control” in constructivist classrooms. The first
refers to the willingness of students to verbalize their educational needs by questioning
the teacher’s pedagogical techniques and making him or her aware of any obstacles to
learning. The latter involves students in the process of planning, enacting, and assessing
CFF Case Study 14
lessons. Both are ways in which learners take responsibility for their learning and take
ownership of the learning experience and environment.
I decided to invite a student to co-teach a lesson on periodicity as a method for
collecting qualitative data related to the impact of the CFF initiative. The student, a
learner in one of my Honors Chemistry sections, is highly-motivated, regularly
participates in class, and is enrolled in our district’s gifted program. To protect his
identity, he will be referred to by the pseudonym “John.” John was a perfect choice for
the job, because he is comfortable in front of the class, respected by his peers, and
interested in learning for its own sake.
A week before the lesson, I proposed the idea to John and referred him to the
appropriate section of the textbook. I also introduced him to an online applet that I had
used in the past. The applet, created by Constantinos Efstathiou, allows students to graph
periodic trends.
I asked him to decide if he was interested and to generate some lesson ideas if he thought
he wanted to participate. Soon after, John and I met after school to co-plan for the lesson.
I provided significant direction on the objectives of the lesson, and left John with free-
reign over how the lesson would play out. John had become familiar with the online
CFF Case Study 15
applet, and it was decided that the students would engage in an inquiry-based activity
centered on the applet. John would introduce the minimum amount of conceptual
knowledge needed to understand the applet, and the class would figure out the rest. For
the remainder of the time, he would cycle around the room to answer questions about the
applet and/or concepts. I would play a supporting role by filling in gaps during John’s
introduction and helping to answer questions during the inquiry.
John also agreed to participate in a follow-up to the inquiry-based applet activity
that was to occur during the next class period. I gave John the freedom to plan and
develop this portion of the lesson. However, we still met briefly beforehand to review
what he had come up with and to discuss my involvement. Immediately afterward, John
and I sat down for an informal conversation/interview which was audio recorded.
Informal Interviews with Colleagues
I made a conscious effort to remain in frequent contact with teachers from all
three high schools. I did this primary by visiting classrooms whenever possible.
However, a significant amount of useful information was collected via email. Early on in
the initiative, I asked teachers to inform me about positive and negative experiences
related to the new technology. I received responses to this request on a regular basis.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The sheer magnitude of data, along with severe time constraints, made full
analysis impossible for this particular research paper. Following the advice of my
instructor, I decided to focus only on the data collected at West HS, the school where I
teach. The following is a mere glimpse at a small portion of the qualitative and
CFF Case Study 16
quantitative data that resulted from the case study. It is important to consider this section
a work in progress. The hope is that it will catalyze meaningful discussion and additional
questions. It is important to note that statistical testing is absent at this time. I look
forward to scrutinizing the data in the future using these and other techniques.
This section is organized into groups, based on the original goals of the case
study. Charts and graphs that depict survey results were accessed from the CFF
Evaluation Dashboard, which is linked to the database that holds all data that is submitted
from CFF surveys and observations. At the time this paper was written, electronic data
from classroom observations was not yet available on the dashboard.
Pedagogy
Together, several pieces of data seem to indicate that the CFF technology may
have resulted in a slight shift from more didactic forms of teaching to those that are more
constructivist in nature. First, teachers gave less value to more didactic forms of
instruction such as lectures and teacher-led discussions in the post-surveys.
Data from student surveys seems to confirm that this shift in teacher values has been
enacted in the classroom. Significant pre- to post-survey decreases occurred in students
reporting that their teacher spent “All or almost all” and “More than half” of class relying
on lecturing.
CFF Case Study 17
Responses were similar for teacher-led discussions. In both cases, the “Less than half”
and “Rarely” responses showed notable increases.
In addition, a larger percentage of teachers reported spending more time
“walking, observing, and interacting with students” in the post-survey.
This change in teacher activity may be connected to the use of CFF student laptops.
Teachers indicated that they are using these computers more often, with a drop in
CFF Case Study 18
responses in the “0% to 20%” range and notable increases in both the “21% to 40%” and
“61% to 80%” ranges.
During classroom observations, I frequently made note of the fact that students seem to
be far more self-sufficient when learning on the laptops in comparison to traditional,
paper-based assignments. A statement that came out of my conversation with John
comes to mind as a possible explanation for this difference. John commented, “The
younger generation learns how to use the technology differently than a sit-down course…
it’s more about discovery. If you just fiddle around with it enough, it will work.” It
appears as though some learners may be extending this discovery strategy to the way in
which they approach learning in math and science. This is particularly evident with
software such as online applets in science and Geometer’s Sketchpad in math. When
using the laptops, many students prefer to learn in these inquiry-based settings. Once
again, John summed it up when he said, “If you give step-by-step directions, you’re
handing it to students on a silver platter, and they do not have to do any work. This
shouldn’t be allowed. You want to make sure that people know what they are supposed
to do and that they can learn something new.”
CFF Case Study 19
The CFF laptops have also led to an apparent increase in differentiated
instruction. While learning, students are able to move at their own pace, processing
information in ways that work best for them. Individualized feedback is often provided
during computer-based learning activities. One of the cogenerative dialogue participants
mentioned this while commenting on his math class: “Technology tells you if you are
right or wrong right then so that you can work at your own pace and you don’t have to
wait for others that do not get it.” As advanced learners move ahead on their own,
teachers are able to direct their attention toward students that need more support.
Technology also allows students to view concepts through multiple lenses. Another
member of the dialogue added, “Using technology helps me learn better, because if I’m
on the internet trying to figure something out, there’s not just one place to find it. In the
book, there is only one place to find it, and on the internet, there are millions of sites. It’s
just easier to find information.”
Engagement
Teachers have indicated that student engagement has increased as a result of the
CFF initiative. This has been communicated to me in multiple conversations and emails.
This is also supported by a somewhat large increase in the post-survey in teachers that
labeled their students as “actively engaged” for 60% to 80% of the time.
CFF Case Study 20
This change was in line with what I observed in the classrooms. During the pre-
observation window, I witnessed most teachers achieving around 60%-70% engagement.
This increased to around 70%-80% during the post-observation window.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to tell if this engagement has contributed to
increases in learning. Sometimes, students are engaged in off-task behavior, especially
while using the laptops. One student in a cogenerative dialogue estimated that off-task
behavior may account for as much as 60% of instructional time on the laptops in some
classes. Although I think this was an exaggeration, it clearly indicates that he strongly
believes that misuse is occurring regularly. Several of the students that took part in the
recorded conversations linked misuse to excessive amounts of time that are assigned for
technology. One participant commented, “Some teachers don’t assign enough work or
they overestimate the time needed to complete a task.” She also added that she was
likely to check her grades using the district’s online grade portal if she knew that she had
time to spare. Other students have indicated that they believe that student engagement
has increased slightly or has remained the same.
My impression is that the students are more engaged as a result of the CFF
technology. I can say this with a reasonable amount of certainty after visiting multiple
CFF Case Study 21
classrooms and monitoring students in my own classroom. It is more likely that off-task
behavior is more related to poor classroom management than to the technology itself.
Although it’s impossible to monitor all students simultaneously, I doubt that the number
of students that occasionally stray to unrelated websites is any greater than the number of
students that normally daydream, doodle, or talk about unrelated topics during traditional
lessons.
Teacher attitudes
Early on in the initiative, teachers were very concerned about an insufficient
amount of professional development opportunities related to the CFF technology. Some
were worried about having the time to experiment with the promethean board and
laptops, tools that are not accessible from home. Others felt that they lacked the basic
skills to use the technology effectively or feared that they would not be able to respond to
failures that occurred midway through a lesson. The district’s educational leadership was
responsive to these attitudes, scheduling several mini-workshops on staff development
days. These sessions, organized by CFF grant-funded technology coaches, were well-
received by teachers. As both a presenter and an attendee at these mini-workshops, I can
say that teachers valued the ability to choose between multiple sessions of interest. They
also appreciated larger percentages of time to work under the guidance of an expert. The
mini-workshops may have contributed to the dramatic increase in teachers that identified
a lack of professional development as “No Problem” and a remarkable decrease in those
that responded “Significant Problem” and “Huge Problem” in the post-survey.
CFF Case Study 22
Technology-based lessons can be a tough sell for experienced teachers, even
when they have participated in an adequate amount of professional development. Some
of these teachers rely heavily on more didactic forms of instruction, where the teacher is
viewed as an expert that is responsible for disseminating information. They were
initially apprehensive about attempting to play the role of expert in front of a group of
students that they perceived as more skilled in the technology. Ultimately, many of the
teachers were willing to relinquish control and responsibility for learning to the students.
Positive outcomes resulted and were reported. One of the most common things that
teachers noted was that the tech-rich lessons provide increased opportunities for student
success. Students that struggled with course content were seen in a new light when they
were able to discover Promethean board functionalities in front of the class or help peers
complete tasks and resolve problems on the laptops.
Technical difficulties have remained a major concern for teachers. It seems as if a
small percentage of the teachers even view the technology as unnecessary and potentially
damaging to learning. This attitude is particularly relevant to veteran teachers with little
prior experience with technology. These teachers, who have spent years perfecting their
craft, have little patience for technology issues. As one teacher wrote in an email after
CFF Case Study 23
experiencing technical difficulties in class, “(The problems are) Very frustrating for all of
us. In the final analysis I wonder if it is worth all this angst that my students experience.
In the past I have successfully taught these concepts without computers.” Concerns about
educational interference from technology problems is evident in the teacher survey
results as well, where computer failures were identified more frequently as a “Problem”
and “Significant Problem” in the post-surveys.
Even more dramatic negative changes in attitude occurred when teachers were asked
about problems with the promethean boards.
Student attitudes
Student data indicates that attitudes about the CFF initiative are generally
positive. Without prompting, several of the students involved in the study mentioned
CFF Case Study 24
their appreciation for the initiative’s focus on 21st Century skills. As John mentioned
after co-teaching, “It’s the way the world is going. It would be silly to not take advantage
of the technology grant.” In the second cogenerative dialogue, a student said, “More jobs
are looking for people that know how to use Excel and PowerPoint and different
programs like that… we could show up at a company where people have been working
for years that need needs to ask us how to do things.” However, this view was not
represented strongly in the study surveys. A slight increase did occur in the number of
students who selected “Strongly Agree” when asked if they felt prepared to enter the
modern workforce. A decrease occurred in the “Strongly Disagree” response for the
same statement, but was accompanied by a slight increase in the “Disagree” response.
Traditional curricula are often segmented, with students “covering” concepts at
very specific times in their academic career. Students recognize that the nature of
technology is different and that in order to truly become proficient in its use, one must
continue to become familiar with new hardware and software by interacting with it on a
regular basis. Several learners acknowledged the schools’ role as facilitator of these
experiences. A good example of this was the comments made by a student in the second
cogenerative dialogue. She said, “The technology is always changing. The programs we
CFF Case Study 25
used in elementary school have completely changed, multiple times. Since I don’t have
some of these programs on my home computer, I was totally confused at first. You have
to continue working with technology, because if you don’t, it’s going to move so far
away from where it used to be.” The CFF initiative provides more students with the
opportunity to use technology on a regular basis, which may be responsible for the
sizable increase in students that answered “Agree” when asked about how confident they
were about life after high school on the post-surveys.
Although students seem to have generally positive overall attitudes about the CFF
initiative, opinions about experiences in specific classrooms with individual teachers vary
greatly. All students mentioned technology as a potential waste of class time. Network
connection problems and computer speeds were mentioned as the most frequent cause of
wasted instructional time. However, I was surprised when students identified lack of
planning and preparation as the root cause of negative experiences with technology. John
commented, “Sometimes teachers don’t have things prepared and take time out of class to
fiddle with technology.” One of the participants in the cogenerative dialogue said, “Class
time should not be used to play with new technology to figure it out. This can take away
from the learning and even detract from concepts that we are trying to learn.”
CFF Case Study 26
Learners also suggested that technology should be selectively distributed to
teachers based on interest and ability. One student said, “I feel that teachers that get them
(promethean board) should go through some sort of training or should have to present
how they are going to use them. Some teachers should be able to have them, but other
teachers do not want to use them, and that’s a waste of money.” Several students also
cited examples of teachers using promethean boards as a traditional projection screen,
without utilizing the electronic functionalities.
In spite of their isolated frustrations, most of the students involved in this study
remain positive. As John commented, “Once people know how to use the technology in
the classroom, it will definitely be better than it was without the technology.”
CONCLUSIONS
All educational reforms come with at least a minimal amount of turbulence and
resistance. The Classrooms for the Future initiative is no exception. However, the
implementation process has gone relatively smoothly in the Central Bucks School
District, which is remarkable considering the scope of the project. The number of
problems reported has been far out-weighed by the positive feedback from teachers and
students.
Data suggests that the initiative is having an impact on how pedagogy is enacted
in science and mathematics classrooms. The results related to engagement are
inconclusive. However, many teachers and students believe that learners are more
engaged as a result of the grant. Finally, teacher and student attitudes seem to be
CFF Case Study 27
primarily positive, but some concerns have been raised related to problems with the
technology and use (and lack of use) by certain teachers.
Further analysis, both qualitative and quantitative, is needed to fully appreciate
the data collected in this case study. I am especially interested in which changes in the
surveys and observations were statistically significant. In addition, it may be valuable to
compare the data from West HS to the other two high schools and to the statewide totals.
After speaking with many teachers and dealing with technology issues personally, it
seems as if further research should be done on the impact of IT department policy on
learning.
CFF Case Study 28
REFERENCES
Adelman, N., Donnelly, M. B., Dove, T., Tiffany-Morales, J., Wayne, A., &
Zucker, A. (2002, March). The integrated studies of educational technology;
professional development and teachers’ use of technology (SRI Project No.
P10474). Arlington, VA: SRI International.
Becker, H.J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. Seattle, WA.
Cuban, L., Kirpatrick, H., Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of
technologies in high school classrooms; explaining an apparent paradox.
American Education Research Journal. 38(4): 813-834.
Dun, A., Feldman, A., Rearick, M. (2000). Teaching and learning with computers
in schools: the development of instructional technology pedagogical
content knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Girod, M., and Cavanaugh, S. (2001). Technology as an agent of change in
teacher practice. T.H.E. Journal. 28: 40-45.
Peck, K., Clausen, R., Byers, C., Fidishun, D., Murray, O., & Stoicescu, C. (2007,
August 31). Is Classrooms for the Future changing teaching and learning
in Pennsylvania schools? An executive summary on CFF’s first few
months. Retrieved from http://cff.psu.edu/public/Home_files/
CFF_Y1_Eval_Exec_Summary.pdf
CFF Case Study 29
Peck, K., Clausen, R., Vilberg, J., Meidl, C., & Murray, O. (2008, September 16).
Classrooms for the Future year 2 evaluation. Retrieved from
http://cff.psu.edu/public/Home_files/CFF%20Y2%20Final%209-
16%20V2%20ExecSumm.pdf
Petrosino, A. J. (2004). Integrating curriculum, instruction, and assessment in
project-based instruction: A case study of an experienced teacher. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 447-460.
Riel, M. (2007). Understanding action research. Center for Collaborative Action
Research. Pepperdine University. Retrieved from
http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html
Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta
Kappan, pp. 401-406
Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist
classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational
Research, 27(4), 293-302.
Tobin, K. G., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Teaching to learn. A view from the field.
New directions in mathematics and science education. Sense Publishers.