Technology integration at the level of the individual teacher
Many who follow the education scene ask whether K-12 learners will soon be using technology more extensively in their classrooms. This is not a recent question. In fact, even after the commitment of considerable school resources the continued attention afforded this basic question would seem to indicate many feel that technology has been underutilized. Certainly there is no simple explanation that could account for the variability in student experiences from school to school and classroom to classroom and a complete analysis would take far more space for us to communicate and time for you to process than would likely be productive here. Here is what we regard as a pragmatic compromise in considering this issue. While complex analyses of factors responsible for differences in student experiences have identified both environmental and teacher variables as predictors of student experiences, our opportunity to influence technology integration is through the preservice and practicing teachers who work with the materials we prepare. So, it makes sense to us to focus on teachers and the factors that researchers have identified that differentiate those who involve their students with technology from those who do not. Perhaps some of these factors can be changed and we can play some small role in this process.
On the surface, the process of determining what makes teachers who engage their students with technology different from those who facilitate limited involvement would seem pretty straight forward. The basic research strategy might go something like this:
1) Develop a way to quantify the level of technology integration;
2) Develop a way to quantify hypothesized differences among teachers that might influence teacher commitment to integration.
3) See if any teacher characteristics are statistically related variable quantifying technology integration.
While the “how many possible predictors can be related to the goal variable” strategy has been used in some studies, the limitation in this approach is that the predictor variables may not be independent and in fact the predictors may influence each other. For example, common predictors in studies of this type include teacher expertise related to personal use of technology, personal beliefs that technology will improve student learning, and perceived readiness to teach with technology. Considering just these three variables, try working through some possible causal scenarios. Do you consider these independent predictors? Do you see these variables arranged in some type of causal sequence with one or two variables as the starting points influence another variable which might play the strongest role in determining the level of integration? It may matter. Understanding which variables influence the outcome and how they are interrelated might be important in determining the topics that should be emphasized in preservice or inservice experiences.
Having established that we believe helpful research will offer a model explaining teacher behavior in the classroom, we must admit the search for such explanatory models can be frustrating because different studies include different variables and arrive at somewhat different models. Applied research always seems to be messy. Here are brief summaries of a couple of recent studies that have influenced our own thinking
1) Inan and Lowther (2010) concluded that the variable with the most influence on technology integration was the teacher’s perceived readiness to integrate technology and that the most important variable influencing perceived readiness was personal computer proficiency. A secondary significant predictor of the level of technology integration was teacher beliefs that technology offered educational value. Personal proficiency was also significantly related to beliefs about the educational value of technology. Personal technology proficiency might be thought of as a starting point for the development of teacher differences influencing what happened in the classroom. The researchers speculated that personal technology skills give teachers more confidence in helping others use technology and may also offer insight into the opportunities and advantages technology may offer students as learners.
2) Muller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross and Specht (2008) took a similar approach and also determined that variables tapping teacher experience with technology were important. However, among these variables the researchers asked about whether the teacher had experienced positive outcomes when students used technology in the classroom. Among the experience variables, this variable turned out to be most strongly predictive of which teachers did involve their students with technology. Consider this connection for a bit and you can come to several interpretations. One might be to recognize that teachers who do not make the attempt to engage their students with technology are unlikely to observe positive student experiences. The researchers, in reflecting on their findings, offer some other interpretations. They point to situations that may offer the opportunity to observe successful student engagement. For example, they describe the value of exposure to the work of teachers who are successful (they use the phrase “key” teachers). For preservice teachers engaged in “student teaching” consider how the assignment to different teacher mentors might influence what the future teachers might observe. Then, there is possibility that teachers do try things and have frustrating experiences. Perhaps success leads to greater confidence, further attempts and additional successes. Perhaps bad experiences lead to avoidance. Being well prepared with some specific projects and the anticipation of implementation challenges would seem quite important for those with limited experience. In discussing professional development, the researchers propose the tactic of “student-centered professional development”. The future or practicing teacher is the student in this case and the specific suggestion was the educator work backwards starting with “lesson plans” and identifying within expected instruction tasks that might be facilitated with technology. We interpret this to mean teachers with limited experience need specific relevant tasks they can implement.
3) Russell and colleagues (Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003; Russell, O’Dwyer, Bebell, & Tao, 2007) have investigated the relationship between teacher experience and how frequently and in what ways the students working with these teachers use technology. It has been assumed that as new teachers move into schools their personal experience with technology will translate to different experiences for students. While teachers in their first few years do not necessarily engage their students with technology, once they get started teachers newer to the role of educator have their students make greater classroom use of technology. Russell and colleagues have noted one additional finding related to experience. Years of experience can be differentiated from years teaching in a given district. Teachers with a significant years of experience who are new to a given district make the least use of technology in the classroom. Perhaps being new to the way things are done in a particular context is inhibiting, encouraging students to use technology is still perceived as risky, and teachers take a conservative approach until they feel more comfortable.
There are some specific items here we think we can address. First, there is the importance of personal skills and experiences with technology. One of the advantages of what we have described as the “move to the cloud” is that you can gain first hand experience with many of the tools and services we describe. This is an advantage over the “old days” in which we might describe something, but we could not be assured that you could explore the application at your own location. We expect that you will use some of our suggestions in completing your own education. We hope you explore other suggestions simply to to gain experience, increase your confidence, and work through instructional ideas that would be appropriate to your area of practice. The opportunity to witness students similar to those you might teach making productive use of technology is not something we can deliver directly. We can offer examples and the effort to move these examples out of a traditional textbook and on to the Internet allows a little more realism in how the examples are presented. Still, it is impossible for us to actually take you into classrooms or to provide a wide range of examples fitted to your specific interests. We do assume some of the examples we describe are easily adapted to many classroom situations. In some cases we will direct you to collections of online examples that provide the variety that we cannot provide. Of course we also recognize that the resources we provide are only one of several sources that will shape your skills and expectations. Your course professor will have personal experiences to offer and is the most important resource in helping you translate general themes into the specific tasks you might develop for your own classroom setting.