2. Campbell, M. ( June 20, 2000) Ariadne Cartoon. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue23/cartoon/Image1.jpg http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue23/cartoon/Image1.jpg

3.  Incorporating technology trend  Variation of technology skills between novice and veteran teachers  AACPS focused on “attacking the achievement gap” since 2006 (Maxwell, 2011, title)

4.  Attacking the technology gap will help attack the achievement gap  Focus: find ways to encourage veteran teachers to incorporate technology in their classrooms more regularly

5.  Technology has always been my strength  Few technology courses at Towson University; mostly self-taught  Worked in five AACPS as intern or special education assistant

6.  Co-workers have been amazed by my use of technology  Some ask me to show them how  Others have little to no interest to learn  Mostly veteran teachers who have little to no interest to learn

7.  Most recent observation of technology use:  Multiple 5 th grade classrooms  Math, science, social studies with different teachers  Two veteran teachers: uncomfortable and became frustrated easily  Novice teacher: incorporated with ease

8.  Public elementary school in Anne Arundel County  2010-2011 school year: 601 students  63% Caucasian  16% African-American  6% Hispanic  4% Asian  <1% Native Hawaiian and Indian

9.  Achievement Gap:  difference between the performance of all student groups and the Anne Arundel County Public School (AACPS)-identified standards (Maxwell, 2011)  Technology Gap:  varying uses of technology in classrooms taught by novice and veteran teachers

10.  Veteran Teacher:  taught more than 10 years  Novice Teacher:  taught less than 10 years  Technology:  computers, software, or interactive devices that enhance lessons

11. How can I encourage veteran teachers to incorporate technology in the classroom?

12.  Contribute toward closing the technology gap, so teachers can focus more on the achievement gap  County-wide purpose to allow all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, or social status, make the most of their talents (Maxwell, 2011)

13.  Positive Outcomes of Incorporating Technology: › “The power of new technology is that it opens an incredible number of doors for teachers to help students learn in the most engaging way” (LaFee, 2010, p. 50). › Anderson (2005) explains using technology for high-order thinking and problem solving can lead to increased success.

14. › Students’ learning can be enhanced and extended when technology is incorporated (Vasinda & McLeod, 2011). › For example, students made podcasts to record their lines in Readers Theatre which extended their learning to include their families when they were able to listen to the podcast at home (Vasinda & McLeod, 2011).

15.  Negative Outcomes of Incorporating Technology: › Anderson (2005) states, “technology use widens the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ (p. 148). › Poor and urban students are less likely to be exposed to high-order thinking with computers(Anderson, 2005).

16. › “The introduction of new technology alone does not guarantee improved learning experiences, or greater learning outcomes” (Prieto et. al, 2011). › New technology has to be paired with pedagogy and content to be a success (Polly, 2011).

17.  Veteran Teacher Views of Technology: › Snoeynik (2002) found inexperienced teachers wanted to feel comfortable with the technology before attempting to teach with it. › One veteran teacher said, “That was nice, but I could never do it” (Snoeynik, 2002, p. 103).

18. › Research has found teachers feel more comfortable learning technology when they are able to learn hands-on and have support from novice teachers (Plair, 2008; Becker, 1994; Polly, 2011). › Veteran teachers will also be more effective incorporating technology when they are excited and eager to try it.  Camhi (2010) quoted a teacher of 13 years saying, “I feel like a kid in a candy shop” (p.15).

19.  Summary: › The students we are teaching today, in the 21 st century, come into school with a large amount of technology knowledge, so all teachers need to incorporate technology to ‘keep up’ with their students (Riel, 1994; Means, 2010; LaFee, 2010; Vasinda & McLeod, 2011; Prieto et al., 2011).

20.  Teacher/Action Research: › “systematic and intentional inquiry carried out by teachers” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990, p.3) › “research done by teachers for teachers” (Mills, 2000, p.12) › problem solving process where the problem comes from a teacher noticing something could have been done better (Mertler, 2000)

21.  Qualitative Methods: › Johnson (2002) explains teacher research is predominately qualitative because teachers study the world around them. › data collection methods that may foster more personal responses than quantitative methods  Example: Student interview instead of test scores

22.  Fifth grade and special education teachers › 10 teachers total  5 novice and 5 veteran › Fifth grade students

23.  Observation  Teacher Surveys  Students Surveys  Teacher Interviews

24.  Observation  Teacher Interviews

25.  Guba’s (1981) Procedures: › Constant participant at the site › Triangulated data: observation, surveys, interviews › Exact quotes used as raw data › Member checks to ensure correct interpretation

26.  Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen’s (1994) criteria: › Democratic Validity  Include multiple perspectives  Novice teachers  Veteran teachers  Students

27.  Permission from administration  Project will be discussed in detail to allow teachers and students to decide if they want to participate  Participants may stop participating at any time, with no consequence

28.  Ensure Confidentiality › All participants will be given a number › All data will be kept securely on my personal computer › All data will be destroyed at the end of project

29.  Professional Development Workshop: › Held afterschool for one hour › 5 novice teachers will showcase technology available at school › 5 veteran teachers have opportunity to practice with technology and ask questions

30.  Mentor Program: › Veteran teacher paired with novice teacher › Meet to collaborate 30 minutes, once a week for eight weeks › Goal: veterans gain confidence and ease of incorporating technology

31.  Mollie Dwyer- lead researcher  Veteran and Novice teachers  5 th grade students

32.  Permission from administration  Consent from teachers  Permission from parents  Assent from students

33. Phase and TimeAction Phase 1 1 week prior to workshop Teacher and student surveys and interviews to determine need of intervention Phase 2 Afterschool for one hour Professional development workshop hosted by novice teachers Phase 3 Begins 1 week after workshop, continues for 8 weeks Novice and veteran teacher partnership intervention (30 minutes afterschool, once a week) Phase 4 1 week after mentor program ends Post-intervention teacher and student surveys and interviews to evaluate interventions

34.  Computer lab for professional development workshop  Surveymonkey.com  Tape recorder  School’s technology including: SMART boards, document cameras, and various websites

35. Porter, B. http://www.issues.cc/complaints/technology/kids-and-pricy- technology-dont-mix

36.  Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.  Anderson, N. (2005). ‘Mindstorms’ and ‘mindtools’ aren’t happening: Digital streaming of students via socio-economic disadvantage. E-Learning, 2(2), 144-152.  Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3).  Benedis-Grab, G. (2011). Sharing digital data: A plant growth experiment is strengthened when students collaborate digitally. Science and Children, 42-46.  Camhi, S. (2010). Extreme makeover: How the 2009 sylvia charp award winner used technology to transform a once struggling school district. Learning and Leading with Technology, 12-15.  Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational researcher, 19(2), 2-11.

37.  Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.  Frank, K. A., Zhoa, Y., Penuel, W. R., Ellefson, N., & Porter, S. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends: Experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education, 84(2), 137-156. doi: 10.1177/0038040711401812  Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational communication and technology, 29(2), 75-91.  Hedburg, J. (2011). Towards a disruptive pedagogy: Changing classroom practice with technologies and digital content. Educational Media International, 48(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2011.549673  Johnson, A. (2002). A short guide to action research (3 rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.  LaFee, S. (2010). Taking the “i21” initiative. Education Digest: Essential Reading Condensedfor Quick Review, 76(3), 47-51.

38.  Maxwell, K. (2011, January 23). Attacking the achievement gap: A battle for our children’s future. Severna Park Patch. Retrieved from http://severnapark.patch.com/articles/attacking-the- achievement-gap-a-battle-for-our-childrens-future-4  Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285-307.  Mertler, C. (2006). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.  Mills, G. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.  Plair, S. K. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and fluency. The Clearing House, 82(2), 70-74.  Polly, D. (2011). Examining teachers’ enactment of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mathematics teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(1), 37-59.

39.  Prieto, L. P., Villagra-Sobrino, S., Jorrin-Abellan, I. M., Martinez- Mones, A., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2011). Recurrent routines: Analyzing and supporting orchestration in technology-enhanced primary classrooms. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1214-1227. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.011  Riel, M. (1994). Educational change in a technology-rich environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4).  Schaffhauser, D. (2009). Which came first: The technology or the pedagogy? T. H. E. Journal, 36(8).  Snoeyink, R. (2002). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85- 111.  Vasinda, S., & McLeod, J. (2011). Extending readers theatre: A powerful and purposeful match with podcasting. Reading Teacher, 64(7), 486-497. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.7.2

40.  Consent Forms Consent Forms › Appendix A: Teacher Consent Form › Appendix B: Parent Consent Form › Appendix C: Student Assent Form  Appendix D: Teacher Survey Appendix D  Appendix E: Student Survey Appendix E