1. T EACHING IN THE 21 ST C ENTURY : T HE USE OF CONTEMPORARY TECHNOLOGY IN THE K-12 CLASSROOM AND BEYOND T EACH T EC A Collaboration between University of Arizona and Arizona State University

2. T EACH T EC T eaching an E nhanced, A dvanced, C ustomized H ands-On T echnology E ducation C ourse

3. Website: http://teachtec.arizona.edu

4. T EACH T EC  Continuing education certificate program  Developed by the University of AZ & AZ State University  Teach K-12 educators  Technology in the classroom *Project sponsored by the Arizona Board of Regents, the Helios Foundation and Women in Philanthropy, ASU Foundation

5. The Project Team University of Arizona Gail Barker, PhD Htay Hla Janae Cooley Other Contributors Kathryn Coe, PhD Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD Ronald Weinstein, MD Arizona State University Catherine Eden, PhD Colleen Carmean, PhD Chris Hiryak, MPA Linda Hess

6. Project Background Governor’s Executive Order 2006-07: Building 21 st Century Schools  Align schools and education to better meet Student and teacher needs Growing technology demands  Prepare teachers to use technology High impact educational tool Enhance K – 12 education

7. Goals  Learn available technology Focus on low-cost/no cost, currently available contemporary  Understand the technology Immediate implementation  How to use the technology Enhance content delivery

8. Project Deliverables 1.Establish hands-on CE certificate course for K-12 educators 2.Evaluate course and initial implementation 3.Evaluate reported use > 4 mths & > 9 mths 4.Assess reported impact on classroom teaching and student learning 5.Develop course sustainability plan 6.*Compare delivery modes *added later by TT team

9. Format  Technology introduction  Followed by hands-on training  Time to explore technologies  Group activity to create classroom exercise lesson  Post conference – submit individual lesson and course evaluation In-person Remote delivery 12 Continuing education credits

10. Delivery Methods In person In-person with videoconferencing Video streaming with Twitter or Neat Chat Webinar

12. Highlighted Technologies  Flip Videos  Google Docs  Survey Monkey  Texting/Classroom Polls  Twitter/Neat Chat  YouTube/TeacherTube

13. Flip Video  Educators received Flip Videos Ease of use, plug & play Software included in device No additional components

14. Participants and Locations 477 Educators Attended  7 sessions 50% attended in person 43% attended via video stream 7% attended via webinar  ~ 73 Communities  ~ 240 Schools

15. Ajo Albuquerque, NM Apache Junction Arizona City Avondale Benson Beverly Buckeye Cave Creek Chandler Chino Valley Concho Coolidge Cortaro Cottonwood Dateland Eagar El Mirage Flagstaff Florence Fort Defiance Fountain Hills Ganado Gilbert Glendale Goodyear Green Valley Hereford Houston, TX Joseph City Kayenta Kingman Lake Havasu City Lakeside Laveen Litchfield Park Participating Communities

16. Mammoth Maricopa Mesa Nutrioso Palmdale Paulden Peoria Phoenix Pima Pinetop Prescott Valley Queen Creek Rio Rico Sahuarita Salome San Tan Valley Scottsdale Sedona Show Low Sierra Vista Somerton St. Michaels Sun City Surprise Taylor Tempe Tolleson Topock Tuba City Tucson Vail Vernon Whiteriver Wickenburg Window Rock Youngtown Yuma Participating Communities

17. Participant Pre-Survey  Above Average to Experienced11%  Average18%  Little to No Experience71% Participant Experience Using Technology:

18. The Course

19. Sessions 2009 – 1 two-day session – Tucson & Phoenix locations – In person/Video conferencing and Video streaming 2010 – 3 one-day sessions – 2 sessions in Phoenix, 1 session in Tucson – Video streaming for distance audience 2011 – 3 one-day sessions – 2 in person sessions in Phoenix – 1 session as Webinar *4 sessions were 7-9 grade STEM

24. Initial Results n = 352

25. Classroom (n = 172) (X 2 = 68.90, p < 0.0001) Yes 92% No 8% Video stream (n = 154) (X 2 = 40.96, p < 0.0001) Yes 82% No 18% Webinar (n = 26) (X 2 = 100, p < 0.0001) Yes 100% No 0% Did Participants receive enough information to implement the technologies based on delivery method

26. More than one category could be selected Cellphone use & YouTube were the blocked technologies X 2 = 31. 54, df = 2, p < 0.001 X 2 = 83.88, df = 5, p < 0.0001

27. More than one technology could be selected X 2 = 462, p < 0.0001

28. Most Popular Technology by Class Subject

29. p < 0.0001

30. More than one category could be selected X 2 = 361.35, p < 0.0001

31. Teacher Comments My students really like using the new technologies. They are more enthusiastic and complete more assignments because they like to use the technology. I was amazed how many papers I received because I allowed the students to use google docs. Students were very happy to have permission to use their cell phones in class. The survey monkey definitely helps with finding out information easily. Students and parents loved the beginning-of-school surveys. The flip camera has been instrumental in giving students feedback on their oral presentations.

32. Impact on Student Learning by Class Subject

33. Would attend a similar Teach Tec program Would attend an advanced Teach Tec program p < 0.0001

34. Conclusion  Technology gap between K-12 educators & students 71% initially had little or no experience  Educators eager to learn technology Enhanced the classroom experience  Reported positive impact on student learning Increase in student participation

35. Conclusion  Barriers to implementation in some schools/districts YouTube and Cellphone use  Hands on training course can be delivered over distance More testing using Webinar  $50 threshold for course registration

36. http://teachtec.arizona.edu 21 st Century Teaching for 21 st Century Students