1. Professional development that increases technology integration by K-12 teachers: The influence of the TICKIT Program. John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana.edu Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana.edu Curtis J. Bonk, cjbonk@indiana.edu Indiana University AERA April 21, 2003 Chicago

2. TICKIT Teacher Institute for Curriculum Knowledge about Integration of Technology http://www.iub.edu/~tickit

3. Overview of TICKIT In-service teacher education program Rural schools in central & southern Indiana Supported by participating school systems, Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and Indiana University Cohorts of 4-6 teachers from 4-6 school corporations

4. TICKIT Goals Knowledge, skill, & confidence Thoughtful integration of technology Leadership cadres in schools Link schools and university Help schools capitalize on their technology investments

5. Program Structure Teachers attend three workshops at I.U. for a total of 4 days Reports to colleagues and school “giveback” Curriculum-based, technology supported classroom unit or lesson each semester In-school workshops to support teachers in their unit or lesson design Final products are two action research reports

6. Program Structure Various online activities using a course management tool (COW, Virtual University, Blackboard, Web CT, Oncourse) –Article critiques –Chats with technology experts (Bernie Dodge, Annette Lamb) –Free Tool Reviews

7. TICKIT Project Gallery

8. Example Projects

9. TICKIT Teachers

10. Research Question Do teachers who have been through the TICKIT program differ from teachers who have not on dimensions of computer integration?

11. Structure of Paper How the TICKIT program compares with the literature on effective professional development. Results of the study. Discussion of the relative impact of the TICKIT program. Limitations, Future Directions, Conclusion

12. Professional Development Literature New Vision: Darling-Hammond (‘97) Palincsar (1999) –Technical vs. Intellectual View of teaching Richardson & Placier (‘01) –Normative-Reeducative Characteristics of: Little (1993) Loucks-Horsely et al. (1998) Hawley and Valli (1999)

13. Effective Professional Development ComponentsDescription Form Reform vs. traditional (Study groups or networks vs. workshops or conferences). Duration Number of hours and span of time. Collective participation Participation by established groups (same school, grade, department vs. educators from various schools). Content focus Professional development aimed at increasing disciplinary knowledge. Active learning Meaningful analysis of teaching and learning (examining student work, getting feedback on teaching). Coherence Degree of consistency between professional development and teachers’ goals, standards and opportunities for continued professional communication. Structure Core Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Suk-Yoon, 2001

14. Effective Professional Development Garet et al.TICKIT Form Duration Collective participation Content focus Active learning Coherence Structure Core Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Suk-Yoon, 2001      ??

15. Methodology 1/3 Study Design TICKIT Completers –Teachers from the first four years of TICKIT –The survey is a post measurement –Dropouts... TICKIT Applicants –Teachers who applied for the fifth year of TICKIT –The survey is a pre measurement

16. Methodology 2/3 Participants Schools –Rural –Central and southern Indiana –Better than average technology infrastructure Teachers –Cohorts of 4-6 teachers from each school –Average teaching experience 11.5 years

17. Methodology 3/3 Instrumentation Two Part Survey –Demographics and TICKIT-Related Questions –Levels of Technology Implementation Survey (LOTI) Moersch (1994, 1995, 2001).

18. Results 1/3 Survey Returns= 79 % Cohort Surveys Sent Surveys Returned Return Percentage 1998-99 251664% 1999-00 292172% 2000-01 302273% 2001-02 222091% 2002-03 Applicants 272696% Total13310579%

19. Results 2/3 FactorsDescriptionReliability Technology Integration Frequent/regular use; learn with and about; variety of learning tasks; often thematic or project-based instruction.93 Technology Limitations Perceived access to technology.78 Technology Resistance Technology use that supports only traditional pedagogy, reticence about computer use based on skill level or time constraints, and lack of perceived pedagogical value.66 Computer Proficiency Computer proficiency is an index of one’s general comfort level and confidence in using computers.80 Learner- centered Instruction Personal needs of students, lessons and curricula that are in some measure responsive to student interests, and assessment strategies that are performance oriented.79

20. Results 3/3 Factors Means TICKIT Completers  TICKIT Applicants  tSig.  Effect Size 1.Technology Integration 74.0538.257.663.000***1.81 2.Technology Limitations 11.60  15.79-3.281.002**.63 3.Technology Resistance 4.37  7.91-3.143.003**.80 4.Computer Proficiency 25.5118.844.614.000***1.20 5.Learner-centered Instruction 18.2912.405.120.000***1.22 **p<.01 ; ***p<.001  All effect sizes favor TICKIT group  Lower scores on factors two and three indicate more positive responses  The ‘n’ for each comparison varies due to incomplete data. We used list-wise deletion of missing data (Completers n=66-77; Applicants n=18-20) Possible High Score 126 28 56 35 28

21. Relative Impact 1/2 Source of Influence 1 st choice 2 nd choice 3 rd choice % Ranking this 1,2 or 3 Peer Teacher Support35415% Grant Money0225% Administrative support43414% Undergraduate Training0135% Stipends1103% Curriculum technology integration expectations35518% Graduate courses outside TICKIT24413% Personal ambition and interest in technology34161278% Parental and community expectations1238% TICKIT professional development15231668% In-school professional development other than TICKIT461532% Conferences, institutes, and other external59828% Other52110%

22. Relative Impact 2/2 Source of Help% Choosing as one of their choices Business Partner 1.9% Classroom Teacher 62.9% District Coordinator 10.5% University Professor 14.3% Site Principal 8.6% Student 14.3% Technology Coordinator 76.2% Other (Internet, friends, family, other school personnel) 21.9% From which individuals do you seek primary guidance, information, and/or direction relating to the integration of technology into your curriculum? Multiple Sources

23. Internal Motivation Influences  I want to be able to help provide the most challenging, interesting lessons for students. As a result of this I need to keep current.  I’m not required to use the technology but do so to learn for myself and help the students.  Even before the TICKIT experience, I was looking for ways to integrate technology into my classroom. I am enthusiastic and committed to this.

24. TICKIT Teacher Voices  “This class was very helpful. I gained a lot of confidence as a technology user from this class.”  “The door is now open. I will continue to try to find technological ways to teach them.”  “This was the best program I have ever been involved with as a teacher.”

25. Limitations Non-random sample Participants not representative –Above average infrastructure –Above average interest in technology Self-reported data No correlation to corroborate the constructs identified by factor analysis Ex post facto analysis limits ability to infer change due to the TICKIT program

26. Impact Researchers and Teacher Educators K-12 Teaching and Administrators Government Officials and Politicians

27. Future Directions Additional Research Growth of current cohort over the course of this year Correlation of other data sources with current findings (i.e. observation, document analysis) Impact of technology integration on student learning

28. Discussion/Questions

29. References 1/2 Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151. Loucks-Horsely, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

30. References 2/2 Moersch, C. (1994). Levels of Technology Implementation. Retrieved February 13, 2002, from http://www.learning-quest.com/LoTi/lotihome.html http://www.learning-quest.com/LoTi/lotihome.html Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology Implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 40-42. Moersch, C. (2001). Next steps: using LoTi as a research tool. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(3), 22-27. Palincsar, A. (1999). Response: A community of practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 272-274. Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905-950). Washington D. C.: American Educational Research Association.