Differences among Students, Teachers, Differences among Students, Teachers, and Administrators on the Quality and and Administrators on the Quality and Effectiveness of Technology IntegrationEffectiveness of Technology Integration

Ben Smith Ben Smith Towson University Towson University

Friday, April 21, 2023Friday, April 21, 2023

Background Information

Physics Teacher / Science Chair, Pennsylvania

Doctoral Student at Towson UniversityKeystone Technology IntegratorSTAR Discovery Educator

Educational Technology Consultant - EdTechInnovators

ISTE Board of Directors - PK-12 Representative

ISTE Faculty - Professional Development

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

BackgroundOne School’s Technology

Classrooms for the Future (CFF)

17 Mobile Labs

Interactive Whiteboards

Student Response System

Projectors

ProbesQuickTime™ and a

decompressorare needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

PATI Survey

PATI Survey

PATI Survey

Problem

Teachers and Administrators agree that 21st century skills are important to integrate

Teachers and Administrators disagree on the definition (level and quality) of technology integration

How do different groups differ in their definition of technology integration?Do administrators, teachers, and students agree on the amount of use of technology tools for curricular activities?How do administrators, teachers, and students differ in their perception of technology integration?

Significance: Investigate why there is a gap between teachers and administrators

Research Questions

Methodology

Mixed Method

QuantitativeSurvey Questions to Students, Teachers, and Administrators

QualitativeInterviews with Students, Teachers, and Administrators

Instruments

Surveys Interview Protocol

Survey Questions

Florida Innovates

Survey

Importance of Technology

Essential

Very Important

Somewhat Important

Not at All

No Basis for Answer

Frequency of UseEvery Day

Several Times per Week

Once per Week

Once per Month

Once per Marking Period

Not at All

Analysis & Results

Differences among groups

Scheffè’s Interval

Coding Interview results

Interview Responses

Lack of consistency in defining technology integration

Teacher ThemesMention of students

Technology should engage students

No mention of thinking skills

Administrator ThemesNo mention of students - focus on teacher actions

Technology should expand what is currently done in the classroom

Interview - Why are there differences?

TeachersTechnology Users get noticed

Administrators are not in classroom enough

AdministratorsTeachers may lack training or knowledge

Frequency of Use

Question: How often do you use / expect the following technologies are used to learn in this class?

Admin Mean (N=4)

Teacher Mean

(N=29)

Student Mean

(N=151)

F Score P Value (alpha = 0.05)

F Critical Difference in

Perception

Drill and Practice 2.75 1.66 1.42 4.8592 0.0088 3.0461 Yes

Creativity Tools 4.00 1.83 1.83 7.2596 0.0009 3.0459 Yes Simulation Tools 3.00 1.03 1.39 12.6232 0.0000 3.0461 Yes Tool Based 4.50 2.45 2.31 4.5799 0.0115 3.0459 Yes

Research Tools 4.50 2.40 2.56 4.4551 0.0129 3.0461 Yes Communication 4.50 1.66 1.56 13.1362 0.0000 3.0467 Yes

Collaboration 4.50 1.76 2.19 7.1159 0.0011 3.0461 Yes

Differences Among Groups

Question: How often do you use /

expect the following

technologies are used to learn in

this class?

F Critical

Difference in

Perception

Scheffé's Interval Admin-Teacher

Difference Between Admin-Teacher

Scheffé's Interval Admin-Student

Difference Between Admin-Student

Scheffé's Interval

Teacher - Student

Difference Between Teacher - Student

Drill and Practice 3.0461 Yes 2.6122 No 2.4812 No 0.9934 No Creativity Tools 3.0459 Yes 3.9816 Yes 3.7896 Yes 1.4960 No

Simulation Tools 3.0461 Yes 3.4860 Yes 3.3182 Yes 1.3106 No

Tool Based 3.0459 Yes 4.0347 Yes 3.8401 Yes 1.5159 No Research Tools 3.0461 Yes 3.6915 Yes 3.5137 Yes 1.3878 No

Communication 3.0467 Yes 5.4008 Yes 5.1309 Yes 2.0563 No

Collaboration 3.0461 Yes 4.8102 Yes 4.5690 Yes 1.8294 No

How Important to Learning is this Technology?

Question: What is the importance of each of the following technologies used to learn in this class?

Admin Mean (N=4)

Teacher Mean

(N=29)

Student Mean

(N=151)

F Score P Value (alpha = 0.05)

F Critical

Difference in Perception

Word Proce ssing 4.00 3.31 2.36 10.211 0.000063 3.046 Yes

Spreadsheets 3.00 2.41 2.01 2.908 0.057116 3.046 No

Creativity Tools 3.75 2.55 1.84 12.681 0.000007 3.046 Yes

Simulations 2.75 1.32 1.47 4.452 0.012976 3.046 Yes

Presentation Tools 4.00 2.89 2.46 5.501 0.004797 3.046 Yes

Research Tools 4.00 3.28 2.56 6.828 0.001388 3.046 Yes

Wikis 2.75 2.07 1.99 1.165 0.314303 3.046 No

Blogs 2.25 1.92 1.64 1.483 0.229701 3.046 No

Web 2.0 3.00 1.96 1.41 9.348 0.000138 3.046 Yes Communication Tools 3.00 2.45 1.68 5.803 0.003611 3.046 Yes

Differences Among Groups

Question: How important do you feel each of the following technologies is to learning in this class?

F Critical

Difference in

Perception

Scheffé's Interval Admin-Teacher

Difference Between Admin-Teacher

Scheffé's Interval Admin-Student

Difference Between Admin-Student

Scheffé's Interval

Teacher - Student

Difference Between Teacher - Student

Word Proce ssing 3.046 Yes 5.6279 Yes 5.4105 Yes 1.8813 No

Spreadsheets 3.046 No - - - - - - Creativity Tools 3.046 Yes 4.6151 Yes 4.3833 Yes 1.7543 No Simulations 3.046 Yes 2.4985 No 2.3681 No 0.9623 No Presentation Tools 3.046 Yes 3.3664 Yes 3.1976 Yes 1.2803 No Research Tools 3.046 Yes 4.1024 Yes 3.8971 Yes 1.5611 No Wikis 3.046 No - - - - - - Blogs 3.047 No - - - - - - Web 2.0 3.046 Yes 3.7557 Yes 3.5596 Yes 1.4465 No Communication Tools

3.046 Yes 3.5006 Yes 3.3251 Yes 1.3314 No

Next Steps

Further defining technology integration

Taxonomy AnalysisTaylor - Tutor, Tool, Tutee (1980)US Dept of Education (Means, et. al, 1993)Moeresch - LoTi (1995)Russell - Stages in Learning New Technology (1995)Bruce & Levin - Taxonomy for the Use of Comptuers (1997)Vessels - Modified Levels of Use (1998)Bailey - Taxonomy of Technology-Fostered Cognitive Objectives (2002)Russell, Bebell et. al. - Categories of Teacher Technology Use (2003)Tomei - Taxonomy for the Technology Domain (2003)

A New Taxonomy

Taxonomy Strengths

Designed from student perspective and aligned to student actions

Pragmatic for teachers and administrators

Aligned to cognitive processes

Associated with constructivist style of teaching and learning

Aligned to Levels of Use

Common Language

Expected Use of Learning Activities

Question How often do you use / expect the following types of activites to take place in this class?

Admin Mean (N=4)

Teacher Mean

(N=29)

Student Mean

(N=151)

F Score P Value (alpha = 0.05)

F Critical Difference in

Perception

Observing 4.00 3.24 3.57 1.0396 0.3557 3.0461 No

Integrating 4.50 2.75 2.73 2.5143 0.0838 3.0461 No

Producing 3.00 2.03 2.10 1.0823 0.3410 3.0461 No

Exploring 2.50 1.86 2.23 1.2788 0.2809 3.0461 No

Collaborating 2.50 2.45 2.29 0.2021 0.8172 3.0461 No

Applying 2.50 1.82 2.22 1.2093 0.3008 3.0461 No

Creating 2.00 1.93 2.02 0.0568 0.9448 3.0461 No

Questions

Email: info@edtechinnovators.com

Website: www.edtechinnovators.com