Document Camera and Technology Implementation at the Elementary School Level

A Field Project Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Education

TOURO UNIVERSITY - CALIFORNIA

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in

EDUCATION

With Emphasis in

Educational Technology

By

Megan Gerdts

December, 2010

Document Camera and Technology Implementation at the Elementary School Level

In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the

MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE

In

EDUCATION

BY

Megan Gerdts

TOURO UNIVERSITY – CALIFORNIA

December, 2010

Under the guidance and approval of the committee and approval by all the members, this field project has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.

Approved:

___________________________ ___________________Pamela A. Redmond, Ed.D. Date

__________________________ ___________________Jim O’Connor, Ph.D, Dean Date

TOURO UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIAGraduate School of Education

Author Release

Name: Megan Gerdts

The Touro University California Graduate School of Education has permission to use my MA thesis or field project as an example of acceptable work. This permission includes the right to duplicate the manuscript as well as permits the document to be checked out from the College Library or School website.

In addition, I give Dr. Pamela Redmond permission to share my handbook with others via the Internet.

Signature: __________________________________

Date: ______________________________________

i

Abstract

Our lives have been transformed by new technology and it is no surprise that technology

is quickly making its way into the classroom. Teachers are using document cameras,

computers, LCD projectors, and digital cameras to teach students. With this influx of

technology comes of a lack of professional development and training. Many teachers lack

the skills and desire to effectively use technology in preparing and delivering standards-

based lessons. An elementary school in northern California purchased document cameras

and LCD projectors for all of its teachers. This implementation project provided a

handbook and the staff development required for the staff to successfully use document

cameras in delivering effective, engaging, standards-based lessons.

ii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................ I

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................ IV

LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................. IV

CHAPTER I...........................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................................................2

Background and Need......................................................................................................................................3

Purpose of Project.............................................................................................................................................5

Objectives.........................................................................................................................................................6

Summary...........................................................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER II..........................................................................................................8

Theoretical Rationale......................................................................................................................................11

Technology Integration Factors......................................................................................................................15

Application to New Technologies..................................................................................................................19

Technology Implementation in the Current Study.........................................................................................21

Summary.........................................................................................................................................................22

CHAPTER III.......................................................................................................24

Background.....................................................................................................................................................24

Project Components and Design....................................................................................................................25

Summary.........................................................................................................................................................30

CHAPTER IV.......................................................................................................31

Project Outcomes............................................................................................................................................31

Timeline and Recommendations for Implementation....................................................................................33

Limitations and Further Development............................................................................................................34

iii

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................35

REFERENCES....................................................................................................36

Appendix: Document Camera Handbook............................................................40

iv

List of Tables

Table 1: Knowledge Building Activity Types...................................................................20

List of Figures

Figure 1: TPACK Context Model......................................................................................12

Chapter I

With the 21st century, new technologies emerged for both personal and

educational use. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, adults used to check the mailbox for

correspondence from a high-school friend; they now check their electronic mail on a

cellular telephone. Students used to come home from school and play outdoors in the dirt

with neighborhood friends; they now play video and computer games indoors with their

friends. Teachers used to write on chalkboards and use ditto machines, but are now using

document cameras, projectors, and computers as tools in teaching their students. We now

live in a technology-rich society.

As technology rapidly entered our society, it trickled into schools at a slower

pace. As an elementary teacher at a middle-class, suburban elementary school, the

researcher saw the trickle gain momentum as grant money poured into the school’s

coffers during the past school year. The principal at the elementary school felt that

document cameras and LCD projectors would be the best use of the money. She felt that

these technologies were something that the majority of teachers would use with proper

training and staff development. Research also supported the idea that students learn more

when the concepts are presented using appropriate technology (Taylor, Casto & Walls,

2007).

Pusey, Sadera, and Kenton (2007) found that successful technology integration

included coaching and instruction as well as technical support. As the document cameras

and projectors arrived at the researcher’s northern California elementary school, the staff

was trained in the basics of using document cameras and LCD projectors. This process

was much less difficult than anticipated. The new technology was met with enthusiasm

instead of grumbling. The next step was to do more in-depth training with the staff and

introduce all of the components and functions of the document cameras using model

lessons and activities. This project focused on providing teachers with lesson plan ideas

that properly integrated document cameras into the elementary classroom. The staff

learned, by example, how the Internet could enhance their teaching as well. The goals of

this project were to 1) create a handbook for staff based on researched best practices and

2) offer staff development in order to demonstrate the effective integration of the

technology into the elementary classroom. The principal often told the staff to work

smarter, not harder. Technology, with proper staff development and tools, would help the

teachers reach this goal.

Statement of the Problem

While each teacher had a laptop, LCD projector, and document camera at the

elementary school, there was little instruction in how to effectively integrate the

technology. Up until the time of this project, the only training that the staff received

centered on technicalities such as proper cooling of the lamp and dust mitigation.

Teachers were exposed to the possibilities of the document cameras, but had no formal

instruction on best practices.

Research showed that successful implementation of technology is partially

determined by the staff members’ perceptions of the technology itself, their experience

with computers, and their understanding of the technology coordinator’s job (Mueller,

Wood, Willoughby, Ross & Specht, 2008; Pusey, Sadera & Kenton, 2007). In the target

district, the technology coordinator was the liaison between the school site and the

2

district. The coordinator was also responsible for training staff and providing minor

technical support at the school site.

The goal of this project was to research best practices for implementation, create

and carry out an effective technology implementation plan for document camera use. The

plan included a reference guide as well as trainings that support effective teaching with

technology.

Background and Need

While there are many factors that affect the implementation of teaching practices

involving technology, a few stood out that impacted the staff at the target elementary

school. These factors included teachers’ attitudes toward technology, teachers’

experience with technology, and the perceptions of the technology coordinator’s role in

training and staff development. Baek, Jung, and Kim (2006) stated that the factor in

implementation that had the biggest impact on teachers’ adoption of technology was the

idea that someone in higher authority was requiring it. This implied that many teachers

decide to use technology based on someone telling them that they were required to use it,

rather than truly believing that using technology can be an effective method for

delivering curricula (Baek et al., 2006). This attitude toward technology did not foster

positive outcomes or successful integration. In the two years prior to this study, each

teacher at the target elementary school received a laptop because the district required all

attendance be taken online using a new program purchased by the district. Although

taking attendance online was a very simple process, it was met with a large amount of

resistance from the staff. There was a large amount of data available to teachers using

the online program, but many teachers were resistant to the change.

3

A second factor that affected integration levels was the teachers’ experiences with

computers (Mueller et al., 2008). Mueller et al. (2008) discovered that the most important

factor for determining if an elementary school teacher was going to be a high integrator

of technology was whether he/she had positive experiences with computers in the past.

Although people’s prior experiences with computers could not be changed, it was

important to make technology integration a positive experience from that point forward.

Age also tended to be a factor – older teachers appeared to integrate technology less than

younger teachers (Eteokleous, 2007). However, the number of years of teaching

experience seemed to have little impact on technology integration (Mueller et al., 2008).

Mueller et al. (2008) suggested that perhaps the newer teachers, who had pre-service

training in technology, were busy organizing and managing their classrooms, leaving

little time for technology integration. For whatever reason, there was room for

improvement.

The third factor that worked against the implementation of technology was the

teachers’ misunderstanding of the technology coordinator’s role. Many teachers believed

that the coordinator was available only for technical support and did not use him/her as a

resource for integration of ideas and lessons. This led to a lack of movement toward

integration because teachers were not pursuing new opportunities or methods with the

technology coordinator (Pusey et al., 2007).

While it appears that there are many factors that work against successful

integration of technology, the literature provided some clear avenues to explore. Mueller

et al. (2008) suggested that there was a need to differentiate professional development,

realizing that some people will gain more from it than others. Secondly, teachers needed

4

positive reinforcement to be successful when they practiced using technology. Lastly, as

the hindrances to integration began to crumble, building on the foundation laid should be

started (Mueller et al., 2007).

As we have looked into technology integration, much of the focus has been on the

classroom teacher and what they needed to do. Hew and Brush (2007) suggested that

future research focus on variables at the school site or at the district level since most

policies and technology-related decisions were made at those levels rather than at the

classroom level.

After learning what research-based, effective technology implementation was, it

was clear that the most effective approach was to develop training based on the needs of

each teacher at the target elementary school. Successful teachers differentiated instruction

for the different learning styles and comprehension levels of their students. This approach

was also used in the staff development. A reference guide for those teachers who had

difficulties remembering steps in a process was incorporated into the project as well.

Purpose of Project

As technology becomes an integral part of society and education, staff

development must be included on how to best integrate it into classrooms. Technology

offered so much, yet most teachers were unaware of the great things that could be

accomplished using technology. At the northern California elementary school addressed

in this project, teachers were excited about the possibilities with document cameras and

projectors.

In order to properly train and meet the needs of all teachers, the technology

coordinator, who was also the researcher for this project, implemented and carried out an

5

integration plan. The purpose of this plan was to educate the staff on proper integration

of document cameras as well as to introduce best practices in effectively teaching using

technology. Educational websites were visited and the staff discussed their benefits and

uses in the classroom. Teachers left the training with a reference handbook with specific

activities that could be used to integrate their document camera.

Objectives

In order for staff to learn how to integrate technology properly, they must learn

best practices as they relate to the specific technology being used. This project had two

components 1) create a reference manual for staff and 2) create professional development

in technology use with ongoing workshops to relate to specific topics or needs of the

staff.

It was hoped that the reference manual would be a fast way for teachers to

remember how to set up specific lessons and that it would act as a quick reference since it

listed websites that were useful for elementary teachers.

Long term goals for the project:

Staff will know how to use the technologies available at their site.

Staff will integrate technology into lessons plans as it is appropriate.

Students will be exposed to more technology-enriched lessons and learn

content more efficiently.

Staff will use the technology coordinator as a resource for both integration

questions and technological support.

6

Summary

A northern California elementary school purchased document cameras and

projectors for each of their teachers. With positive perceptions about the technology, the

staff was eager to learn how to use the new technology. Knowing that the staff’s previous

experience and perceptions about technology determined how willing they were to

integrate technology, the researcher approached staff development taking these factors

into account. It was also important that the teachers understand the role of the technology

coordinator. The technology coordinator’s role was important in both solving problems

and helping staff members with areas and concepts that were troublesome. The staff

learned how to properly integrate the technology and benefitted from model lesson plans

that used document cameras. This project helped accomplish the goal of training teachers

in research-based techniques for technology integration and provided a handbook with

lesson plan ideas that integrated document cameras.

7

Chapter II

In 2010, youth have an increasing knowledge of technology that far surpasses

people in older generations. According to the Pew Charitable Trust (2010), this

generation, the Millennials, are more ethnically diverse, less religious, more educated,

and extremely tech savvy. Three-quarters of this generation have created a profile and

interacted on a social-networking website and 20% have posted a video of themselves

online. While the majority of Millennials have cell phones, 88% of them use their

phones daily to text and 62% use wireless connections to access the internet while away

from home. Compared to Generation X, those whom are one generation older, twice as

many Millennials feel that technology is what defines their generation.

While many students use technology with ease, our public education system lags

far behind in effectively educating today’s youth. Prensky (2001) coined the term digital

natives for the students of today who are well versed in the language and processes

surrounding video games, computers, and the internet. Conversely, people who were born

prior to this generation are digital immigrants. Digital immigrants are in a constant state

of learning the language of technology and growing up with little technology impacts the

way that these people operate in a technology-rich world. Digital immigrants have

learned how to use some technologies. The way in which they process and solve

problems is very different from a digital native. For example, if a person needed to get

the phone number of a restaurant and make reservations, the digital immigrant would find

the phone number in a phone book and call to make reservations. In contrast, the digital

native might look on the internet for the phone number and possibly make reservations

online. It is very apparent that the two approaches are not right and wrong, but rather are

8

provocative in how they describe two generations’ approach to a task based on their

experiences with technology (Prensky, 2001).

Similarly, the technology gap between teachers (digital immigrants) and students

(digital natives) affects the efficiency and effectiveness of the lessons delivered in the

classroom. Prensky (2001) examined the digital natives and concluded that they were a

generation that was used to multi-tasking, quick answers, instant gratification, and

worked best when with other people. This begs the question, how do students learn in our

21st century public educational system in which teachers who are digital immigrants

attempt to teach a generation of digital natives. Both speak different languages and have

drastically different methods for learning.

Prensky (2001) suggested that teachers and school districts need to address their

methodology and content. Using the pedagogy, or science of teaching, presented in the

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model, Mishra and Koehler

(2006) addressed the issues of integrating content, pedagogy, and technology. They

advocated that, in addition to teaching reading, writing, and math, educators needed to

address the technology and issues surrounding technology. Educators must teach

students how to use software, hardware, etc. However, they also must include the ethics,

issues, and politics associated with technology. Harper (2003) stated that in order to

address the “digital divide”, school districts and teacher preparation programs must

address the social, cognitive, and communication barriers that exist as well.

In order to begin the process of closing the digital divide, it was imperative that

teachers look at their own teaching, pedagogy, and content knowledge as it relates to

technology. All teachers have experiences with technology that affect how fully they

9

implement it in their classroom. There are external factors that influenced how well

technology was integrated and used in the classroom. These factors included the

availability of technology, support from administration, and training (Baek, Jung, & Kim,

2006).

Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) studies regarding technological, pedagogical, and

content knowledge (TPACK) provided clear findings that proper implementation had

specific characteristics. The teacher must have content, pedagogical, and technological

knowledge. In addition, teachers must also be able to learn and implement areas of

combined knowledge such as content-technological or pedagogical-content knowledge.

Using this model and Harris and Hofer’s (2009) research on activity types, teachers could

create activities using technology that take into account the context of the standards being

taught.

Mayer’s (2003) work with learning had many suggestions for how teachers can

present media to maximize learning. Mayer and Moreno (2003) presented ways to reduce

the cognitive load in multimedia learning. The idea of cognitive load suggested that

people can only take in and process a limited amount of information. People take in

information pictorially (images and text) and verbally (sounds and voices). This

information is then processed by the brain. The brain could process a limited amount of

information at one time. Using their research, it was important for teachers to plan

lessons so that images and text are presented separately. By presenting limited text and

images separately, the brain is not overloaded on the amount of information that it can

process and learning takes place.

10

Harris and Hofer (2009) based their work on the TPACK model. Their research

demonstrated that there were specific technologies and activities that worked best when

presenting concepts in a specific content area.

Theoretical Rationale

In order for educators to begin to bridge the technology gap between themselves

and their students, they first had to acknowledge that technology is advancing in all parts

of our society and that there is a generational divide between students and teachers

(Watson, 2006). Training teachers in technology goes back many years to a time when

teachers took courses in “visual instruction” during the 1920s (Betrus & Molenda, 2002).

As these courses evolved, teacher preparation programs began offering classes on the

history of visual instruction and the psychology of visual learning. As audio recording

became available in the 40s, instructors incorporated it into these visual instruction

courses. Computers began to make their way into classrooms in the 1980s and 1990s.

Students began to use computers in the classroom and teacher preparation programs

began offering more courses in technology (Betrus et al., 2002). As technology evolved,

so have the teacher preparation programs; however, there still exists a large gap between

using technology in the classroom and effectively integrating technology to increase

student engagement and knowledge.

Early in the 21st century, researchers Mishra and Koehler (2006) did

groundbreaking research that paved the way for a model of effective technology

integration. They took Lee Shulman’s (1986) research on pedagogy and content

knowledge and extended it to include technology. Their studies established that teachers

11

must have specific knowledge about technology, pedagogy, and content. Where these

knowledge areas meet was a new area of knowledge that teachers must learn.

Figure 1. TPACK Context ModelSource: http://tpack.org/

Figure 1 demonstrates that where content knowledge and technological knowledge met, a

new kind of knowledge was created called technological content knowledge. An

example of technological content knowledge could consist of combining the content

knowledge of a social studies lesson on the causes of the Revolutionary War and the

technological knowledge of using technology to create an interactive timeline and lesson

about the causes of the Revolutionary War. Teaching only the content required different

knowledge than teaching the content in the context of technology. Although, TPACK

was not a prescription for how educators should be trained to teach, it was a model by

which educators could understand their own knowledge and better prepare themselves for

teaching effectively with technology. In the TPACK model, each knowledge area

12

covered specific topics and concepts that must be understood in isolation before they are

combined.

Content Knowledge. Content knowledge is the information, ideas, hypotheses,

and procedures within a given subject area. It is the knowledge specifically needed to

teach a subject. The content knowledge in a middle school art class is very different from

the content knowledge needed to teach a high school math course. Understanding

content knowledge includes the ability to compare and contrast different subject areas

and determine if they have anything in common (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Pedagogical Knowledge. This kind of knowledge involves an understanding of

how people learn. Someone with deep pedagogical knowledge would thoroughly

understand how people construct knowledge, obtain skills, and create positive habits and

attitudes in their learning. Pedagogical knowledge requires an understanding of theories

and how these theories apply to students in a classroom (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Technological Knowledge. Technological knowledge is knowledge about

technologies including books, magazines, and whiteboards, as well as more advanced

technologies such as digital videos and document cameras. This involves the knowledge

needed to operate the technology as well as use multiple technologies together.

Technological knowledge encompasses familiarity with computer hardware as well as

software programs. Since the technology available is always changing, someone with

technological knowledge must be able to move with the changes and adapt old

knowledge to learn new technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Shulman’s (1986) research on content and pedagogical knowledge is what Mishra

and Koehler used when they started their research on TPACK. Shulman’s idea about

13

pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was important in conveying the concept of a new

knowledge area where two areas met.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). This area of knowledge includes

understanding pedagogy well enough to determine what type of lesson will teach the

content most effectively. It also includes knowledge of students’ backgrounds in the

content area as well as an understanding of what makes concepts easy or difficult to

learn. Using PCK is what makes up the art of teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK). The relationship between

technology and content knowledge is always changing, however this type of knowledge

is demonstrated when a teacher uses a specific technology to teach content. Teachers

must know the content, but also how to use the technology in the context of the

classroom in order for all students to learn. Many software programs change the way that

content is presented such as in a game format or virtual manipulation of shapes in a

geometry lesson. Some of these programs offer students the opportunity to construct

knowledge somewhat passively, while they “play” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). The knowledge of what

technologies exist, how to use them, and understanding that teaching may change as a

result of using specific technologies are all aspects of TPK. In addition, this knowledge

area includes an understanding of pedagogical strategies and the ability to apply those

strategies to different technologies (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK or TPACK). This is

the newest area of knowledge that extends beyond the three knowledge elements.

TPACK is the foundation on which solid teaching with technology occurs. This model of

14

technology integration requires a person to be thoughtful in how they intertwine the three

core knowledge areas. A superb technology integrator is one who has a firm grasp on the

content and pedagogy and is able to select the appropriate technology to deliver an

effective lesson. Successful integration balances these three components. Lessons are

taught in a specific context. It is very important to be aware of the context because it will

change as the content and students change (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

In the following sections, the hindrances and affordances of integration are

explored as well as the application of TPACK in training teachers.

Technology Integration Factors

Taylor, Casto, and Walls (2004) found that students who learned subject matter

with effectively integrated technology, gained more knowledge than students who

learned the same information without technology. In order for technology to be

implemented and used effectively, teachers need training in how to do this. Many

variables determine whether a teacher will fully integrate computers or not. These factors

included: (a) positive teaching experiences with technology; (b) teacher’s comfort with

computers; (c) beliefs supporting the use of computers as an instructional tool; (d)

training and support; (e) motivation; (f) and teaching efficacy (Mueller et al., 2008).

Baek, Jung, and Kim (2008) found that many of the factors that affected implementation

were external and based on others’ requests or perceived need for technology. Their

research also suggested that teachers with more experience were less likely to begin

implementing technology in their classrooms while new teachers were more motivated to

use it willingly.

15

Based on the TPACK model and the findings of Baek et al. (2008) and Taylor et

al. (2004), a conclusion might be drawn that teachers’ willingness to integrate technology

is somewhat based on their training and comfort with technology. Teachers can be

trained well in content and pedagogy, but despite training in technology as a requirement

in teacher credentialing programs, much of the learning is techno-centric or focused

solely on the technology. This training does not include hands-on application of content,

pedagogy, and technology as suggested in TPACK. Preparing teachers to use the

TPACK model must include the application of the three knowledge areas and time to be

successful in using technology. Mueller et al. (2008) found that teachers’ positive

experiences with computer technology were the greatest contributor to successful

integration. They proposed that perhaps these positive experiences boosted teachers’

confidence in using technology. They also indicated that teachers needed to see that

technology had the potential to improve learning before they became willing to use it in

their classroom. This finding demonstrated the importance of professional development

that is teacher-focused and based on pedagogy that is applicable to the content focus.

Teachers need to see how to integrate technology effectively as well as be convinced that

technology works.

Addressing these integration factors in teacher trainings and preparation programs

is important. However, there are many teachers who received little or no technology

training when they were in a teacher licensure program. This lack of prior education

forces school districts to be responsible for training their teachers to be effective

integrators.

16

In order for teachers to integrate technology, there needed to be training standards

and professional development guidelines (Pittman, 1999). Before the Department of

Education (DOE) adopted national standards in 2007, prominent organizations in the

educational technology field began putting forth recommendations for what best practices

and models should be addressed. Mishra and Koehler (2006) stated that teachers needed

to learn not only the basics of software and hardware, but needed a deep understanding of

the technology available. This deep understanding allowed teachers to be flexible and

teachable through the many changes and enhancements that happen over time. In

addition to a deep understanding, Mishra and Koehler found it was important for teachers

to appreciate the interrelationships that exist between the technology, tools, users, and

methods. This was a very fluid and ever-changing interaction. For teachers to be

successful in integrating and using technology, they had to be able to appreciate it and be

willing to learn new things and apply their knowledge to new situations. The DOE

standards that were adopted in 2007 addressed performance indicators for students,

teachers, and administrators. Each set of standards also addressed not only the use of

technology, but also how to be a digital citizen and grow in your knowledge of

technological issues.

Mishra and Koehler (2003) suggested that, during training sessions, teachers work

in groups and learn by solving an educational issue using technology. With this method,

teachers had a lower affective filter because they were working in a group and could

move at their own pace. Since they used technology to solve a problem that the trainer

posed, teachers learned what it was like to be on the student side of learning. In general,

they focused more on solving the problem and less on learning the technology. In other

17

words, technology was being taught implicitly, not explicitly. This model of learning

supported the idea that Young (2003) proposed. Young studied different computer-based

learning environments. The research findings suggested a model in which students

learned from computers not with computers. This meant that students, aided by a

computer, actively constructed knowledge within a specific context. In contrast to

instructor-led learning, the teachers in this class used a broader range of technologies to

solve the problem, hence giving students experience with a larger number of programs

and platforms.

Brown and Warschauer (2006) studied the teacher preparation programs. Their

research found that most programs and field placements fell short. Students reported that

they were too busy with other classes to focus and learn what they needed to for the

technology classes. The same trend was found during student teaching placements.

Student teachers were overwhelmed with class work and found it difficult to integrate

computers, so many chose not to use them. As Mishra and Koehler (2005) found, the

teacher preparation courses focused on mastering hardware and software functions, rather

than tasks that could be used for integrating technology. Brown and Warschauer (2006)

believed that infusing technology into the methods courses would provide a context and a

collaborative learning environment by which teachers would learn technology and

content more effectively. They also believed that teacher-education faculty needed to

model the use of effective technology integration. Once teachers completed the

preparation program, Brown and Warschauer (2006) suggested that teachers be placed

with a technologically proficient mentor. This person would be a role model as well as

be able to provide information and suggestions for successfully integrating technology.

18

Application to New Technologies

Teachers need specific contextual examples of how to integrate technology.

Clemmons & Hayn (2009) focused on the interactive aspect of document cameras and

gave many examples of ways to integrate document cameras into curriculum. Their

research focused on effective integration supported Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) research

demonstrating that context along with technology is a new area of teacher knowledge.

Using the context of a content-specific lesson, Clemmons and Hayn (2009) gave teachers

an opportunity to use technology successfully.

Harris and Hofer’s (2009) extensive work with activity types, specific kinds of

lessons that worked well with certain technologies, demonstrated that lesson design is

paramount in effectively using technology and training teachers to integrate technology.

Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) gave extensive examples of technologies that were

compatible with specific activities. Suppose a teacher wanted students to create a

narrative writing about an event in the past. The technologies that were found to be most

compatible with that activity were word processors and concept mapping software.

Although Harris and Hofer’s research was not a prescribed set of parameters for

integration, they created a very user friendly model.

Table 1 identifies many activity choices for knowledge-based activities within the

context of social studies curriculum. It demonstrates that if a teacher wanted students to

listen to a radio broadcast and learn about a historical event, the compatible technology

may include MP3 files, podcasts, CDs, and radio. Using this table, teachers can

determine quickly what kind of technology would be best for a specific activity.

19

Table 1.

Knowledge Building Activity Types

Source: Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2009, February). Social studies learning activity types. Retrieved from College of William and Mary, School of Education, Learning Activity Types Wiki:http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/SocialStudiesLearningATs-Feb09.pdf

20

Technology Implementation in the Current Study

Based on the research, it became clear that technology implementation was not a

short, easy process. Teachers’ prior knowledge, attitudes, and experiences must be a

consideration when developing an implementation plan.

Mayer (2003) researched design methods across different media and found that

students gained a deep understanding of the content and material regardless of the media

used. This research was important to implementation because it demonstrated that there

were many different types of media available. As long as the instructional design was

sound, students learned the material with significant depth whether it was using text and

illustrations or narration and animation (Mayer, 2003).

Sound instructional design is rooted in the concepts presented in Mayer’s (2003)

cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML). This theory focused on the idea that

multimedia instructional messages designed in light of how the human mind works are

going to be more understandable than ones that are not (Mayer, 2003). His theory of

learning stated that a person has two channels through which information enters the brain

and there is a limit as to how much the brain can process. Mayer found that people learn

more effectively if pictures and printed words are presented separately rather than

simultaneously. There appeared to be a limit to the amount of information a person can

process visually, so it may be beneficial to see pictures and hear narration, rather than see

words and pictures together.

Pairing Mayer’s (2003) CTML with Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) theory

regarding knowledge, one could create an implementation plan that successfully merges

visual and auditory concepts with content, knowledge, and technology. Although Mishra

21

and Koehler didn’t explicitly discuss document cameras, or document readers, as a form

of visual technology, this technology has been used in schools as a visual media along

with auditory components. Visual media such as digital photos, video, and document

cameras are being used in classrooms with little training in effective integration.

Summary

Technology evolves daily and with those changes comes a need for teacher

training. Teachers not only need to know the content and pedagogy behind the standards

that they teach, but also should be able to select appropriate technologies to use. Mishra

and Koehler’s (2006) research on knowledge led to the creation of the technological,

pedagogical, and content knowledge framework for multimedia instruction. Using this

research with Harris and Hofer’s (2009) work on activity types, the researcher created an

implementation plan for using document cameras at an elementary school. Applying the

TPACK and activity type theories to document cameras was a natural step forward since

document cameras contain much of the same technology as computers, digital cameras,

and digital video recorders.

This study proposed to use the research to create an implementation plan for

document cameras based on the findings of Harris and Hofer (2009), Mishra and Koehler

(2006), and Mayer (2003). Document cameras are a digital projector that allows the user

to project an image of an item or document onto a screen. Document cameras are useful

with microscopes, as a digital camera, and as an interactive tool. At the time of this

writing the research on document camera use was very limited. However, studies on

visual media and technology integration were applied easily to the goals of this project.

Using this research, an implementation plan that included Harris and Hofer’s activity

22

types and examples of successful lessons using TPACK was created for an elementary

school that recently purchased document cameras.

23

Chapter III

Technology is here to stay. Many school districts have embraced it and when the

finances are available, teachers use amazing technologies such as LCD projectors,

document cameras, interactive whiteboards, laptops, and much more. With each of these

technologies comes a new skill set requirement for teachers – not only the ability to use

the technology, but also the ability to integrate each technology with pedagogy and

content in the creation of a lesson plan (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In the target school

district of this study, effective integration was essential in order to maximize the learning

potential of the students. Unfortunately, due to the cost of teacher trainings, most

technology was given to teachers with little training in how to use it to engage students

and encourage them to learn. Often times, teachers were left to figure out how to use and

integrate the technology with little support from district staff development trainings.

Background

This project started as a way to fill the implementation and staff development gap

that existed at a suburban elementary school. As the teachers received document cameras

and LCD projectors, there were very few resources available for teachers to learn more

about using the document cameras in the classroom. It became apparent that many

teachers were using the document camera as a glorified overhead projector. Teachers

didn’t know how to use it in ways that were more engaging and student focused. Taylor,

Casto, and Walls (2007) found that students who learned subject matter with effectively

integrated technology, gained more knowledge than students who learned the same

information without technology. In order for technology to be implemented and used

effectively, teachers needed training in how to do this.

24

About the time that the document cameras arrived, the staff at many of the district

elementary schools had attended trainings centered on the subject of student engagement.

In years past, the district had paid for different professionals to train teachers in

engagement strategies. When the district could no longer afford to pay professionals to

train teachers, it fell on the principals to encourage teachers to continue using the

strategies that they had been taught. Some of the principals got together and created a

concise reference of engagement activities to use in the classroom. It offered a name for

each activity, as well as a very brief description of how to carry it out. Many of the

teachers felt that this was a useful tool to pick up and use. It was a tool that most teachers

embraced.

As this project evolved, it was apparent that the teachers needed something

tangible to refer to when planning lessons that involved technology. The handbook that

had been given to them with ideas for engagement strategies was easy-to-use, concise,

and non-threatening. After observing how teachers appreciated and used that handbook,

the researcher decided that the handbook for document cameras had to be similar. It

needed to be something that teachers would find helpful, useful, and encouraging. In the

past, some of the teachers were very hesitant to use technology, so this handbook needed

to be easy to use.

Project Components and Design

The two objectives of this project were to 1) create a handbook that offered

activity suggestions for how to effectively integrate a document camera as well as some

useful internet resources and 2) plan staff development trainings that addressed the use of

the document camera.

25

The research demonstrated the importance of teacher-centered staff development.

All teachers had experiences with technology that affected how fully they implemented it

in their classroom. In addition, there were external factors that influenced how well

technology was integrated and put to use in the classroom. These factors included the

availability of technology, support from administration, and training (Baek, Jung, & Kim,

2008). Using Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) studies regarding technological, pedagogical,

and content knowledge (TPACK), it was clear that proper implementation had specific

characteristics. The teacher had to have content, pedagogical, and technological

knowledge. In addition, teachers had to be able to learn and implement areas of

combined knowledge such as content-technological or pedagogical-content knowledge.

Using the TPACK model and Harris and Hofer’s (2009) research on activity types, the

lesson design needed to be focused on the concept that certain technologies are better

than others in delivering content in a certain context.

After reading the TPACK model, the researcher learned that Mishra and

Koehler’s (2009) lesson planning strategy followed a model with a specific sequence.

Mishra and Koehler suggested that teachers first choose the technology that they desire to

use. After that was determined, then the teacher decided what content should be taught.

This seemed appropriate for this project, since this project was focused on document

cameras and appropriate implementation of that specific technology.

The design of the handbook using TPACK as a basis for planning lessons,

however, the work of Judi Harris and Mark Hofer (2009) was very concise and based on

the TPACK model. As their activity-types were reviewed, they appeared to be a very

important concept that should be included in the handbook. Harris and Hofer’s table of

26

activity types was concise and seemed to be most appropriate for the purpose of this

project.

At this point in the handbook preparation, the researcher was certain that the

handbook would be created quickly. The outline for the handbook included the TPACK

model and the activity-type tables created by Harris and Hofer. The tables were to be

modified to include information specific to document cameras. The research all pointed

in one direction – until the discovery of Harris and Hofer’s (2009) approach to lesson

planning. Their research and planning model was set up so that the teacher first chooses

the content that he/she wants to teach, and then chooses the technology that would best

deliver the content within the parameters of solid pedagogy. This planning approach,

though it was the opposite of Mishra and Koehler’s (2009), seemed plausible because a

teacher had to know what subject area he/she was going to teach before beginning to

plan.

The dichotomy between Harris and Hofer (2006) and Mishra and Koehler’s

(2009) planning approaches caused the handbook creation to come to a halt. The

teachers at this suburban elementary school knew nothing of Mishra and Koehler or

Harris and Hofer – yet the researcher felt tremendous responsibility to represent each of

the planning approaches accurately and, ultimately, present the best method for planning.

After more reading and discussion with colleagues and advisors, the researcher

determined that perhaps both sets of researchers could be correct in their planning

methods. At some point, teachers had to plan in the way that is most comfortable for

them and made the most sense for the content being taught. Some teachers would always

plan lessons like Mishra and Koehler suggested, using the document camera, and then

27

selecting the content. Other teachers were more comfortable first selecting the content,

then the technology that worked best with whichever standards were chosen as Harris and

Hofer suggested.

This project was designed to take advantage of both approaches and not to be a

proponent of one or the other. It was determined that Harris and Hofer’s (2009) tables

would be ideal for the handbook. The tables had excellent activities that included the use

of document cameras. The outline that was created for the document camera handbook

included modifying the tables to fit the purpose of this project. Out of respect for Harris

and Hofer and their work, the researcher wanted to gain permission from them to use

their tables. Their Creative Commons Licensing does not allow for anything to be

derived from, added to, or taken away from Harris and Hofer’s work. Some of the

wording in the license was unclear, but after Harris clarified that portion, the tables

couldn’t be used in this project without modifying them. While they were a useful

resource, the licensing agreement prohibited anything to be derived from the material.

Permission was obtained to put the tables in the Appendix as they were published with

credit being given to Harris and Hofer for their work.

The target school district had recently published an engagement strategies booklet

that had easy to reference tables of activities. It seemed that a similar table would be

helpful. The formatting of the table for this project was difficult. The researcher wanted

the table to be relevant, research based, and easy to use – yet needed to follow the terms

of Creative Commons Licensing. With input from colleagues, four categories of

activities were selected: direction instruction, assessment, inquiry, and problem based

activities. While there was overlap in some of the areas, teachers were able to get solid

28

ideas in how to use their document cameras. Harris and Hofer (2009) suggested that

activities and the technologies used would differ depending on the content. For this

project, the researcher chose to create activities for the science content area.

Planning staff development was an important part of this project. Staff

development was an essential element in teachers integrating technology effectively.

Based on the TPACK model and the findings of Baek, Jung & Kim (2008) and Taylor,

Casto &Walls (2007), a conclusion was drawn that teachers’ willingness to integrate

technology was somewhat based on their training and comfort with technology. It

appeared that teachers are trained well in content and pedagogy. Preparing teachers using

the TPACK model included both the application of the three knowledge areas and time to

be successful in using technology. Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross & Specht (2008)

found that teachers’ positive experiences with computer technology were the greatest

contributor to integration. They proposed that perhaps these positive experiences boosted

teachers’ confidence in using technology. Using these models, the trainings were to be

activity-based and specific to a particular content area. By modeling how to use the

document camera and specific web-sites, teachers would have to opportunity to see that

using document cameras was easy and effective.

Due to the timing in the school year in which this project was completed, the

training portion of this project could not be developed or implemented. During each

upcoming staff development session, the researcher will model three or more of the

activities presented in the handbook. There will also be time for teachers to ask questions

and get trouble-shooting help as needed. The researcher plans to utilize the websites that

appeared in the handbook as well. Many of these websites offered teaching strategies

29

and ideas for using technology. This process will span the course of a few months to

maintain a low-affective filter and the enthusiasm that teachers currently have for

document cameras.

Summary

Using the design principles set forth by Harris and Hofer (2009), and Mishra and

Koehler (2006), this project created a handbook that allowed teachers easy access to

content-based activities using a document camera. The receipt of technology was

exciting for the staff, however, the teachers needed guidance in how to use it. This

project planned staff development and offered suggestions in how to successfully

integrate document cameras. The focus on this project was the creation of a handbook to

aid teachers in using document cameras. With an easy-to-use, concise manual, teachers

were able to reference activities based on student learning objectives.

30

Chapter IV

Document camera technology transformed the way that students learned and

teachers presented lessons. When document cameras arrived at the northern California

elementary school in this study, there was an immediate need for staff development in

proper implementation of the technology. Unfortunately, each document camera came

with merely an instruction manual for basic functions, but nothing was included that

would give teachers support in how to implement the technology effectively.

Prior to receiving the document cameras, the staff received training on

engagement strategies accompanied by a booklet with useful engagement strategies set in

a concise and easy-to-use format. After observing the enthusiasm over the engagement

strategies booklet, this project was conceived to create a research-based handbook with

activity and lesson plan suggestions for using a document camera as a useful resource for

the teachers. That handbook became the starting point for this implementation project.

The overall goal of this project was to create resources to support teachers to develop

their own lessons that implement the use of document cameras to support student

learning.

Project Outcomes

Two objectives were set to meet the goal of this project 1) create a handbook that

offered activity suggestions for how to effectively integrate a document camera as well as

useful internet resources and 2) plan staff development involving the document camera

and useful websites.

The handbook portion of this project required both research and format decisions.

Teachers needed materials that were concise and easy to use. The aforementioned

31

engagement strategies handbook was well received and provided a simple table of

strategies with the name of each and a short description of how to carry it out. This

became the model for the product (see Appendix) in this study. It was hoped that this

handbook would be received with the same level of enthusiasm by the teachers. In 2009,

Harris and Hofer’s research on lesson planning and activity types provided much needed

insight into a way to manage and organize the many activities in which technology can be

integrated. Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) gave extensive examples of technologies

that were compatible with specific activities. Suppose a teacher wanted students to create

a narrative writing about a past event. The technologies that Harris and Hofer found to

be most compatible with that activity were word processors and concept mapping

software. Although Harris and Hofer’s research does not prescribe a set of parameters

for integration, they created a very user-friendly model.

The staff at the target elementary school had basic knowledge of how a document

camera functions. However, there was knowledge required beyond simply knowing how

the technology worked. A teacher had to know how to successfully integrate technology

to maximize the effectiveness of the lessons presented. In 2006, Mishra and Koehler’s

research on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) gave a model that

asked teachers to use their knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technology when

designing student learning opportunities. This model of technology integration required a

teacher to be thoughtful in how they intertwined the three core knowledge areas. A

superb technology integrator was one who had a firm grasp on the content and pedagogy

and was able to select the appropriate technology to foster student learning. Successful

32

integration balanced the three components of technology, content, and pedagogy (Mishra

& Koehler, 2006).

Similarly, staff development must be centered on the three knowledge areas

(pedagogy, content, and technology) and acknowledge the needs and experiences of the

teachers being trained. All teachers have had experiences that impact their willingness

and ability to integrate technology. These factors included:

a) positive teaching experiences with technology

b) teacher’s comfort with computers

c) beliefs supporting the use of computers as an instructional tool

d) training and support

e) motivation

f) teaching efficacy (Mueller et al., 2008).

The researcher planned to focus on two to three of the activities listed in the

Appendix during each staff development session.

Timeline and Recommendations for Implementation

This project was created and planned to be executed over an entire school year.

The intended timeline was to have teachers receive the handbook and simple instructions

at the beginning of the school year. In the 2011-2012 school year, this project will be

field tested at the target elementary school. During successive staff development

meetings, the researcher will present two to three lessons and activities from the

handbook. By modeling the activities, teachers will have the opportunity to ask questions

and collaborate with colleagues prior to actually trying the activities in their own

classroom.

33

The handbook contains specific activities that were developed on the TPACK

framework. When implementing staff development, the trainer must first consider the

audience, their experiences, and their technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge.

Keeping in mind the research by Mueller et al. (2008), we know that teacher’s technology

integration depends on the following factors: (a) positive teaching experiences with

technology; (b) teacher’s comfort with computers; (c) beliefs supporting the use of

computers as an instructional tool; (d) training and support; (e) motivation; (f) and

teaching efficacy. Using what is known about the teachers at the target elementary

school, the researcher will focus training on the needs of the teachers in an environment

that is supportive, encouraging, and relaxed. Some teachers are very comfortable with

technology and will be able to take the handbook and use it without any problems. Other

teachers will need more one on one training with modeling of specific actions and

activities.

Limitations and Further Development

One unavoidable limitation of this project was presented by the timing of the

school year in which the project was developed. The fall trimester did not allow for the

staff development time to be set aside in order for the handbook to be disseminated and

professional development implemented. Due to the timing in the school year when this

project was developed, the researcher has yet to carry out the staff development portion

of this project. The staff development portion of the project is paramount to the success

of implementation.

Ultimately, when teachers are comfortable with the idea, it would benefit staff to

have an interactive website where teachers can post their lesson ideas as well as feedback

34

on lessons that have already been taught. This forum would be a useful way for everyone

to grow professionally and provide a place for educators to share lesson plans, express

their frustrations, and share successes.

Conclusion

This project grew out of a desire for the researcher’s colleagues to be excited and

willing to jump into technology despite their hesitancy with the proverbial “unknown”.

Throughout the course of this project, the researcher learned how to approach staff

development and how to be effective in teaching the staff. The handbook required more

research than what was originally expected, but the outcome provided solid lesson plan

ideas that were research-based. The researcher looks forward to introducing the staff to

the work of Harris and Hofer (2009) as well as the research done by Mishra and Koehler

(2006).

35

References

Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the

classroom? Exploring the factors affecting the facilitation of technology with a

Korean sample. Computers and Education, 50(1), 224-234.

Betrus, A., & Molenda, M. (2002). Historical evolution of instructional technology in

teacher education programs. TechTrends, 46(5), 18-33.

Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom:

Students’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of

Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599-621.

Clemmons, K. & Hayn, J. (2009). Why we can’t live without our document cameras:

Effective classroom strategies to integrate technology and interactive instruction.

In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &

Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 2492-2496). Chesapeake,

VA: AACE.

Eteokleous, N. (2008). Evaluating computer technology integration in a centralized

school system. Computers and Education, 51(2), 669-686.

Harper, V. (2003). The digital divide (DD): A reconceptualization for educators. AACE

Journal, 11(1), 96-103. Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for

curriculum-based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research

highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake,

VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE).

36

Harris, J., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content

knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration

reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Hew, K., Brush, T. (2006). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning:

current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education

Technology Research Development, 55(3), 223-252.

Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional

design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.

doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6

Mayer, R., Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia

learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

Mayer, R. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. (2003). Not “what” but “how”: Becoming design-wise about

educational technology. In Zhao, Y. (Ed.), What should teachers know about

technology: Perspectives and practices (pp. 99-122). Charlotte, NC: Information

Age Publishing.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of

Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-102.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

37

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK

framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning and

Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18.

Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., Specht, J. (2008). Indentifying

discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and

teachers with limited integration. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1523-1537.

Pew Charitable Trust. (2010). Millenials: Confident. Connected. Open to change

(Kohut, A., Taylor, P., Keeter, S., Parker, K., Morin, R., Cohn, D., Lopez, M.,

Smith, G., Fry, R., Wang, W., Christian, L., Pond, A., Clement, S., Eds.).

Retrieved from http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/millennials-confident-

connected-open-to-change.pdf

Pittman, J. (1999). The need for training standards in new technologies for inservice

teachers. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information

Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 578-584).

Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Pusey, P., Sadera, W. & Kenton, J. (2007). The Technology Coordinator: An Analysis of

the Interactions and Perceptions that Influence Effectiveness. In R. Carlsen et al.

(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference 2007 (pp. 1660-1663). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Schulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

38

Taylor, L., Casto, D., Walls, R. (2007). Learning with versus without technology in

elementary and secondary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 798-

811.

Watson, G. (2006). Technology Professional Development: Long-Term Effects on

Teacher Self-Efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 151-

166. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Young, L. (2003). Bridging theory and practice: Developing guidelines to facilitate the

design of computer-based learning environments. Canadian Journal of Learning

and Technology, 29(3). Retrieved from

http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/viewArticle/90/84

39

Appendix: Document Camera Handbook

40