No Access, No Support, Big Problem

Perhaps the most intuitively obvious need for schools to utilize technology is simply the presence of and access to the technology resources themselves. Some of the key questions identified by the U.S. Department of Education (2002) for assessing technology in schools ask whether the equipment is present, is it available to staff and students, and are personnel available to proved technical support. The state of North Carolina has likewise provided access and infrastructure guidelines for successfully implementing technology in schools through its IMPACT model for media and technology programs adopted through the state’s technology plan (Public Schools of North Carolina, 2007). These include providing technology resources, providing barrier free access to technology resources, and providing support staff to maintain equipment and assist with technical questions. The necessity of these components is further documented in the literature (ISTE, 2002; North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 2000; Milken Exchange, 1998; Benton Foundation, 2003).

Technology Vision and Leadership

Based on years of experience providing technical assistance and professional development, Byrom and Bingham (2001) concluded, “leadership is probably the single most important factor affecting the successful integration of technology into schools” (p. 4). A survey of the literature on school technology integration reveals a number of frequently cited components of effective technology leadership including: developing and communicating a shared vision for technology use, modeling the effective use of technology use by administration, administrative support of changes in policies and practices, providing teacher incentives, and hiring practices that consider technological literacy and leadership as criteria for selection (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; CEO Forum, 1999; Kelly & Thomas, 2002; Milken Exchange, 1998; Byrom, 2007; ISTE, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2002: Frazier & Bailey, 2004).

Webquesting? Then Scaffold and Choose Wisely

On a recent mission to incorporate American Memory and PowerPoint as part of a 4th grade webquest, I though I would browse the literature on the subject. First of all, I was surprised at how few results were returned when entering the keyword “webquest” in the NClive database. If I’m not mistaken, I believe that there were about 72 hits. Just out of curiosity, I tried the ERIC database and only got 74. Considering that the webquest has been around since ’95, there has apparently been very little written in the major media sources on the topic and the academic journals. As a student in a Masters program in Educational Technology, this was even alarming. Typically, instructional delivery models are frequently studied and evaluated, but there has been very little concrete research on this topic. I was, however, fortunate enough to find in the NClive database an article from an excellent source called the Journal of Research on Technology in Education published by the International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE), famed for the NETS standards that are used widely in schools and teacher education programs

The journal article, appropriately enough, was a study of how tasks should be structured in a webquest to provide an appropriate level of scaffolding and how to select web resources to support WebQuest learning experiences. One of the data sources used in this study was PowerPoint presentations created by students during their WebQuest that were scored by rubrics incorporated into the quest. In a preliminary study, researchers found that students who were given more specific procedures for completing their task, in this case a brochure, acquired more “community knowledge”, were more likely to produce a higher quality product, and were less likely to click external links that led to site other than those designated in the WebQuest. Using results form the previous study, the researchers incorporated concept map as a part of the WebQuest in addition to the explicit instruction laid out in the process part of the quest. The researchers found that providing students with a concept map to record information found from websites they visited helped them to better extract, remember, organize and present the information they found. In addition, that students preferred sites that were simple, organized, contained multimedia elements, contained few menus, and were not “too wordy”. Finally the researchers concluded that conceptual scaffolds such as study guide to help students identify the appropriate information and concept maps that helped them organize it supported students “as they were engaged in learner centered, resource-based learning.”

In the literature review, the researches mentioned some finding from prior studies of the unexpected difficulty in implementing a webquest (despite following the structure design laid out by Dodge), specifically in the amount of teacher support that was still required despite their best efforts to design a WebQuest with well laid out guidelines. This and the results of their study suggest that my WebQuest will require a lot of planning, carefully chosen sites, and a lot of scaffolding during the process part of the quest. Apparently, designing and effective webquest in not as easy as it seems.

MacGregor, S. K., & Lou, Y. (2005). Web-Based Learning: How Task Scaffolding and Web Site Design Support Knowledge Aqcuisition. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 37 (2), 161-175.

Web Based Learning

Planning for Technology

An old proverb says that, “A vision without a plan is just a dream, a plan without a vision is just drudgery, but a vision with a plan…” Perhaps having a plan for technology is unlikely to change the world, but it is certainly as important for effectively integrating technology into schools as the support of a strong leader. Without a sound plan, the necessary resources to carry out this plan, and an evaluation of whether or not the plan is working, the vision is merely wishful thinking, despite the initial good intentions. Perhaps this is what the state of Kentucky had in mind when they became the first state in the union to fully fund a comprehensive technology plan, or why in 1994 state legislators in Ohio required every district to develop a technology plan a prerequisite to participation in a statewide technology initiative (Milken Exchange, 1998).

USEiT Study

I've spent the past few day pouring over a series of reports that are part of the Use, Support and Effect of Instructional Technology Study in an effort to determine how technology use is being studied and to gather insight into conducting my own survey of technology use within my district.  I've decided that this particular study will serve as a model for my own because of the similarity in purpose and the method of investigation, specifically for phase one of USEiT study which dealt simply with documenting the classroom uses of technology and support. 

Although the scale of this study and the technical aspects involved in the data analysis are intimidating, what I have been able to understand from the study has helped me to clarify my own research questions, focus the scope of my thesis, and understand how an instrument is designed and implemented. As a result, my own study will still focus primarily on teacher use of technology but will be expanded to include factors related to technology use.

What I have found disappointing in terms of the technical aspect of the study was a failure to mention the specific sources used to determine the factors related to technology use and why those factors are important to examine. 

Notes continued...

What Teachers Are Saying (2006 Survey)

Although I'm naturally skeptical of a study whose findings so neatly coincide with the business objectives of the large company who sponsored the Teachers Talk Tech survey, there is still much in this study that is relevant to my thesis. 

Both the purpose and the goals of this survey, i.e. learning  "how k-12 teachers use computers in their jobs" in order to "help communities make academic choices" are quite similar to my own thesis, so examining which questions were asked and how provided some guidance and understanding into my own project.

Although there is little within the report besides the findings, I found it interesting to note that the majority of questions focused on teacher attitudes and beliefs (which are often linked with use) and teacher skill level or training, as opposed to specific uses by teachers or barriers to use. So, although the actual results were not very informative, knowing that factors such as professional development, teacher's attitudes and beliefs, and their confidence and skill level are being considered when examining technology use is helpful. I would have been curious to understand specifically why the question used were chosen and the literature that guided the report, but I suppose that will have to be left for later lit reviews.

Notes Continued...

Easy to learn, a lifetime to master…

Authoring tools for creating multimedia instructional content have come a long way since the early days of complex scripting and programing languages that required multiple Ph.D's in computer science to create even the simplest of learning objects. Today's powerful software tools such as Web Expressions, Adobe Captivate, Flash, Moodle, iLife and more have helped simplify this complex process, and have made it if not exactly easy, at least within the realm of possibility for even rather ordinary teachers (and let's not forget students) to create engaging and exciting digital content for the purpose of learning.

As toolbars, icons, menus, plugins, import, export, text editors and graphical user interfaces make it increasingly easier for users to work with such powerful tools, the real difficulty that emerges is deciding how the use of such tools will support student learning. Should teachers or student be creating the content? Do these tools support constructivist or "instructivist" learning? Which models fit with which tool and which combination will meet which curricular goals? With the technical barriers to authoring tools rapidly crumbling away, we can begin to focus less on how to use such tools begin to focus on the more important question: why?