Literature Review
Introduction
Instructional technology has become a frequent topic of discussion in the attempts to improve student performance in our schools, but it continues to be utilized infrequently and ineffectively in many classrooms. There are many definitions of instructional technology. Some approach the term as a field of study while others use the term to describe a set of tools. The Association for Educational Communications and Technology Definition and Terminology Committee defines educational technology as “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 1). Larry Cuban (1986) defines the term as “any device available to teachers for use in instructing students in a more efficient and stimulating manner than the sole use of the teacher’s voice”(p. 4). Though the devices classified as instructional technology have changed dramatically since 1986, this definition, in its simplicity, remains relevant today and reflects the definition that is applied in this review of literature.
“Innovative classrooms are abuzz with productive discussion and the excitement of learning. Students are working in teams on challenging projects, asking questions of each other, reviewing each other’s work, and referring each other to new sources of information. . . The teams have access to technology of various kinds, enabling them to access worlds of knowledge beyond the classroom, consult with other experts, assemble their work, and share it with their teachers and classmates. They also know that the audience for their work lies beyond their classrooms, in their families, the community, and visitors to their web site.
Innovative classrooms are not defined by fixed places but by their spirit of curiosity and collaboration among students, teachers, and others in a true learning
community” (Chen, 2002).
When used in this way, technology can be a transformative tool for both teacher and student. As this description illustrates, it allows us to move away from teacher-directed instruction to a more student-centered, constructivist approach (Liu & Szabo, 2009).
Constructivism is a learning theory focused on the learner's creation of knowledge through interactions with the material. It relies upon reflection and the building of understanding through experiences (Bruner, 1966; Piaget, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978). Instructional technology enables the creation of learning opportunities that are student-centered and often student-driven, elements of constructivism. Devices such as computers and tablets, can be used to bring elements of the outside world into the classroom and for the creation of real world experiences from which students can learn. It creates an audience beyond the scope of the classroom teacher and other students which can open the door to new learning opportunities that can motivate and engage students in ways that were not possible before.
Technology continues to become more prevalent and its use plays a more integral role in our participation in modern society. These devices should be utilized in our classrooms to offer students the opportunity to engage fully in these societal norms throughout the learning process. By limiting the use of technology in schools, we are depriving our students the opportunity to learn using the tools that have the ability to bring the outside world into the classroom and bring a new relevance to their learning. In this review of literature, I will explore teacher perceptions toward technology integration and the role that a more personalized approach to professional development can take in preparing teachers to utilize technology in innovative ways in their classrooms
Teachers and Technology Integration
“Technology is at the core of virtually every aspect of our daily lives and work, and we must leverage it to provide engaging and powerful learning experiences and content, as well as resources and assessments that measure student achievement in more complete, authentic, and meaningful ways. Technology-based learning and assessment systems will be pivotal in improving student learning and generating data that can be used to continuously improve the education system at all levels” (National Education Technology Plan, 2010, p. ix).
While professionals in areas such as medicine and law enforcement have integrated technology into their practice in meaningful and transformative ways (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010), today’s teachers use many of the same tools that were used by their predecessors (Cuban, 2001). Despite the advances in technology, its increased availability in schools, and the potential for creating student-centered learning in the classroom, technology usage in classrooms remains disproportionately low. When teachers do utilize technology in their classrooms, it is often to accomplish “low-level” tasks “that support traditional, teacher-directed instruction” (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010, p. 256). In a 2009 report from the National Center for Educational Statistics (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010), the researchers found that while 97% of teachers had computers available in their classrooms, only 40% indicated these were used “often” in daily instruction. Of these respondents, “teachers sometimes or often used the following for instructional or administrative purposes: word processing software (96 percent), spreadsheets and graphing programs (61 percent), software for managing student records (80 percent), software for making presentations (63 percent), and the Internet (94 percent)” (p. 4). Unless things change, we will continue to use technology as a substitute for prior technologies instead of utilizing it to transform the learning process in our schools.
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) found the “literature related to teacher change in general, and technology integration more specifically, has focused extensively on the variables…: knowledge, self-efficacy, pedagogical beliefs, and culture”(p. 267). These factors get to the heart of the matter. If a teacher does not have the technology skills necessary, a measure of confidence in using devices, a belief system compatible with the learning opportunities technology can provide, or the support of their school or district, technology integration may not seem possible or necessary. Regardless of the factors contributing to the underutilization of technology in classrooms, much of the researchers agree that continuing professional development for technology is a key component in a plan to increase usage among teachers (Liu & Szabo, 2009; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon & Byers, 2002; Levin & Wadmany, 2008).
For teachers to feel prepared to integrate technology into their classrooms, they must receive instruction on how to do so. Unfortunately, this is not always available, and when it is, it is not always an effective learning opportunity. In their 1999 report, NCES found that one-third of teachers reported feeling “well” or “very well” prepared to use technology in their classrooms. While teachers indicated that technology continuing professional development (CPD) on basic computer and software skills were available (for approximately 96% of respondents), follow-up to these or advanced training were offered less frequently (less than 60%). This same report found that over a three year period, “most teachers (77%) participated in professional development activities in the use of computers or the Internet that lasted the equivalent of four days or less (i.e., 32 or few hours)” (Smerdon et al., 2000, p. 51). As the amount of technology in our schools increases, one would assume that teacher participation in CPD targeting technology integration would also, however a 2009 NCES report indicated that 64% of the teachers in the sample received less than eight hours of technology training during the previous twelve month period (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010). The development and application of adequate continuing professional development is crucial to empower teachers in their implementation of educational technology.
Professional Development
Historically, teacher’s professional learning activities focused on content material, instructional strategies and learning modifications, but with the increased inclusion of technology in schools, a new emphasis has been placed on technology related continuing professional development (CPD). In a literature review article presenting the framework and main characteristics for CPD models, Kennedy (2005), identifies nine categories:
● training, which emphasizes short duration group instruction by an expert on a narrow topic;
● award-bearing, which emphasizes the completion of a prescribed program of study;
● deficit, cascade, which uses CPD to remedy a perceived deficiency in teacher performance;
● standards-based, which scaffolds professional development using prescribed standards created to improve teacher accountability;
● coaching/mentoring, which emphasizes a one-to-one relationship between individuals to support CPD;
● community of practice, which emphasizes the relationship within a learning community to support CPD:
● action research, which emphasizes the teacher as researcher within the context of their own practice; and
● transformative, which emphasizes a “combination of practices and conditions that support a transformative agenda” (p.246).
● training, which emphasizes short duration group instruction by an expert on a narrow topic;
● award-bearing, which emphasizes the completion of a prescribed program of study;
● deficit, cascade, which uses CPD to remedy a perceived deficiency in teacher performance;
● standards-based, which scaffolds professional development using prescribed standards created to improve teacher accountability;
● coaching/mentoring, which emphasizes a one-to-one relationship between individuals to support CPD;
● community of practice, which emphasizes the relationship within a learning community to support CPD:
● action research, which emphasizes the teacher as researcher within the context of their own practice; and
● transformative, which emphasizes a “combination of practices and conditions that support a transformative agenda” (p.246).
The author finds that the training model, also known as the workshop model, has been, and often still is, the dominant form of CPD offered to teachers. This form involves an expert delivering information, which is determined by the expert, to teachers who participate in the training in a passive role. This training often occurs off-site and rarely lasts more than one day. It does not actively engage teachers in the process, and the structure does not offer opportunities for teachers to participate in meaningful ways that might have a positive impact on teacher confidence or give the necessary practice for the development of technology skills.
Technology CPD has often followed the traditional approach to learning opportunities for teachers by also using the training or workshop model. The use of this model offers limited time for teachers to experiment with the use of the targeted hardware or software. These learning opportunities also offer limited collaboration and sharing with colleagues or follow up with experts once teachers have an opportunity to work with the technology themselves. In their article, Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, and Byers (2002) find “[m]any in-service workshops often take the format of motivational speeches by a forward-looking visionary plus sessions on how to use a piece of software” (p. 511). Teachers need more than an impassioned speaker and the basics of using a technological device to successfully integrate its use into their daily practice. Effective professional learning is intensive, ongoing, focused on the classroom, and occurs during the teacher’s workday (Darling-Hammond, 2009). Research also suggests that CPD models that allow teachers to routinely collaborate and share with their colleagues are more successful in effecting a change in their integration of technology (Levin & Wadmany, 2008; Niederhauser & Wessling, 2011).
Professional Development to Empower
Traditionally, continuing professional development has been developed without consideration of learning theory. For it to be effective, teacher training must reflect that in these instances teachers are learners and instruction needs to be planned accordingly. In a professional development companion guide to the Learning First Alliance report on reading and language arts instructional practices, Reading (2000) explained the need for a change in the approach to CPD:
“Adult learners, like children, need to inquire, reflect, and respond to new ideas if they are to embrace them. Making sense of experience and transforming professional knowledge into daily teaching habits takes time.
For a teacher to learn a new behavior and effectively transfer it to the classroom, several steps are involved:
1. Understanding the theory and rationale for the new content and instruction.
2. Observing a model in action.
3. Practicing the new behavior in a safe context.
4. Trying out the behavior with peer support in the classroom” (p. 8).
Though this study focused on reading and language arts instruction, these same recommendations, and a more constructivist approach to learning, are echoed in much of the current research on technology CPD (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon & Byers, 2002; Levin & Wadmany, 2008; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Liu & Szabo, 2009). Providing technology learning opportunities that are focused on application in the classroom and allows teachers to construct knowledge for themselves is effective in making a sustainable change in teacher attitudes.
Understanding that the prevalent practice in CPD is ineffective in changing teacher perceptions of technology integration, leads to a consideration of models that are found to be more successful in changing teacher attitudes in enduring ways. In an exploratory, longitudinal study of six teachers over three years, Levin and Wadmany (2008) questioned the effectiveness of the “one size fits all” CPD approach to technology integration that is the basis of most training and workshop models. The authors went on to determine “the study calls for technology-based and school based reformers to reach the right balance between working with teachers individually and working with meaningful groups/communities of teacher” (p. 255). In their article, Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) propose a CPD that develops necessary technology skills while addressing the individual needs of teachers by incorporating mentoring or coaching into the process.
A mentoring or coaching approach to CPD allows for a more personalized approach to technology instruction for teachers. This collaborative approach to learning opportunities emphasizes a one-to-one relationship between a coach or mentor and the teacher. The resulting program can become a personalized experience based on the needs and interests of the individual teacher. In an article analyzing and evaluating CPD models, Fraser, Kennedy, Reid, and Mckinney (2007) determined that “opportunities that allow greater ownership and control of the process are likely to attend to more facets of the personal and social aspects of learning and are therefore more likely to result in transformational professional learning for teachers” (p. 165).
Personalized learning has become a much-discussed topic in education. Despite the frequent use of the term in current discourse, there is no universally accepted definition for personalized learning. The U.S. Department of Education, in their 2010 National Education Technology Plan defined personalization as:
“Instruction that is paced to learning needs, tailored to learning preferences, and tailored to specific interests of different learners. In an environment that is fully personalized, the learning objectives and content as well as the method and pace may all vary (so personalization encompasses differentiation and individualization)” (p. 12).
The majority of the research on personalized learning pertains to student learning outcomes through its use. References to professional development in these instances centers on teacher training for the use of personalized learning in their classrooms. When personalized learning is discussed as a model for CPD, it is as a means for teachers to develop their own learning through the use of online resources. In a brief article outlining the benefits of teacher choice in CPD opportunities through the use of online resources, Foote (2013) explains that it is a means for teachers to control everything about their own learning opportunities including content, context, and delivery. An examination of the application of a personalized learning approach to CPD that is developed, focused and maintained through a collaborative one-to-one relationship with a technology coach or mentor is an area that appears to be lacking in the current research.
Conclusion
The research shows that to successfully integrate technology into the classroom, teachers must develop the skills and confidence necessary to regard it as an accessible tool. The current professional development model of “one size fits all” workshops focused on technology in isolation is not conducive to affect a sustainable change on teacher attitudes in this area. For it to be effective, teacher training must reflect that in these instances teachers are learners and instruction needs to be planned accordingly. Research shows that a collaborative method of teacher training and personalized approaches to CPD offer a higher probability of success.