Foulger_FoulgerWilliamsWetzelNECC08.pdf

Foulger_presNECC08_Final.pdf

Available at http://web.mac.com/teresa.foulger/iWeb/Innovations/Home.html

With the opinion that K-12 teachers who collaborate with other technology-using teachers have more potential to use technology to address student learning, the instructors sought to understand how they could support the development of preservice teachers’ collaboration skills through a classroom assignment that relied on peer collaboration. Specifically, four research questions related to collaboration’s role were investigated:
1. What role did collaboration play by students learning innovative technology?
2. What can instructors do to support the development of collaboration skills in preservice teachers?
3. What other factors supported or inhibited students’ collaboration development?
4. What is the student perception of the impact of collaborative strategies on future use of innovations in the classroom?

With the CoP framework in mind, the long-standing historical beliefs central to directed instruction were cast aside for this particular assignment, and replaced with a new paradigm for learning technology—Instructors were guided by the belief that when motivated by technology’s ability to impact their future 21st Century classrooms, preservice teachers who already had basic technology skills could use a combination of free exploration and collaboration to become fluent in a new technology, to the point where they could be deemed as experts by their peers.

The study sought to investigate the process, perceptions, and outcomes of students after their experience with the Innovations Mini-Teach project. Specifically researchers wanted to understand the role of social influences and collaboration as students worked to become experts, document their knowledge, and showcase to peers their assigned innovative technology and its application to 21st Century classrooms. Through this focus instructor researchers were able to gain a richer understanding of the impact of the new assignment and devise any modifications that would support the intended long-term goals meant to develop students’ technology capacity as future teachers.

Data Sources and Analysis

Focus group methodology (Krueger, 1998) was used to gather resulting student perceptions. Other sources of data included an analysis of the students’ innovation projects and a survey of student attitudes administered after the innovation project. The three data sources were triangulated as the review of student innovation projects and an end-of-semester survey served to confirm the trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of the focus group data. (The complete set of focus group questions, end-of-course questionnaire, and wiki examples can be viewed at http://xxxxxx).

To assure focus group subjects represented differing viewpoints, students in six of the sections of the required educational technology course (n=126) taught by three separate instructors were surveyed to gain their general perception of the Technology Innovation Mini-Teach project. The survey asked students in the six participating sections the extent to which they agreed with the statement: This assignment should remain in the syllabus for next year. 30% of the students strongly agreed, 45% agreed, 15% disagreed and 5% strongly disagreed. Students were also asked if they would be willing to participate in a focus group to help their instructors improve the project for future semesters. 75% of the students surveyed were available and agreed to be in the pool of students for a focus group to take place outside of class time. Using the student perception survey results, a faculty member not associated with the study applied a strategy for purposeful sampling known as maximum variation sampling (Patton, 2001) to select student participants and form focus groups that would represent heterogeneity. The resulting four focus groups were comprised of students equally represented each of the six courses. The faculty member attempted to create groups that represented the mix of student points of view about the usefulness of the project, but due to the fact that very few students strongly disagreed or disagreed with the usefulness of the assignment, compounded by schedules that did not coincide with focus group times, the percentage of students who were adverse about the project were underrepresented in the focus groups.

Four focus groups were set up at different times to accommodate class schedules. Each focus group had 4-8 students (total of 24 students across four sections) and was led by a faculty member familiar with the assignment, but not necessarily the students’ instructor of record. Two focus groups were comprised of primarily elementary education, one of secondary education, and one of early childhood majors.

The focus groups were conducted based on methods described by Krueger (1998), serving as one source of data for the study. Digital audio files of focus group discussions each lasting approximately 60 minutes were recorded and converted to text. As recommended by Krueger (1998), the group leaders posed an initial question to allow each participant to become acquainted with the topic, recollect their thoughts, and listen to their colleagues. Participants were asked to introduce themselves to the others and to explain their Technology Innovations Mini-Teach experience. This was followed by a set of questions that each preservice teacher addressed. Examples of focus group questions posed for all of the participants included: a) What is your impression of the Technology Innovations Mini-Teach activity? b) What are the important elements? c) How did you learn to use the innovation? d) Is this type of project worthwhile during the first semester in your teacher preparation program? e) Did you face any obstacles in preparing your project and presentation? f) Are there elements that could be reduced or eliminated? g) What suggestions do you have? Additional follow-up questions occurred naturally to clarify answers and build on the responses.

After the focus group audio files were transcribed, instructor researchers analyzed student responses using HyperRESEARCH Qualitative Analysis Tool v. 2.8 (Researchware, 2007). This process began by reading and rereading transcriptions of the interviews. Guided by the research questions the three faculty researchers worked together to collaboratively code one of the interviews. During that process a set of common codes was established. Next, each researcher individually coded the remaining transcribed focus group sessions. To maximize inter-rater reliability, meetings were held after each session was coded in which researchers came to agreement on how each individual unit of thought would be coded. As the analysis progressed, codes were revised as needed to reflect the data. Eventually 28 unique codes were generated, a subset of which was employed for this component of the study focused on collaborative influences to learning new technologies.

The end-of-semester questionnaire distributed to all preservice teachers in each section of the Technology Integration course provided additional feedback regarding individual experiences during the course. This was accomplished electronically using a web-based questionnaire tool (SurveyMonkey.com, 2007). Thirty-five Likert Scale questions were used to collect general feedback regarding course assignments and activities, including six open-ended questions targeting the Technology Innovations Mini-Teach project: a) What did you like most about the Technology Innovations Mini-Teach assignment? b) What did you like least about the Technology Innovations Mini-Teach assignment? c) Do you plan to use any of the technologies presented during the Technology Innovations Mini-Teach project? d) Which technologies will you use? e) Briefly, how do you plan to use them in your classroom?

Finally, each group’s wiki was examined to determine the information and resources provided by the innovation groups as well as any areas emphasized or lacking. Required elements included a description of the innovation, resources to learn to use the innovation, teacher uses/resources, and K-12 classroom uses/resources.

Outline

This study demonstrates how preservice teachers who posses the mindset to “take on” new technologies as presented in Technology Innovations Mini-Teach project use and develop their collaborative skills in ways that help develop their expertise in technology. As available knowledge is growing exponentially, and teaching practices are becoming more diverse, it is increasingly difficult to define “expertise” among teachers based on years of experience in the field. Instead, if expertise is viewed as specific to a particular situation, it is no longer a label applied to the person, but applied to the individual within the context of a particular experience. With this viewpoint, as students who have participated in the Technology Innovations Mini-Teach project become teachers, they may be deemed as “experts” on campuses where technology is concerned. And if they have the ability to fruitfully collaborate with other teachers to share their understandings of technology tools and their application to learning, they could rightfully become teacher leaders with respect to technology integration.

In preservice preparation, instructors of educational technology are obligated to continually modify technology integration course content to address the advances in technology itself, as well as account for the changes the types and amounts of available technology tools in K-12 school environments. The reality of these (sometimes opposing) forces place pressures on instructors to create curriculum which ideally: (1) accommodates the current skillset of preservice teachers who, at varying levels are underexposed to technology tools and uses, while assuring minimal competencies (Albee, 2003); (2) prepares preservice teachers to use the technology they will likely find in their future classrooms--some of which is unknown and not currently in the field; and (3) instills a driving desire in preservice students to stay updated with respect to technology, and its potential use in their future classrooms (Author, under review).

Three instructor researchers of educational technology in a teacher education college at a large university were faced with this dilemma—compounded by the fact that they only had one course through which to impact students’ use of technology in their future classrooms. When analyzing their current practices and seeking refinements, the instructors felt a more thorough approach may be to add another dimension to their curriculum. They felt a more dynamic approach was needed to truly prepare graduating teachers to be technology advocates who would find ways to address the needs of their future 21st Century students. The shift in course content would require students to be creative, responsive to of new technologies, and have a futuristic attitude not inhibited by the existing status of technology in education. This mindset has not been prevalent in the common preservice teacher graduate. They hoped the Innovations Mini-Teach Project would promote support these goals.

Supporting Research

Albee, J. J. (2003). A study of preservice elementary teachers’ technology skill preparedness and examples of how it can be increased. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 11(1), 53-71.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Retrieved April 11, 2003, from http://www.exploratorium.edu/
IFI/resources/museumeducation/situated.html
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2001). Doing action research in your own organization. London: Sage.
Cousin, G., & Deepwell, F. (2005). Designs for network learning: A communities of practice perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (1), 55-64.
Krueger, R. A. (1998). Analyzing and reporting focus group results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kuhn, T. (2002). Negotiating boundaries between scholars and practitioners: Knowledge, networks, and communities of practice. Management Communication Quarterly, 16 (8), 106-112.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Researchware. (2007). HyperRESEARCH. Randolph, MA: Researchware.
Sherer, P.D., Shea, T.P. and Kristensen, E. (Spring, 2003). Online communities of practice: A catalyst for faculty development. The Journal of Innovative Higher Education, 27 (3), 183-194.
Sumsion, J. & Patterson, C. (2004). The emergency of a community in a preservice teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 621–635.
SurveyMonkey.com (2007). SurveyMonkey. Software available October 3, 2007, from http://surveymonkey.com
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Presenter Background

Innovations Mini-Teach Project
The goal of the Innovations Mini-Teach project was to acquaint students with new and evolving technologies, and to help them better understand how technology can be integrated to improve student learning. Success would be very dependent upon many facets of collaboration as they work in small groups (2-3 students) toward project outcomes:
• To learn one innovative technology and its possible classroom application(s)
• To practice designing and delivering instruction (of their innovative technology)
• To collect usable resources for future class assignments and possible use as a teacher
• To learn from peers about other innovative technologies and their possible classroom applications
The culminating knowledge gained from each group was archived in a class wiki, which was made available for use after the semester’s end.

The project was worth 10% of students’ course grade and was based on a final modeling or hands-on experience for classmates (15-20 minutes) during an assigned class session.

Theoretical Framework
When individuals coalesce around a common problem, they form a Community of Practice (CoP) where group learning is situated in experiences, and where active participants become leaders and researchers as they seek to collaboratively analyze and refine their work (Sumsion & Patterson, 2004). Within a CoP, participants “embed learning in activity and make deliberate use of social and physical context” (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). These social systems become breeding grounds for learning, creating identity, sharing ideas, and exploring new ideas that are meaningful to participants (Wenger, 1998). Mutual engagement creates a self-organizing drive (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002).

A growing CoP develops ways of connecting with influential individuals beyond their community boundaries (Sherer, Shea, and Kristensen, 2003), including members of other influential CoPs. Through these social connections transfer of knowledge to one or more CoP members can occur (Brown & Duguid, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). In some cases, CoP members may elect to take on a more active role in the transfer of knowledge by becoming “boundary brokers” who intentionally expedite the transfer of knowledge (Sherer, Shea & Kristensen, 2003; Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). In this way, boundary brokers seamlessly expand access to resources within relevant communities, especially in situations where membership in multiple communities is valued (Kuhn, 2002). This constructivist stance to professional development can be more sustaining and natural because the needs of individuals and groups are met through investigations of meaningful problems or situations related to their profession (Cousin & Deepwell, 2005; author, 2005). CoPs who purposefully create investigations in order to improve some aspect of their practice learn a great deal from the inquiry process (Coghlan and Brannick, 2001).