Literature Review

Designing Professional Development to Enhance Technology Integration in the K-12 Science Classroom

Literature Review
October 24, 2008
Authorship: Juliana M. Liebke
Contact Email:  julianaliebke@gmail.com

Introduction
Technology integration in the K-12 science classroom is the way of the future.  Teacher professional development (PD) must, then, be revised in order to assist technophobic teachers to change their attitudes and beliefs about technology integration in the classroom, which could result in a positive change of effective teacher practice.  Evidence (Koehler, 2007) demonstrates that technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) is more effective if it is specific to a teacher’s content and is presented in a learner-centered approach, which addresses several key design factors (KDF) that have been carefully researched.  The following is a review of effective KDF used during professional development that has resulted in successful implementation of TPCK in science classrooms.  In addition to TPCK, this review will also address the use of real-world simulation learning environments (ELE) as a way to create learner-centered problem-based learning in science classrooms.

Context for the research study
Technology is changing the social and educational context of classrooms.  While using technology is strongly encouraged, it will only be effective when it is used in context with a teacher’s content.  In addition, it must be taught well by classroom teachers, along with content, or it becomes a waste of time.  In accordance with Vygotsky’s theory, Zone of Proximal Development (1978), technology instruction must not be too easy, or the learner will be bored, yet not be too difficult or a learner will be frustrated.  Finally, a learner must be able to create an original “artifact” that demonstrates a student understands a problem, has found a solution(s), and has come away from the project with an increase in learning content (Ferdig, 2006).  An original artifact also allows for ample reflection.

According to Ferdig, experts, who are not necessarily classroom teachers, should give technology instruction to teachers.  Teachers need to be the innovators in the classroom because they are the ones who have a rapport with the students.  Yet, the argument raised by Wells (2007) indicates that technology instruction should be given to teachers within the context of their content.  While both researchers have good points, it seems that Ferdig is correct if a teacher has an attitude that supports technology integration but Wells sheds a light on overcoming the barriers for teachers who have a phobia against technology integration.

Ferdig has a theory that “learning is improvisational” and changes according to circumstances.  Because of this, teaching then requires constant learning, flexibility, and instant decision-making.  He states that technology instruction should be out of context so that teachers can create their own reasons for using a certain technology in their classroom.  This is great for teachers who are avid users of technology, but if a teacher has not developed an attitude that is open to technology integration, then a different, more structured approach, such as that suggested by Wells, needs to be integrated in professional development. Ferdig concludes, “A good innovation involves pedagogy, people, and performance,” (page 756). To see how this works, a look to Wells’ study on professional development for technology integration is necessary.

The Study—Professional  Development/Learning
For teachers who have not developed an attitude that supports technology integration, one needs to examine Wells’ approach.  A new concept in professional development training approaches evolved from John Wells’ study of the Trek 21 project (Wells 2007).  The Trek 21 project developed as a result of a study called “Educating Teachers as Agents of Technological Change.”  The Trek 21 model uses a learner-centered approach along with the data collected by Griffin in a 1983 study that isolated ten key design factors (KDF) for professional development.  The goal of Griffin’s study was to affect positive changes in the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of teachers in order to change teaching practice towards instructional technology integration (Wells 2007).

The ten KDFs used by the Trek 21 project were:

1. Evaluation Driven PD that assesses individual progress in both the short and long term.
2. Contextual PD where individual learning is relevant to that teacher’s field.
3. Learner centered, which means PD focuses on the learner’s needs and interests.
4. Duration of process as a continuum of the professional development plan.
5. Engagement of the learner during the PD process.
6. Inquiry based so that teachers can develop an instructional technological integration lesson that will be immediately implemented.
7. Theory/research based where the pedagogy is relevant for each teacher.
8. Collaborative work where teachers will design lessons with other teachers in the same or similar content areas.
9. Support is continuous, especially with technical assistance.
10. Sustainability is achieved which will ensure long-term change in teaching practice (Wells 2007).

Trek 21 is used as an example of the implementation of the ten KDF because it was a successful project due to the fact that it affected long term change in teaching practice.  Trek 21 was a PD that had four main stages over the course of three years.  In the first phase, the “Pre-participation phase,” data was collected.  This data dealt primarily with surveying the teachers as to which lessons they would be interested in developing in cohesion with instructional technology (IT) integration.  The next phase, “Summer Institute,” was a three-week summer institute that gave teachers technical training, lesson creation time, daily evaluations, and assistance by instructional leaders who had been in the program for a year or more.  The third phase, or “Implementation phase,” took place during the school year following the Summer Institute.  Teachers were to implement the lessons developed over the summer and evaluators met with teachers throughout the school year to ensure the use of the lessons, revise accordingly, and assist with technical skills.  The final phase, “Post-implementation phase,” was the follow-up in the spring which included a debrief session and final revisions.  During this phase, a survey was issued to Trek 21 teachers to determine the alignment of KDF in the professional development (Wells 2007).

After conducting a series of both quantitative and qualitative surveys, the five key design factors that were found to have contributed most to the success of Trek 21 were the duration of the process, that it was learner centered, engaging, and involved adequate collaboration and support.  Surveys showed teachers needed a lengthy time span and a large amount of contact hours to get over their barriers to new technology and reach a comfort level with it.  The PD needed to focus on the learner’s content and not be too broad based.  Teachers needed to collaborate with instructional leaders, each other, and Trek 21 staff in order to increase and solidify their content knowledge and confidence.  Finally, teachers needed to know that there was plenty of support for both the pedagogy and technical aspects of the technology integration.  Trek 21 showed that if teachers are given proper time and support to learn a new technology, develop a unit/lesson for implementation, and get assistance during implementation, then they can change their attitudes and beliefs about technology integration which results in a positive change in teacher practice (Wells 2007).  The study, Trek 21, directly implemented technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK).

TPCK (technological pedagogical content knowledge)
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) refers to teachers integrating technology with pedagogy (teaching methods) and content.  For instance, video production in a science class would require the teacher to have knowledge of the film/video production technological tools, knowledge of the science related topic, and an understanding of how to teach students both the technical tools and the content knowledge necessary for making the video.  See figure 1 below for an image of this interrelationship.

Figure 1

(Koelher, 2007 page 742)

According to Mishra & Koelher (2007), teaching practices that combine content knowledge and pedagogy (Pedagogical Content Knowledge), require the teacher to know their subject matter, what makes certain concepts easier or more difficult to learn, and students’ background knowledge.  Knowledge of technology and content, Technological Content Knowledge, requires teachers to know their content and how technology transforms that subject.  Using technology and pedagogy, or Technological Pedagogical Knowledge, emphasizes the use of technology for teaching and learning.  Combining all three, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), can be summarized in this quote:

Understanding the representation and formulation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that utilize technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help address these issues; knowledge of students prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and an understanding of how technologies can be utilized to build on existing knowledge and to develop new or strengthen old epistemologies (Mishra & Koelher 2007 page 743).

More ability is required of today’s teacher besides just content knowledge, technical knowledge, or pedagogical knowledge.  When considering this complexity required of teachers, it’s understandable why today’s teachers warrant a pay raise.  Given the information above, it is clear that professional development for teachers must meet the needs of today’s teachers.  Mishra and Koelher developed an approach called learning technology by design as an experiment to help teachers with TPCK.  The following will explain the method and results of testing it on teachers in a semester long study.  Instead of a standard workshop approach for teachers, learning technology by design is an approach that actually empowers teachers to become designers of technology.  This approach also assists in the study of the development of teacher knowledge about technology.

Koelher and Mishra’s argument is that the learning technology by design approach should result in teachers changing how they think and talk about technology throughout the design process.  Here are the questions posed:

1. Does learning during open-ended activities actually lead to the development of more complex forms of knowledge?
2. How does TPCK develop over time and through collaborative activity?
3. How is design talk in a learning technology by design seminar structured and what does it reveal bout the development of TPCK?
4. How can the evolution of TPCK be represented, tracked, and understood (Koeler & Mishra 2007)

The first learning technology by design study was based on six instructors learning how to create online courses for the university’s new online Masters degree program.   Also involved were the 18 students taking the course.  The students had a semester to work in collaborative groups to design different aspects of the course.  They had to create a website, read and discuss articles, and design a syllabus and assessment rubrics.

The results of the study, posted in from a series of quantitative surveys, showed that talk about technology, pedagogy, and content were at first isolated, then mid-semester began to show instances of pairing any combination of two of them.  By the latter part of the semester, discussion that evidenced the merging of all three began to be generated.  Another finding was that in this project-based learning activity, the instructors were generating conversation during the first part of the semester, and by mid-semester the group members were generating the conversation.

The downside to learning technology by design, however, is that the end result is not guaranteed.  Of the six groups (1 instructor and 3 students in each), two were studied in depth.  Of those two, only one group successfully completed the task:  designing an aspect of an online course.  Although the conversation of the group evolved into TPCK conversation, the project was not completed.  There was, however, a larger problem in this study.  The goal was for educational technology students and instructors to develop an online class.  This means the content and use of technology were really one in the same.  A more effective study of TPCK might be on a content-based course such as an online science class as Wells’ study, Trek 21, indicated that contextual PD is a key design factor that enhances teacher attitude towards technology integration.

Technology Integration with ELE
Foti points out in “Using a Simulation-Based Learning Environment to Enhance Learning and Instruction in a Middle School Science Classroom,” that one obstacle to technology integration is the shortage of teacher prep time.  Properly utilizing TPCK is difficult due to the time allotment for learning the new technology and learning the pedagogy for its implementation.  The Trek 21 approach mentioned above alleviates some of the time obstacles, but technology integration does require more teacher prep time.  In order for teachers to be willing to take this time, the technology must be a convincing advantage to teachers in terms of student engagement and overall comprehension and synthesis of the new content, aka student performance.  Foti points out the advantage of real-world simulations to accomplish this task.

One reason real-world simulations are difficult to “sell” to veteran teachers is that they require the teacher to not only learn a new technology, but to also change the way he/she teaches.  Science teachers must shift from a teacher-centered approach to an inquiry-based teaching style.  This is accomplished through learning tools to assist in a more student-centered approach to teaching.  The argument used to convince teachers of the need to shift is that because real-world science has changed so much, simulations are actually closer to reality than many old-fashioned, hands on experiments.  For example, Petri dishes are a thing of the past in today’s research labs, but virtual, online communities are a reality of today and therefore a simulation of this in the middle school classroom is closer to reality.  Bencze and Hodson (1999) point out that the middle school curriculum needs to be shaped by reality which is constantly changing, therefore, educators and educational institutions must be able to learn pedagogical strategies along with new technological tools (Foti 2008).
Implementation of real-world simulations is possible through the use of a simulation-based electronic learning environment (ELE).  Foti posed some terrific questions when introducing this concept such as: “How can we prepare teachers to employ new technologies in their classes?  How can we encourage teachers to discover and apply appropriate pedagogical methods? And how can these things be done within a doable framework?”

While most teachers have been trained in using technology for their own purposes, training teachers to integrate technology in their lessons is much more difficult.  For instance, an instructor was using a real-world simulation based ELE.  The simulation program included a video that gave students directions for the simulation called “Electric Potato” which explored whether a potato or lemon could be used as a battery.  Students were found to be unengaged in the video instruction, and then were ill equipped to complete the Electric Potato module.  As it turns out, the text was really the best resource to get the content necessary for students to develop hypotheses and absorb the state science content standards.  The teacher, then, has to learn how to implement the ELE along with the text requiring a need or TPCK in professional development.  In addition, properly using the module required teachers’ explanations since students were not paying attention to the instructional video.  Once students got the hang of how to use real-world simulation ELE, then they were willing to watch the video, however, teachers had to shift how they instructed in order to implement the ELE.  Once achieved, student engagement increased as well as student performance on standards-based assessments.  The two main barriers to technology integration then, remain to be teacher training in TPCK and supplying the teachers with the time and tools needed for integration (Foti 2008).

Science Content Though Real-World Simulation ELE
Since TPCK requires so much teacher learning and prep time, a lack of teacher motivation seems to create a large barrier to technology integration in the classroom.  As it turns out, teachers may be unnecessarily concerned.  Prior to the World Wide Web, the primary use of computers in the classroom was for simulations where they “played roles in scenarios in which they manipulated variables or interacted with an investigation or process” (Foti, 2007).  In one science-based simulation ELE from the 1980s, students “tagged” fish and released them into a “lake.”  Different variables were presented to students who are ultimately trying to assess both natural and human-created situations that can affect the natural balance, or equilibrium, of the lake.  This is a real-world simulation ELE that engages students in direct problem-solving literacy.  Teachers were often uncomfortable with such real-world simulations because they needed to bring students into the computer lab and break away from the old-style, teacher-centered learning model.

Real-world simulations were not being utilized very well in the 1980s.  Then, when the World Wide Web took hold in the 1990s, teachers were able to utilize technology within their comfort zone.  In other words, they could direct research projects and know that students had access to large amounts of information.  Ironically, as computer technology improved, the critical thinking tasks of students were becoming less demanding.  Simulation ELE was abandoned.  Foti and others with Athena-Group, Inc. are trying to modernize and implement real-world simulation ELE especially for math and science.  The interesting thing about this, is that once teaches develop the TPCK skills needed for the software, they can actually take a “guide on the side” approach to teaching which is ultimately less prep.  Companies like Athena-Group Inc. are working with the National Institutes of Health to develop standards-based simulations for middle school science classrooms.  The software includes voice actors that read along with student texts (as many students struggle to read science text books independently) prior to the problem-based simulation so that students are getting the content on their own, through headphones in the classroom.  So far, studies shown using these PSI (Personal Study Instrument) Sims have indicated performance gains on paper-and-pencil tests taken by students using the simulations (Foti, 2007).

Conclusion
As stated above, technology integration in the K-12 classroom is the way of the future.  According to Finley (2005), “The very nature of science as an ever-changing discipline requires timely and updated tools to deliver instruction within the science classroom.”  Revising teacher professional development then is necessary to effect positive changes in teacher attitude towards technology integration.  The Trek 21 study indicated that the key design factors in professional development that will enhance effective technology integration are:
•    A lengthy process
•    Learner centered PD
•    Engaging
•    Adequate collaboration and support are provided for the teacher PD

In addition, professional development must factor in TPCK.  It is not enough to give professional development that focuses on a teaching strategy, a technology tool, or a content area.  Professional development must engage teachers in TPCK and the implementation of technology integration.  There are so many terrific tools for teachers, but a great place to start is by using real-world simulation electronic learning environments (ELE).  ELE in science engage the learner in inquiry-based projects and allow for teachers to completely change their style of teaching technology from being a teacher-centered, Internet-based approach to a learner-centered problem-based approach.  The latter approach has proven to be effective in improving overall student performance.  The improvement of student performance is the purpose of teaching, after all.

After conducting this literature review, the question to be posed is:  How can learning technology by design be implemented by the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) for middle school science teachers so that TPCK can be fully addressed?  The first step for such a study would be to survey science teachers to see where they fall in terms of their attitude towards technology integration.  Once the attitude of science teachers is assessed, then an appropriate angle for professional development for those teachers can be addressed.  Introducing real-world simulations to teachers with no barriers towards technology integration can be brief and the integration can be immediate with plans by the district for follow-up with those teachers.  A lengthier program such as Trek 21 can then be developed for middle school science teachers who have more barriers towards technology.  This PD program will be designed to implement all aspects of TPCK in order to develop positive attitudes towards technology integration along with the necessary skills for implementation.  Such a study would be lengthy, but it would be interesting to see if technology integration and student performance increases over the course of a three-year study.  Teachers are lifelong learners.  Just as teachers need to differentiate to meet the needs of varying abilities with their students, professional development needs to meet the needs of the varying attitudes and abilities of teachers.

References

Ferdig, R. (2006, September). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning:     understanding the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge.     British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 749-760. Retrieved September     27, 2008, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00559.x

Finley, S. (2005, September). Products For Science Teachers. MultiMedia &        Internet@Schools, 12(5), 30-32. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Academic     Search Premier database.

Foti, S. (2007, May). Did We Leave the Future Behind?. Phi Delta Kappan, pp.     647,715. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Foti, S. & Ring, G. (2008). Using a Simulation-Based Learning Environment to Enhance     Learning and Instruction in a Middle School Science Classroom. Journal of     Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(1), 103-120. Retrieved     September 27, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.

Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007, November). Tracing the development of     teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and     technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740-762. Retrieved September 27,     2008, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012

Sherman, W. (2004, October). Science Studies, Situatedness, and Instructional Design in     Science Education: A Summary and Critique of the Promise. Canadian Journal of     Science, Mathematics, & Technology Education, 4(4), 443-465. Retrieved     September 27, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Wells, John G. (2007). Key Design Factors in Durable Instructional Technology     Professional Development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, (1),     101-122. Retrieved September 27, 2008, from Academic Search Premier Database.

Wright, V., & Wilson, E. (2007, Fall). A Partnership of Educators to Promote     Technology Integration:  Designing a Master Technology Teacher Program.     Education, 128(1), 80-86. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Academic Search     Premier database.