Data-Based Decision Making

Value the use of data as the starting point for professional work.

Click here to see artifact.

Introduction/Context

For the EDTEC standard, Data-Based Decision Making, the artifact I chose was the independent literature review and the accompanying case study performed by my group in EDTEC 690, Methods of Inquiry.  EDTEC 690, Methods of Inquiry, involves methods and strategies for performing educational research.  This course’s goal was for students to use inquiry as a basis for instructional design and performance enhancement and to apply ADDIE principles to meet the learners’ needs.  Specifically, students were to conduct a literature review independently, and then work with a group to create a case-study.  I conducted a literature review titled Designing Professional Development to Enhance Technology Integration in the K-12 Science Classroom, which applied educational research on key design factors needed for professional development to enhance TPCK (technological pedagogical content knowledge) in teachers.  I partnered up initially with Heidi B., a who implements a grant our district received called ESETT (Enhancing Science Education Through Technology).  As a social studies teacher, I have been fascinated by the privileges of our science teachers in terms of technological tools and professional development.  I got involved with Heidi because I wanted to see what this program was about in hopes that I could implement such technological tools in my class.  Scott C. and Alex A. later joined our group for the case study.  Heidi expressed that science teachers who participate in ESETT are given all the tools and training for technology implementation in their classrooms, yet there are still science teachers who don’t participate in ESETT or those who do participate but do not effectively implement technology in their classrooms.

Connection to the Standard

The literature review and the accompanying case study has many instances where we used data as a starting point for professional work.  At our initial meeting, Heidi and I identified these research questions:

• How well does the type of professional development in technology use predict the acquisition of TCPK?
• How well does the type of professional development in technology use predict successful technology integration?
• How does a teacher’s perceived knowledge/skill with TCPK predict success with Technology Integration?
• How do teacher attitudes toward technology affect success in acquiring TPCK?

I titled my literature review, “Designing Professional Development to Enhance Technology Integration in the K-12 Science Classroom.”  My literature review, contextualized the constructs associated with this question, “How well does the type of professional development (PD) in technology use predict successful technology integration?”  I was able to locate eight articles to review and develop around my guiding question.  It was during the development of our case study that Heidi introduced me to the Web 2.0 tool, which we used to implement our research.  In addition, the Case Study website we created enabled us to address different questions and see which conclusions we drew.  Finally, when it came time to develop our case study, our design enabled us to work together on the data from remote locations i.e. online collaboration.  For data collection, we used two techniques:

1. We surveyed teachers participating in the ESETT program at SDUSD.
2. We researched the components of TPCK (technological pedagogical content knowledge) and compared articles/research for the case study using existing resources.

Using Surveymonkey, we conducted a survey that was developed in order to collect data regarding factors in TPCK for middle school science teachers.  We developed questions regarding teacher attitude towards technology implementation, professional development for ESETT teachers, motivation for participating in ESETT, the effectiveness of the technology itself, and whether ESETT was increasing student achievement.  In addition, I interviewed science teachers at my school site, both in ESETT and not in ESETT, for informal evaluation.  Heidi, as a coordinator for ESETT, has a master list of teacher emails who are voluntarily participating in ESETT, which is why we determined a survey would be ethically sound.  We had 31 teacher responses to our survey, however, only 26 answered all questions and therefore our data wasn’t quite complete.  We reported our findings both in writing and through graphs (see image at right), which I believe was effective if only we had all the data we needed.

Problems/Opportunities

It was challenging to organize all the data with a group that wasn’t willing to meet at least once in person.  Heidi and I met twice which set us up for success for the whole semester, however, the lack of the rest of our group meeting with us caused delays in compiling our survey and completing our case study.  I believe this caused discrepancies within our research that were not fully addressed.  In addition, survey-writing was new to us and after conducting the survey, we found that we were missing information or that the information was flawed due to our lack of insight when developing questions for data-collection.  Once we gathered results from the survey, we came up with much better ways we could have questioned our sample group to better attain the data we needed.  Between our time limits and the challenge with obtaining data from teachers who were voluntarily participating in the survey, I don’t think our data was ample for our case study.

Reflection on Growth

I was not really enthusiastic about this project when we began.  I felt a bit forced to find a group to work with and felt there were no topics offered that I was interested in applying research.  This project, however, turned into a real eye-opening experience and has become a basis for my own TPCK and as an instructional designer, I found data to support an effective approach for technology implementation in K-12 classrooms.  My firsthand experience as a student of educational technology has trickled down to my students only when applied directly to my content area, social studies.  I hadn’t made this connection until I was forced to collect data on a topic outside of my content area.  I was struggling with my own engagement in EDTEC when the “A-HA” moment came to me.  Wells’ research on the the KDF (key design factors) for PD (professional development) that leads to successful technology integration made this connection.  Now, as an educational technologist, I understand the need to apply these KDF to PD for teachers.  Of most significant to the development of PD are:

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).

After attending a workshop where I had the opportunity to work with the superintendent of the Lemon Grove School District, I came to the same conclusion from a semester of research that he’s come to after millions of dollars and several years of implementation:  PD for teacher technology integration leads to enhanced student achievement if it is content driven.  It is on this premise that I will move forward in my future endeavors as an instructional designer.

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.