The Impact of Job-Embedded Professional Development on Teacher Efficacy for Technology Integration

The Impact of Job-Embedded Professional Development on Teacher Efficacy for Technology

Integration

Yvonne Skoretzand

Ronald Childress

National Technology & Social Science ConferenceLas Vegas, Nevada

March 25, 2013

Review of the Literature

• Increased use of technology in classrooms• Technology use remains “low level”• Best practices in professional development• Support needed to sustain professional

development efforts

Rationale•Technology Integration (TPACK Framework)

•Efficacy – The judgment of one’s capability to organize and execute actions to meet goals

Technology

Pedagogy Content

Research Questions

1. What is the difference, if any, in efficacy levels for technology integration for teachers who have participated in a two year, two phase job-embedded professional development program using a traditional mentoring model?

Research Questions

2. What is the difference, if any, in efficacy levels for technology integration for teachers who have participated in the second year of a two phase job-embedded professional development program using both traditional and peer mentoring models?

Research Questions

3. What is the difference in efficacy levels for technology integration between teachers after participating in a two year, two phase job-embedded professional development program using traditional and peer mentoring models?

Research Question 4 examined differences in efficacy based on a selected list of attribute variables:

•Teaching Experience•Grade Level•Subject Area

Methods• Computer Technology Integration Survey (Wang,

2004)• Alignment of ISTE NET-T Standards, Infusing

Technology Professional Development, and survey

• T-test for independent samples• T-test for matched paired samples• Two-way ANOVA

Study Design

Participant CharacteristicsExperimental Group (n=37)

Teaching Experience (M=16.1 years)• 21.6% (0-6 years) • 21.6% (7-12 years)• 27% (13-23 years)• 24.3% (24-35 years)Grade Level• 54.05% elementary• 45.95% middleSubject Area• 51.35% multi-subjects• 48.65% single subject

Comparison Group (n=28)

Teaching Experience (M=11.5 years)• 32.2% (0-6 years)• 35.7% (7-12 years)• 17.9% (13-23 years)• 14.4% (24-35 years)Grade Level• 42.86% elementary• 57.14% middleSubject Area• 32.14% multi-subjects• 67.86% single subject

Intervention

Phase One (2009-2010)• Five days (40 hours) of formal professional development • Two days (16 hours) of follow-up training during school year• Professional learning community – wiki journals• Expert Mentor - monthly onsite visits/ bi-monthly online

Phase Two (2010-2011)• Same training as in Phase One• Phase One participants serving as mentor for the newly

recruited Phase Two participants

Mentoring ModelsPhase I

Traditional Phase II

Traditional and Peer

Teacher-Mentee

Expert Mentor

Recruited Teacher-Mentee

PD

Major Findings: RQ1 Experimental Group Phase One and Phase Two Differences

Phase One(one year intervention)

Phase Two(two year intervention)

M SD M SD t value p

Overall Total

Factor One - Computer Technology Capabilities

and Strategies

89.57

68.09

9.11

7.11

92.36

70.69

9.07

6.90

2.67

3.22

.012*

.003**

Factor Two - External Influences of Computer

Technology Uses21.48 2.25 21.69 2.44 .625 .536

*p<.05 **p<.01

Major Findings: RQ2 Comparison Group Pre-Post Differences

Phase One(no intervention)

Phase Two(one year intervention)

M SD M SD t value p

Overall Total

Factor One - Computer Technology Capabilities

and Strategies

81.56

62.13

14.53

11.11

91.82

70.52

9.92

7.85

3.56

3.87

.002**

.001**

Factor Two - External Influences of Computer

Technology Uses19.43 3.70 21.30 2.51 2.19 .039*

*p<.05 **p<.01

Major Findings: RQ3Group Differences in Mean Scores for Efficacy for Technology Integration

Experimental Group(I - 1 year; II – 2 years)

Comparison Group(I – 0 years; II – 1 year)

M SD M SD t value p

Overall Total

Factor One - Computer Technology Capabilities

and Strategies

(I) 89.57(II) 92.36

(I) 67.69(II) 70.69

9.099.07

6.966.90

81.5691.82

62.7870.52

15.419.95

11.987.85

2.40.210

2.28.088

.019*.835

.026*.930

Factor Two - External Influences of Computer

Technology Uses(I) 21.42(II) 21.69

*p<.05

2.22.44

19.5721.30

3.742.51

2.56.585

.013*.561

<.05

Phase

Major Findings: RQ4 Phase I Group Differences Based on Attribute Variables

Experimental Comparison Phase I (1 year) Phase I (0 years)

Teaching Experience F(3,48)=3.190,p=.032*0 – 6 years 91.50 90.447 – 12 years 90.50 85.0013 – 23 years 87.70 80.0024 – 35 years 89.63 60.50

Grade Level F(1,52)=7.548,p=.008*Elementary 87.05 87.33 Middle 92.82 78.62

Subjects Taught F(1,52)=10.002,p=.003* Multiple 86.47 88.00

Single 93.11 79.68

Major Findings: RQ4 Phase II Group Differences Based on Attribute Variables Experimental Comparison Phase II Phase II

Teaching Experience (2 years) (1 year)

0 – 6 years 93.37 95.00 7 – 12 years 94.85 90.3313 – 23 years 91.44 93.6024 – 35 years 90.44 87.40

Grade LevelElementary 89.16 90.54Middle 96.20 93.00

Subjects TaughtMultiple 88.23 92.46Single 96.75 91.00

Conclusions: RQ1

Teachers scored at significantly higher levels of efficacy for technology integration after participating in two years of a job-embedded professional development program when receiving traditional mentoring in Phase I and providing peer mentoring in Phase II.

Conclusions: RQ2

Teachers scored at significantly higher levels of efficacy for technology integration after participating in a one year job-embedded professional development program when receiving both traditional and peer mentoring.

Conclusions: RQ3

There were significant differences in efficacy levels for technology integration between teachers who participated in a job-embedded professional development program receiving traditional mentoring compared to those who did not participate.

Conclusions: RQ3

There were no differences in efficacy levels for technology integration between teachers who participated in two years of the program using a traditional mentoring model compared to teachers who participated in one year of the program using both a traditional and peer mentoring model.

Conclusions: RQ4

There were significant differences in efficacy for technology integration between teachers who participated in a job-embedded professional development program receiving traditional mentoring compared to teachers who did not participate based on

-teaching experience-grade level-subject area

Conclusions: RQ4

There were no differences in efficacy levels for technology integration between teachers who participated in two years of the program using a traditional mentoring model compared to teachers who participated in one year of the program using both a traditional and peer mentoring model based on:-teaching experience-grade level-subject area

Recommendations for Sustaining Technology Integration:

Culture

• Create a school culture which values and encourages “risk-taking” in terms of utilizing technology

• Expand the concept of effective teaching to incorporate technology integration

• Articulate and commit to a clear model for change and support

• Provide support and incentives for peer mentoring

Recommendations for Sustaining Technology Integration Efforts:

Professional Development

• Participate in PD within groups of same content, grade level, or school

• Develop strategies to facilitate sharing among teachers• Encourage the development of mentoring relationships • Provide opportunities for teachers to observe other

teachers• Acknowledge that different strategies may be needed in

working with new and experienced teachers

Recommendations for Sustaining Technology Integration:

Resources

• Ensure the availability of equipment and laboratories

• Provide “just-in-time” technical support when needed

• Support the development/procurement of applicable supporting instructional materials and resources

Future Research

• Include high school teachers in the study population

• Investigate how peer mentoring enhances efficacy for technology integration

• Explore how administrative support enhances efficacy for technology integration

• Explore whether there are differences in how teachers are using technology based on efficacy levels

Questions?

Contact InformationMarshall University

Graduate School of Education & Professional Development1oo Angus E. Peyton Drive

South Charleston, WV 25303

Yvonne M. Skoretz, Ed.D., Assistant [email protected]

Ronald B. Childress, Ed.D., [email protected]