Running head: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION IN EDUCATION

Technology Integration in Elementary Education Classrooms

Julia Zangl Colby

Bridgewater State College

Bridgewater, Massachusetts

May 2005

Table of Contents

Abstract...................................................................... 3

Chapter 1: Introduction................................................ 4

Chapter 2: Review of Literature................................... 10

Chapter 3: Research Design/Methodology.................... 21

Chapter 4: Results....................................................... 31

References.................................................................. 43

Appendix A (Letter of Approval Form)........................ 46

Appendix B (Informed Consent Document).................. 48

Appendix C (Participant Survey Form)........................ 50

Appendix D (Technology Self-Assessment Tool).......... 55

Appendix E (Demographic Information)....................... 57

Appendix F (Additional Results Information)................ 60

Technology Integration in Elementary Education Classrooms

Abstract

With the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements, teachers are feeling increased pressure to integrate technology into the classroom. For the teachers to be able to prepare their students for the applications of technology included in the student standards, the teachers must be well versed in the use of technology themselves.

This research project set out to examine whether the teachers become more adept at using technology as a tool and increase their use of technology integration in the classroom following the provision of focused technology workshops and peer mentoring. The population encompassed all classroom teachers at my elementary school. Teachers received workshops and peer mentoring focusing on ways to integrate technology into the math, English/language arts, social studies, and/or science curriculum. Two qualitative instruments were used for collecting the research data -- a participant survey and a technology self-assessment tool.

Results indicate that teachers have increased their use of technology in the classroom, increased the students use of technology, and increased their technology integration in the classroom upon completion of a professional development program encompassing focused workshops and peer mentoring.

Chapter 1
Introduction

Importance of the Study

Teachers are feeling increased pressure to integrate technology into their classroom curriculum. For the teachers to be able to prepare their students for the applications of technology included in the student standards, the teachers must be well versed in the use of technology themselves. It is critical to have a professional development plan in place whereby the teachers progress yearly in their technology skills and advance through the four stages of technology integration: survival, mastery, impact and innovation (Mandinach & Cline, 1992). After participating in professional development on the use of the computer and the application software on the computer, the majority of the teachers were still not integrating the technology into their curriculum. This research study has taken the professional development one step further wherein focused workshops and peer mentoring targeted at technology integration with the math, English/language arts, social studies and/or science curriculum was provided.

One of the goals of this study was to provide professional development strategies which would aid the teachers in their progression to the next stage of technology integration. These professional development strategies provided made the teachers aware of how technology could be used to develop student understandings and critical thinking skills while supporting constructivism and cooperative learning in the classroom.

Background

Teachers do not feel adequately prepared to integrate the technology in the classroom. Continual proactive involvement in the development of the staff in the area of technology is critical (Anderson, 2000b). Staff development programs emphasizing mentoring relationships take those teachers that enjoy the technology and encourage their growth while involving those teachers who are at the beginning level of technology (McKenzie, 1999).

In a technology staff development model, critical consideration should be given to follow-up sessions. The best follow up is to visit the teacher’s classroom (WestED RTEC, 2002). Research has pointed out that successful integration of technology will never be satisfactorily achieved without effective staff development and continuous support for the teachers (Bailey & Powell, 1998). Mandinach describes four modes of adaptation stages that teachers go through with regards to technology integration: survival, mastery, impact and innovation (Mandinach & Cline, 1992). The concept of stages the teacher evolves through is significant to this study. Professional development on how to use computers along with professional development and coaching on how to integrate the technology into the classroom curriculum is an ongoing process and can take a teacher from 3 to 5 years to reach the mastery and impact stages (Anderson, 2000a).

Most important, professional development activities need to be designed in a way that will ensure the teachers’ time and the time of the technology specialist pays off in increased student achievement (Barnett, 2002; Barnett, 2003).

Description of the program

This research project was conducted at a Massachusetts elementary school with an enrollment of 385 students and is comprised of a mixture of lower and middle socioeconomic class students. The participants were elementary school teachers ranging from under five years of classroom teaching experience to over 20 years of classroom teaching experience. Teachers varied according to what technology integration stage they are presently at in addition to what Massachusetts Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT) level they are at – Early Technology, Developing Technology, Proficient, or Advanced.

To promote the increased use of technology and technology planning by teachers, the elementary school teachers participating in this study have already received 18 hours of professional development in the “how to” of technology. These application workshops focused on file management; Microsoft Windows XP, Word, Excel, and PowerPoint; Internet topics such as search strategies, reliable teacher sites, and downloading data from the Internet; copyright and fair use laws; and computer viruses. Also included in the workshops were introductions on ways to integrate technology into the classroom.

During the school year, the elementary classroom teachers were provided with focused technology workshops and peer mentoring. Using peer mentoring as a strategy in this research project allowed the technology specialist to be there for the teachers and assist them in their endeavor to integrate technology in the curriculum. The Technology Specialist came into the teacher’s classroom and worked collaboratively with the teacher to create a lesson that was integrated with math, English/language arts, social studies, and/or science. The use of peer mentoring encourages the growth of teachers because of the customization that can be achieved by working with one colleague while at the same time developing a shared responsibility for the lesson between the technology specialist and the teacher. Using focused workshops as a strategy in this research project provided the teachers with workshops focusing on specific ways to integrate technology into the math, English/language arts, social studies, and/or science curriculum. The focused workshops lasted from 30 minutes to one hour. By grouping the teachers in the focused workshops, peer mentoring was, in turn, promoted and established.

Statement of the Problem

With the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements, teachers are feeling increased pressure to integrate technology into the classroom. For teachers to be able to prepare their students for the applications of technology included in the student standards, the teachers must be well versed in the use of technology themselves.

Informal assessments including anecdotal observations and conversations along with a formal assessment via a survey have made it evident that the majority of teachers are not integrating technology effectively and efficiently in the classroom. Subsequently, the teachers are not providing students with opportunities that build technology skills. The technology application professional development was successful in giving the teachers the “how to” in using the technology; however, they are lacking skills on how to become proficient in integrating technology into the curriculum.

Research Question

During the school year, the Technology Specialist provides the elementary classroom teachers with focused technology workshops and peer mentoring. This research project set out to examine whether the teachers have become more adept at using technology as a tool and have increased their use of technology integration in the classroom following the provision of focused technology workshops and peer mentoring during the school year.

My question in this research project is that upon examining the data on the teachers and students use of technology in the classroom after having received the focused workshops and peer mentoring, will teachers become more adept using technology as a tool and increase their technology integration in the classroom, thereby increasing the teachers and students use of technology.

Definition of Terms

TSAT: In order for teachers to determine their level of technology proficiency and to identify personal technology professional development needs, the Massachusetts Department of Education adopted the Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT) developed by the Boston Public Schools in 1997. This tool has been aligned with the Massachusetts Recommended PreK-12 Instructional Technology Standards, the ISTE Technology Standards, and the Educational Technology Advisory Council (ETAC) School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart. The TSAT focuses on the technology skill set of the teacher (what the teacher knows how to do) and has four levels – Early Technology, Developing Technology, Proficient, and Advanced. Teachers cannot advance to the next level until they meet the percentage of skills required in their existing level. The requirements in each level correlate with the 3 standards in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks for Instructional Technology – Technology Operations and Concepts, Ethics and Safety, and Teaching and Learning with Technology.

Peer Mentoring: The Technology Specialist works collaboratively with the teacher in the classroom to create a lesson integrated with math, English/language arts, social studies, and/or science. Peer mentoring encourages the growth of teachers because of the customization that can be achieved by working with one colleague while at the same time developing a shared responsibility for the lesson between the technology specialist and the teacher.

Focused Workshops: Workshops where the teachers work together and focus on specific ways to integrate technology into the math, English/language arts, social studies, and/or science curriculum. The focused workshops last from 30 minutes to one hour. By grouping the teachers in the focused workshops, peer mentoring was, in turn, promoted and established.

Summary of Research Design:

The results of this research are measurements from the results of two qualitative instruments -- a pre- and post-survey filled out by the sample population along with results of the Massachusetts Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT).

The participants are elementary school teachers ranging from under five years of classroom teaching experience to over 20 years of classroom teaching experience.

The data for this research project was collected during January and February 2005. The data from the pre- and post-surveys, based on teacher self-evaluation, has been broken down into 3 specific categories – Teachers Use of Technology, Student Use of Technology, and Technology and the Way the Classroom Works. By breaking the data down into these 3 categories, it allows this researcher to show the changes in the use of technology and whether it has affected only one area, two areas, or all three areas. The data from the TSAT has been summarized, analyzed, and categorized into the teachers’ TSAT levels and will allow the comparison of the teachers’ technology skill set levels pre- and post-training.

Assumptions:

It is this researcher’s assumption that the teachers participating in this research project will attend at least three professional development workshops offered on integrating the technology into the curriculum.

Chapter 2
Review of the Literature

The purpose of this study was to facilitate a program and begin a process that will help the teachers learn how to efficiently and effectively integrate technology into the classroom. This review of the literature addresses a) Staff Development with Focused Workshops, Peer Mentoring, and Follow-Up Sessions; b) Strategies Used With Teachers for Technology Integration in the Classroom; c) Assessment; d) Stages of Technology Integration the Teachers Evolve Through; e) Constructivism; and f) Statistics.

Staff Development

The teachers in my study have previously received staff development focusing on the development of technology skills in the areas of how to use the computers and how to use the software applications on the computers. The challenge now lies in learning how to integrate and use those skills in their daily curriculum.

Staff Development: Focused Workshops

The teachers must construct a new meaning of technology in the classroom for themselves. Development of focused workshops would be beneficial to the teachers by creating learner-centered adult experiences whereby the teachers could go through the process of redefining their role of technology. These experiences would engage the staff in solving a curriculum-related problem in a manner which would be the same experience as a student (McKenzie, 1995).

Teachers do not feel as though they are adequately prepared to use computers in their classroom. Continual proactive involvement in the development of the staff in the area of technology is critical. Teachers who desire to learn the “how to” of computers may not perceive a need to learn the technology integration skills. These teachers need to find out how to tie it all together. By focusing on the specifics of a particular learning experience with the use of focused workshops, huge benefits can be seen.

Staff Development: Peer Mentoring

In addition to the focused workshops, the concept of peer mentoring is another approach to use in order for teachers to learn. Teachers that are willing to help are recognized as a valuable resource. Peer mentoring is one of the best ways for many teachers to learn (Anderson, 2000b).

“Change requires a catalyst and peer mentoring can be the catalyst to individual and curricular changes” (Harnish & Wild, 1994, p. 8). In peer mentoring projects developed for professional development and instructional improvement, primary case studies provided the basis for examining issues related to the use of peer mentoring as a dynamic strategy in professional development. Participants in a mentor relationship are equals, colleagues or peers. With the use of peer mentoring both participants are able to contribute and gain in this mutually beneficial situation (Harnish & Wild, 1994).

By grouping the teachers in the focused workshops, peer mentoring can be promoted and established. Staff development programs emphasizing coaching and mentoring relationships tend to take those teachers that enjoy the technology and encourage their growth while involving those teachers who are at the beginning level of technology. Programs emphasizing coaching and mentoring relationships with the teachers will support and enlist teachers who have previously been resistant to technology, while at the same time encourage the growth of those teachers who are enthused by technology. This is possible because of the customization that can be achieved when a coach or mentor works with one or more colleagues. Thereby, the learning opportunities can be matched to the teacher’s level of technology. In this type of environment, the teacher and coach are partners and feel a shared responsibility for the technology infused lessons (McKenzie, 1999).

Staff Development: Follow-Up Sessions

In a technology staff development model, critical consideration should be given to follow-up sessions. The best follow-up is to visit the teacher’s classroom. During this follow-up visit, you observe and coach the teachers as they work with technology (WestED RTEC, 2002). Research has pointed out that successful integration of technology will never be satisfactorily achieved without effective staff development and continuous support for the teachers (Bailey & Powell, 1998).

In this review of the literature, the research brings together the critical components of a successful professional development program for integrating the technology into the classroom – focused workshops, peer mentoring, and follow-up sessions with the teachers. These components are vital strategies used in my research project and are critical in helping to facilitate moving the teacher from just using the technology to integrating the technology.

Strategies Used With Teachers for Technology Integration in the Classroom

Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross & Woods (1999) conducted a primary study at an elementary school in Midland for examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom, wherein it is pointed out that teachers recognize the importance of integrating technology into the curriculum; however, the success of this integration can be hampered by barriers. Some of the barriers identified by the researchers include limited equipment, training, and time. The study found that the teachers either used technology as a supplement, to support the existing curriculum in a way that reinforced what the teacher taught such as drill-and-practice, or to facilitate as an emerging curriculum. The study discussed strategies to use with the teachers depending on their level of use. Teachers who used technology as a supplement might benefit from staff development focusing on ways to use technology to teach existing and expanded content. They would benefit from demonstrations by peers, mentors, or development staff. Teachers who used technology to support and enrich the existing curriculum might benefit from developing a vision for use that goes beyond current topics and skills. This should be accompanied by ideas about how to support and manage students’ exploration of topics. Some ways to achieve this would be teachers using problem-solving and application software in both whole and small-group contexts, along with involvement in Internet-based projects. Teachers who use technology to facilitate an emerging curriculum would benefit from increased interactions with other teachers, mentors, and even researchers (Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, Woods, 1999). Consistent with the findings of this study, I will be providing opportunities for collaboration and discussions with peers, providing peer mentoring during the change process, and encouraging a broader vision of technology integration.

Publications by educational associations are advocating for the integration of computer skills into the content areas. Moving from the step of isolated technology to an integrated approach with technology involves planning and effort. One research article points out that library media professionals have found information skills can be integrated effectively when they relate to the curriculum and assignment in the classroom along with being tied together in an information process model. Learners need to be able to recognize whether the computer can be used as part of the process of accomplishing their task. This is part of the information problem-solving process. Computer teachers and classroom teachers, along with library media specialists, need to collaborate together to develop lessons to integrate technology skills, information skills, and content-area curriculum outcomes (Eisenberg & Johnson, 2002).

Assessment

In research on professional development, one item that must not be forgotten is assessment. Assessment instruments in my research study are 1) a pre- and post-survey completed by the participants focusing on self-assessment in technology integration skills of the teacher, of the students, and of the teacher with the students in the classroom and 2) a self-assessment completed by the participants focusing on their technology “how to” skills. In a study on assessing the technology skills of the teachers, Anderson (2000a) points out that in order for teachers to use technology efficiently and effectively, we need to assess how well the staff is using the technology. Assessments can be informal observations and conversations as well as formal interviews, focus groups, surveys, and observations. The study focused on first the “how-to” skills of the teachers and then on the integration of technology into the curriculum. One very important point made is that it typically takes three to five years to move from technology use at the entry-level to proficient levels of fully integrating the technology into the curriculum. Once the teachers have the basic “how to” skills in place, technology can become more a part of their daily routine and their rate of learning will accelerate (Anderson, 2000a).

Stages of Technology Integration the Teachers Evolve Through

Mills & Tincher (2003) launched a technology professional development initiative in their primary study with the goal of using technology as more than just a teaching tool in the classroom. They wanted the teachers to apply technology across the curriculum, to problem solving and decision making, and to facilitate collaboration and cooperation among learners. The researchers noted that for students to acquire technology skills as part of their educational experience, the teachers must be technologically fluent. To determine the fluency of the teacher, this study used the five stages of technology integration used in the primary study focusing on changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in classrooms using technology – entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and invention (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991). Entry level teachers use text-based materials and instruction. Adoption-stage teachers use technology for basic skills such as keyboarding, word processing, or drill-and-practice software on the computer. Adaptation-phase teachers integrate new technologies into their classroom while the students are using word processors, graphic programs, and computer-assisted instruction. Appropriation-stage teachers start to understand how technology can be useful and allow their students to work on project-based lessons. With the final stage, the invention stage, learning becomes more student-centered, more project-based, and more multi-disciplinary (Mills & Tincher, 2003).

Prior to the five stages developed by Mills and Tincher (2003), Mandinach & Cline (1992) described four modes of adaptation stages that teachers go through with regards to technology use: survival, mastery, impact and innovation. Their primary study observed and compared teacher performance and classroom procedures in technology-based settings. A teacher in the survival stage struggles against technology, uses technology only for directed instruction, and has management problems with existing technology in the classroom. A teacher in the mastery stage has increased his/her tolerance towards problems with technology, creates and uses new forms of interaction with the students, and has increased technical competence. A teacher in the impact stage regularly incorporates new working relationships and classroom structures, is less threatened by technology, and creates technology enhanced instructional units. A teacher in the final state, the innovation stage, restructures their classroom environment to take full advantage of technology enhanced curriculum and learning activities (Mandinach & Cline, 1992).

By viewing the stages developed by Mills and Tincher (2003) and the states described by Mandinach & Cline (1992), you can see the similarities between the two when describing what teachers evolve from and to when dealing with technology. The whole concept of stages the teacher evolves through is significant to my study and will be determined through the pre- and post-survey of their technology integration skills. This instrument will go hand-in-hand with the self-assessment completed by the participants focusing on their technology “how to” skills. The Massachusetts Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT) is the instrument being utilized in my study which determines the teachers’ level of technology proficiency.

Professional development activities need to be designed in a way that will ensure the teachers’ time and the time of the technology specialist pays off in increased student achievement. Teachers need to be made aware that if they are empowered they will find appropriate ways to integrate the technology with their lessons rather than view technology as a separate tool. In order for professional development programs to be successful, they should focus on the teacher’s stage of use. Again, the four stages of technology by Mandinach & Cline (1992) are referred to (Barnett, 2002; Barnett, 2003).

McKenzie (1995) states that we have been focused on staff development for the “how to” of technology rather than staff development on how to blend those tools into our daily routine. We need to now focus on staff development for the use of technologies to engage teachers in thinking of innovative ways to integrate the technology. Teachers need to move beyond the Survival and Mastery stages and on to the Impact and Innovation stages (Mandinach & Cline, 1992). This is what the author refers to as movement across the “Great Divide.” One of the goals to accomplish this task is to engage the staff in a curriculum-related problem. Once the problem is decided upon, the staff would then go through the process of deciding which information technology tool would be appropriate to meet the challenge. Those in charge of planning the sessions would create a detailed path outlining the steps for the teachers to follow to integrate their technology tool into the curriculum. “An effective staff development program will encourage the development of a learning culture rich with informal, reflective partnerships and supportive relationships” (McKenzie, 1995, p. 5). This strategy of engaging the staff in a curriculum-related problem type can be used in my focused workshops for the teachers.

Professional development on how to use computers along with professional development and coaching on how to integrate the technology into the classroom curriculum is an ongoing process and as noted previously can take a teacher from 3 to 5 years to reach the Mastery and Impact stages (Anderson, 2000a).

Constructivism

There have been many efforts by Congress to prepare our teachers and classrooms for a technology reform; however, even though the efforts have had success, there are still many teachers who are not yet using computer technology in teaching. Many teachers still need to be convinced that computer technology can be beneficial in the classroom. Teachers take professional development workshops but these alone do not prepare the teachers to integrate the technology into their classroom lessons. In addition to knowing how to use the computer, teachers need to understand how they can use technology as a tool to help develop student understandings while at the same time supporting constructivism, cooperative learning, and problem-based learning (Royer, 2002).

The theory of constructivism focuses on the process of how learners construct knowledge. This depends on what the learners know, which depends on their experiences and how they have organized those experiences into knowledge structures, along with their beliefs. Using technology as a mindtool is a tool for helping learners to organize what they know and also to represent what they know (Jonassen, 2000).

Constructivism has existed for over one hundred years as a theory of learning. There have been many advocates of constructivism such as John Dewey, Jerome Bruner, and Maria Montessori. Effective use of today’s technology blends well with the theory of constructivism. Constructivist classrooms can be impacted by cooperative learning, using student portfolios as assessments, student-developed learning plans, students taking the role as active learners and the teacher as the facilitator, higher level thinking skills, and peer support groups. This author examines how modern technology will bring the theory of constructivist learning to the forefront (Matusevich, 1995).

After nearly eight years of studying the effects that computers had on classrooms, the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) primary study researchers observed profound changes in the teachers’ nature of instruction when working with classrooms representing a cross section of America’s K-12 schools. Teachers interacted more as mentors rather than lecturers, they encouraged more collaboration among their students, and the students employed inquiry, collaborative, technological, and problem-solving skills. Teachers took on new roles, new instructional practices, and new ways to use technology which is what made this project successful (Dwyer, 1994).

This research on best practices to utilize for effectively integrating the technology into the classroom is done because we ultimately want to benefit our students and student achievement. We want to prepare our students for life-long learning. To accomplish that, we must begin to introduce them to the tools they will use in their careers.

Statistics

There has been a widespread introduction of computers into schools along with connections to the Internet. Technology can have a positive impact on education. It is time for teachers to start using the technology effectively and efficiently in the classroom. See Table 1 below for the statistics on the nationwide progress in educational technology according to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (CEO Forum Report, 2001; National Center for Education Statistics, 2001).

Table 1

Nationwide Progress in Educational Technology

% of Public Schools with Internet Access	Year 2001: 99% Year 1995: 50%
Mean Number of Instructional Computers for School	Year 2001: 124 Year 1995: 72
% of Elementary Schools with Internet Access	Year 2001: 99% Year 1995: 46%
Mean Number of Elementary School Instructional Computers	Year 2001: 100 Year 1995: 60
% of Instructional Computers with Internet Access	Year 2001: 85% Year 1998: 50%
% of Public Classrooms with Internet Access	Year 2000: 77% Year 1995: 8% Year 1994: 3%
Teachers using computers daily for planning and/or teaching	Year 2000: 76% Year 1998: 33%
Teachers using the Internet for Instruction	Year 2000: 63% Year 1998: 33%
Teachers having an e-mail address	Year 2000: 77% Year 1998: 39%

Chapter 3
Research Design/Methodology

Sample

· Population

My population consists of all elementary teachers at my school. Their teaching experience ranges from under five years of classroom teaching experience to over 30 years of classroom teaching experience. All teachers received 18 hours of technology professional development during the 2003-2004 school year focusing on the “how to” of technology. Teachers will vary according to what Massachusetts Department of Education Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT) level they are at – Early Technology, Developing Technology, Proficient, Advanced.

· Size

This research project’s population encompasses all 16 elementary classroom teachers from a lower and middle socioeconomic school with a total enrollment of 385 students and is one of seven elementary schools in a school district.

Materials

· Technology Lab consisting of thirteen iMac workstations. These workstations are connected to the Internet and have multiple software applications installed which allows the teachers/students to integrate their curriculum.

· Research Instruments

Ø Qualitative Instrument #1 -- a pre- and post-Participant Survey (Appendix C) given to the teacher participants in this study to determine the changes from the focused training workshops and peer mentoring. The data obtained from this survey is broken down into four categories – 1) Demographic Information, 2) Teachers Use of Technology, 3) Student Use of Technology, and 4) Technology and the Way Your Classroom Works.

Ø Qualitative Instrument #2 -- the Massachusetts Department of Education Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT) (Appendix D) filled out by the participants pre- and post-professional development. The TSAT has been designed for teachers to determine their own levels of technology proficiency and to identify personal technology professional development needs.

· Permissions

A consent letter was given to the Principal (Appendix A) and every teacher (Appendix B) at my elementary school. The consent letter explained the research study, made the teachers aware that participation in the study is voluntary, involves no unusual risks, and of the privacy and confidentiality of the subjects in the study. All teachers signed the informed consent form and participated in this study.

Dependent Variable, Independent Variables, and Constants

· Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in my education research being measured for change was the teachers’ increased use of technology integration in the classroom.

· Independent Variables

The independent variables in my education research were the professional development strategies – focused workshops and peer mentoring sessions with the teachers. The teachers in my research project participated in numerous focused technology workshops taught by a technology specialist. The workshops enabled teachers to learn and focus on one subject matter at a time along with how to integrate the subject curriculum with technology. The workshops addressed the instructional technology standards focused on in the lesson. The participants also received peer mentoring wherein the technology specialist came into their classroom or they came into the technology lab where the technology specialist worked with them one-on-one focusing on a specific technology integration lesson with the children.

· Constants

Conditions which were constant in this education research project was the fact that all participants are in the same school environment; the same technology specialist provided the focused workshops and peer mentoring; all participants have previously attended 18 hours of technology professional development; and all teachers have an up-to-date computer in their classroom with an Internet connection.

Procedure

This research project consisted of five stages: Preparation Work for the Research Study, Pre-Experiment Work, Experiment consisting of Focused Workshops and Peer Mentoring, Post-Experiment Work, and Analysis of Data Obtained from the Research Study.

The Preparation Work stage consisted of submitting the IRB form to Bridgewater State College, distributing the consent forms to my Principal and teachers, collecting the forms, and creating a schedule for training sessions and peer mentoring sessions.

The Pre-Experiment Work stage consisted of distributing the pre-survey and pre-TSAT form to the teachers and then collecting the surveys and forms.

The Experiment stage is the time wherein the teachers participating in the research project were engaged in the focused workshops and peer mentoring.

The Post-Experiment Work consisted of distributing the post-survey and post-TSAT form to the teachers and then collecting the surveys and forms.

The final stage, Analysis of Data, is where I gathered the data statistics obtained from the project’s instruments and entered the statistics into a spreadsheet to tabulate the results of both the pre- and post-surveys and pre- and post-TSAT forms. I compared the results of the pre- and post-surveys and TSAT forms and determined whether my research was both valid and reliable.

· Timeline

Data Analysis

· Research Instrument #1

The first instrument (Appendix C) was the Participant Survey conducted with the classroom elementary teachers who were the participants in this research study. The data obtained from this survey is broken down into four sections –

1. Demographic Information

2. Teacher’s Use of Technology

3. Students Use of Technology

4. Technology and the Way Your Classroom Works.

Ø Demographic Information

The Demographic Information section was collected solely to attain a description of the participants in my research study. The information collected gives a background of the participant, both as a teacher and user of technology. Demographics contain items such as grade level, number of years teaching, whether they have a computer at home, how many computers in their classroom, and hours of professional development they have received during the previous year. Also included in this section are questions on the teacher’s interest in learning about integrating technology into the curriculum.

Ø Teacher’s Use of Technology

The Teacher’s Use of Technology section allowed me to gather data as to how the teacher uses technology in his/her day-to-day activities and planning. Items such as using e-mail, using and/or creating multimedia presentations, using the Internet, and the use of hardware are included in this section.

Ø Students Use of Technology

The Students Use of Technology section allowed me to gather data as to how the students are using the technology in the classroom. Items such as using a word processor, the Internet, multimedia presentations, real-world projects, educational software, and drill and practice activities are included in this section.

Ø Technology and the Way Your Classroom Works

Last, the section titled Technology and the Way Your Classroom Works focused on the technology integration skills of the teacher and whether the lessons are using cooperative learning, higher-level thinking skills and interdisciplinary activities. In addition, this section focused on whether the teacher is addressing content and technology standards in the lessons.

Ø Analysis

The three sections of the survey – Teacher’s Use of Technology, Students Use of Technology, and Technology and the Way Your Classroom Works -- can be looked at as an aggregate measure of the teacher’s technology use or the data can be disaggregated and looked at as three separate units.

These three sections on the use of technology have been analyzed and compared in the pre- and post-surveys for trends and areas of improvement. This has been accomplished by entering the data into an Excel spreadsheet for each separate line item in that particular technology use section. For example, each teacher answered each line item with a specific frequency of use. For each teacher’s frequency of use noted, a tally mark was created under that frequency for the specific line item. After all the tally marks were completed for every teacher and every line item, they were added together and the total number marked under the frequency of use for that particular line item. These results are then displayed in a frequency distribution table. Once this aggregate data was analyzed, a bar chart was created for each of the three technology use sections displaying the frequency distribution of data. This chart displays where the teachers fall in frequency of use for each line item in that category and whether there were improvements in that area. These charts will also be used as an instrument to help customize the professional development by providing where the teachers’ strengths and weaknesses lie. The comparison of the pre- and post-statistical graphs shows the changes in teachers’ technology use.

One measurement tool I used to help in answering my research question is the section of this survey entitled Technology and the Way Your Classroom Works. A score has been assigned to each frequency of use in this section and each participant received a score for his/her answers in this section. The pre- and post-scores have been compared to determine the differences. Descriptive statistics describe the level of technology integration which took place in the study. A line graph depicts the sum of the scores for each question for both pre- and post-survey along with the level of increase. The mean of the scores along with the standard deviation of the scores has been calculated.

· Research Instrument #2

The second qualitative instrument (Appendix D) used was the Massachusetts Department of Education Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT) which has been designed for teachers to determine their own levels of technology proficiency and to identify personal technology professional development needs. The teachers noted their TSAT level -- Early Technology, Developing Technology, Proficient, Advanced -- at the beginning of the study and again at the conclusion of the study, after they have received the focused workshops and peer mentoring.

Ø Analysis

The results of the TSAT have been analyzed and compared between the pre- and post-training for areas of improvement. This has been accomplished by determining what TSAT level each teacher was at prior to the focused workshops and peer mentoring as well as upon completion of the focused workshops and peer mentoring. Subsequently, this data has been entered into an Excel spreadsheet. The data entered has been the teacher’s name, their TSAT level, and a score assigned to the TSAT level.

A score was assigned to each teacher’s level in the TSAT (1 for Early Technology, 2 for Developing Technology, 3 for Proficient, and 4 for Advanced). The pre- and post-scores have been compared to determine the differences and the mean of the scores has been calculated. Graphic format charts depict the teachers’ TSAT levels both pre- and post-training.

It is my belief that this study will be the beginning of the teachers using technology effectively in the classroom and the beginning of a process that will eventually allow them to increase their TSAT level as time progresses. Furthermore, it is critical to know what technology level the teacher is at when determining their professional development needs for the future.

Limitations of the Study

In my research study wherein I am involving the teachers in professional development by using strategies such as focused workshops and peer mentoring, there are several limitations I foresaw with this proposed scenario.

Teacher resistance to change and technology use may arise due to constraints on their time and whether they will be receiving a stipend and/or professional development points (PDPs) for their professional development time. If the teacher does not have a commitment to this project and experiences any type of resistance, they may opt to limit or discontinue their participation in the study.

I, as the Technology specialist, will be in charge of implementing the professional development program by not only creating the workshops and peer mentoring sessions, but scheduling and providing the workshops and mentoring sessions as well. I will also be responsible for ensuring that the pre- and post- surveys are distributed, filled out, and returned. This could potentially cause a problem if there is not adequate time in my schedule to fulfill all these duties.

As noted in my research, teachers go through various adaptation stages of technology use. My teachers range from the survival stage through to the innovation stage. In order for the teachers to be able to integrate the technology into the classroom, they need to be at a stage where they allow that to happen. I, as the provider of the professional development, will need to construct my workshops while focusing on the various stages of each teacher.

With the inception of the 2004-2005 school year, our school will experience its first year operating as a charter school. We will be incorporating quite a bit of change into our school in addition to changing to an accelerated school model. As the Principal and the person in charge, a potential problem could arise in that the Principal may not feel there is adequate time for the teachers or the technology specialist to pursue this endeavor.

Lastly, one cannot forget to address the issue of technology resources. Last year, through a Massachusetts Department of Education grant, every classroom teacher received a new computer with Internet connectivity. Therefore, at the present time, each teacher has an up-to-date computer available in their classroom. A potential problem could be the failure of this piece of hardware. Another hardware resource is the digital projector. At the present time, our school has only one projector. Once the teachers start using technology more in the classroom with their students, they are going to need the use of the projector. A potential problem could be that the teacher will become frustrated if they plan a technology lesson only to have to cancel it because of lack of resources, such as their computer breaking down, no projector available, or no Internet connection.

Finally, my participants have been selected as an accessible population. I am only using elementary teachers from my school. To perform this study optimally, teachers from all the elementary schools in my district or even other school districts should be included in the study. However, this type of scenario would not be feasible in my present position.

Chapter 4
Results

Results

This research project is to examine whether, after having focused workshops and peer mentoring, teachers would become more adept usin g technology as a tool and increase their technology integration in the classroom, thereby increasing the teachers and students use of technology.

Workshops were offered on SMART Board Interactive Whiteboard, Math e-Tools and Test Generator Software, Kidspiration, Digital Cameras in the Classroom, and Enchanted Learning Web Site. Peer mentoring was conducted and all teachers took advantage of these sessions and worked on at least one integrated lesson.

The data obtained from the Participant Survey (Appendix C) has been broken down into demographic information (Appendix E) and three separate sections focusing on technology use – Teacher’s Use of Technology, Students Use of Technology, and Technology Integration in the Classroom.

The data obtained from the Massachusetts Department of Education Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT) (Appendix D) allowed the technology proficiency levels to be determined at the beginning of the study and again at the conclusion of the study, after teachers received the focused workshops and peer mentoring.

Survey Results: Teacher’s Use of Technology

Section one of the survey consisted of ten questions reflecting the teacher’s own use of technology. There was a slight increase in the daily use and the 1 to 3 times per week use in at least one-half of the ten questions. Creating multimedia presentations for classroom use and using a computer software program to calculate grades saw no change in use. The questions along with the number of teachers selecting the frequency of use for both the pre and post survey are found in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Teacher’s Use of Technology Survey Results

Graph 1 and Table 2 display the aggregate data for the Teachers Use of Technology. Daily use of technology went from 8.13% in the pre-survey to 12.5% in the post-survey; 1 to 3 times per week went from 19.38% in the pre-survey to 28.13% in the post-survey while the 1 to 3 times per month decreased from 23.75% to 21.25% and the rarely/never use decreased from 48.75% to 38.13%. These numbers depict that the teachers increased their use of technology.

Graph 1

Aggregate Data for Pre and Post Survey Totals for Teacher’s Use of Technology

Table 2

Pre and Post Survey Percentage Change for Teacher’s Use of Technology

Survey Results: Students Use of Technology

Section two of the survey consisted of eight questions asking the teachers to reflect on how their students use technology. There was a slight increase in the 1 to 3 times per week use and 1 to 3 times per month in at least one-half of the eight questions. Only students using a word processor for writing saw an increase in the daily use. The questions along with the number of teachers selecting the frequency of use for both the pre- and post-survey are found in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Students Use of Technology Survey Data Results

Graph 2 and Table 4 display the aggregate data for the Students Use of Technology. The students daily use of technology went from 11.72% in the pre-survey to 15.63% in the post-survey; 1 to 3 times per week went from 11.72% in the pre-survey to 20.31% in the post-survey; 1 to 3 times per month increased from 19.53% in the pre-survey to 32.81% in the post-survey while the rarely/never use decreased from 57.03% to 31.25%. These numbers show that the students increased their use of technology daily, 1-3 times per week, and 1-3 times per month.

Graph 2

Aggregate Data for Pre and Post Survey Totals for Students Use of Technology

Table 2

Pre and Post Survey Percentage Change for Students Use of Technology

Survey Results: Technology Integration in the Classroom

Section three of the survey consisted of five questions asking the teachers to reflect on the technology integration in their classroom. There was a slight increase in the 1 to 3 times per week use for all the questions and an increase in four out of the five questions in the 1 to 3 times per month category. The daily usage only saw a slight increase in the question addressing content and technology standards. This data indicates that the teachers are comfortable with using technology and have advanced to a technology stage in which they are beginning to integrate more in the classroom. The questions along with the number of teachers selecting the frequency of use for both the pre and post survey are found in Table 5 below.

Table 5

Technology Integration in the Classroom Survey Data Results

Graph 3 and Table 6 display the aggregate data for Technology Integration in the Classroom. The technology integration daily use went from 6.25% in the pre-survey to 7.50% in the post-survey; 1 to 3 times per week went from 5% in the pre-survey to 17.5% in the post-survey; 1 to 3 times per month increased from 30% in the pre-survey to 46.25% in the post-survey; while the category for rarely/never decreased from 58.75% to 28.75%. Upon reflecting on these numbers, one can infer that the teachers are comfortable enough to start integrating technology into the classroom because they are comfortable with their use of technology.

Graph 3

Aggregate Data for Pre and Post Survey Totals for Technology Integration

Table 2

Pre and Post Survey Percentage Changes for Technology Integration

Graph 4 is a bar graph depicting the individual teacher’s scores in the pre- and post-survey which focuses on the technology integration skills of the teacher and whether the lessons are using cooperative learning, higher-level thinking skills and interdisciplinary activities along with whether the teacher is addressing content and technology standards in their lessons. A score was assigned to each frequency of use in this section resulting in a total score for each participant (1 point for a Rarely/Never, 3 points for 1-3 Times a Month, 4 points for 1-3 Times a Week, and 6 points for Daily). The lowest attainable score is a 5 and the highest attainable score is a 30.

Four teachers did not realize an increase in their score. Two teachers decreased on their post-survey scores. In looking at their pre-survey responses and comparing to their post-survey responses, it could be surmised that the two teachers tended to just put the same answers for each question in the pre-survey and took more time to think about their answers in the post-survey. The remaining ten teachers saw an increase in their post-survey scores.

Graph 4

Individual Teacher Survey Scores for Technology Integration

For responses in the Pre- and Post-Survey for each frequency of use in each of the five technology integration category questions in this section along with a line graph depicting the sum of the teachers’ survey scores for the technology integration section for the pre- and post-survey, see Appendix F.

Graphs 5 and 6 display the mean scores for the pre- and post-survey scores for the teacher’s technology integration. The graphs depict how the distribution shifts from the lower scores in the pre-survey to the higher scores in the post-survey. The mean increased from 10 in the pre-survey scores to 14 in the post-survey scores indicating that the teachers have increased their technology integration in the classroom. Standard deviation remained at 5.

Graphs 5 and 6

Mean/Standard Deviation for Individual Teacher Survey Scores for Technology Integration

Graph 5

Graph 6

Survey Results: Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT)

Graph 7 depicts the teachers’ levels for the Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT). In the post-survey results, two teachers moved up from the Developing Technology level to the Proficient level and two teachers moved up from the Proficient level to the Advanced level.

Graph 7

Teachers Levels for the TSAT

Graph 8 displays the calculated scores for each teacher for their pre- and post-TSAT (1 for Early Technology, 2 for Developing Technology, 3 for Proficient, and 4 for Advanced) while Graph 9 displays the scores along with the mean in the pre-survey (2.8 with a standard deviation of 0.75) to an increased mean in the post-survey (3.1 with a standard deviation of 0.77). The slight increase in the mean infers that professional development is an ongoing process allowing the teachers to continue to progress through the technology levels while building on their technology skills.

Graph 8

Individual Teachers Pre- and Post-TSAT Scores

Graph 9

Mean/Standard Deviation for Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT)

Discussion and Conclusions

After receiving treatments of focused workshops and peer mentoring, the data indicates that both the teachers and students increased their technology use along with increasing their technology integration using cooperative learning, technology activities requiring higher-level thinking skills, content and technology standards, and engaging technology activities.

Building on the professional development of technology proficiency skills that teachers have received in the past, it appears that focused workshops and peer mentoring allow the teachers who already possess these proficiency skills to continue to progress further and integrate the technology in the classroom.

The increases were a result of teachers acquiring skills through professional development and putting these skills to use in the classroom.

Implications for my Teaching/School

By reviewing the results of this research study, I was pleasantly surprised by the increase in the technology integration in the classrooms. This is the first year I have seen technology integration occurring in many classrooms rather than just one or two – even if it is just once a month. I believe that this is the beginning of the teachers using technology effectively. I feel the teachers are progressing in line with the four stages of technology developed by Mandinach & Cline (1992) noted in my Literature Review. The teachers have moved beyond the survival stage and many have moved past the mastery stage onto the impact and innovation stages. Professional development on how to use computers along with professional development and coaching on how to integrate the technology into the classroom curriculum will continue to be an ongoing process and can take a teacher from three to five to reach the mastery and impact stages (Anderson, 2000a). The teachers have been progressing through these stages at a pace in line with this theory.

Implications for Further Research

If given the opportunity to further research this study, there are several areas I would focus on for implementing changes.

First, the research study would run for an entire school year, thereby giving me ample time to focus on the training and ensure that all areas of the curriculum were covered.

Second, I would add a survey to be given in the middle of the study in addition to the pre- and post-survey for the purpose of being able to look at where the improvements and challenges are, thereby enabling me to focus on the challenge areas for the remainder of the year.

Third and last, a positive benefit would be to have a technology lab of 25 computers where the teachers could bring their entire class to work on a technology-integrated project.

References

Anderson, M. A. (2000a). Assessing teacher technology skills. Multimedia Schools, 7(6). Retrieved July 12, 2004, from Academic Search Premier database.

Anderson, M. A. (2000b). Staff development: Your most important role. Multimedia Schools,

7(1). Retrieved July 12, 2004, from Professional Development Collection database.

Bailey, G. D. & Powell, D. (1998). Technology staff development and support programs:

Applying Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need. Leading & Learning with Technology,

26(3). Retrieved July 26, 2004, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 579 995.

Barnett, H. (2002). Professional development in technology: Key principles.

Retrieved July 19, 2004, from http://www.portical.org/barnett_intro.html

Barnett, H. (2003). Technology professional development: Successful strategies for

teacher change. ERIC Digest. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from ERIC database.

CEO Forum on Education and Technology (2001). The CEO forum report.

Year 4 report: Key building blocks for student achievement in the 21^st Century.

Retrieved July 21, 2004, from http://www.ceoforum.org

Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991, May). Changes in teachers’ beliefs

and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 45-52.

Dwyer, David (1994, April). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What we’ve learned.

Educational Leadership, 4-10.

Eisenberg, M. B. & Johnson, D. (2002, September). Learning and teaching information

technology. Computer skills in context. ERIC Digest.

Ertmer, P., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’

beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom.

Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1). Retrieved July 12, 2004,

from Academic Search Elite database.

Harnish, D. & Wild, L. A. (1994). Mentoring strategies for faculty development.

Studies in Higher Education, 19(2). Retrieved July 12, 2004, from Academic Search Premier database.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools (2^nd ed.).

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1992). The impact of technological curriculum innovation

on teaching and learning activities. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of

the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.

Retrieved July 26, 2004, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345 717.

Matusevich, M. N. (1995). School reform: What role can technology play in a constructivist

setting? Retrieved July 19, 2004, from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University site: http://pixel.cs.vt.edu/edu/fis/techcons.html

McKenzie, J. (1995). Crossing the great divide: Adult learning for integrative and innovative

use of technologies with students. From Now On. The Educational Technology

Journal, 5(1). Retrieved March 5, 2004, from http://staffdevelop.org/articles.html

McKenzie, J. (1999). How teachers learn technology best. Coaching for a change.

Retrieved July 14, 2004, from http://staffdevelop.org

Mills, S. C. & Tincher, R. C. (2003). Be the technology: A developmental model for

evaluating technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 35(3), 382-401.

National Center for Education Statistics (2001). Table 419. -- Public schools and school

classrooms with access to the Internet, by selected school characteristics: 1994 to 2001.

Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/ch_7.asp

Royer, R. (2002). Supporting technology integration through action research.

Clearing House, 75(5). Retrieved July 12, 2004, from Academic Search Elite database.

WestEd RTEC (2002). A successful model of technology staff development.

Teacher Development Center. Retrieved July 19, 2004, from

http://www.wested.org/techplan/staff_dev/welcome.htm

APPENDIX A

Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School

760 Osterville/West Barnstable Road

Marstons Mills, Massachusetts 02648

Dear Principal Deusser:

I am asking you to allow your teachers to participate in a study relating to the integration of technology into the elementary curriculum at Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School. This study will involve focused training workshops for the teachers in addition to peer mentoring. The purpose of this study is to promote teacher proficiency in integrating technology into the curriculum.

This study will be implemented during the Bridgewater State College Spring 2005 Semester and is a requirement for my Masters in Education in Instructional Technology. The results of the study will be available in June 2005. I will be happy to share the results of the study with you at that time.

The teachers will be given a consent letter to participate in the study. Teachers will also be informed that they can withdraw from the study at any time with no negative consequences. Participation is voluntary and involves no unusual risks.

I hope you will agree to the participation of the Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School in this study. I believe it will be a worthwhile endeavor for all involved and increase the effectiveness of the teachers in the area of technology integration.

If you have any questions or require further information about the study, please contact me.

Yours truly,

Julia Zangl Colby

Technology Specialist

---------------------------------------------------- Detach and Returned Signed ----------------------------------------------------

I consent to the participation of Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School in the study entitled “Effectively Integrating Technology into the Classroom” as described in this letter.

______________________________ ______________________________

Printed Name Signature

______________________________

Date

Privacy and Confidentiality:

Please note that all data will be private. Only the researchers will have access to the information collected in this project. Neither your name or any student names will appear in any reports of this research.

APPENDIX B

Marstons Mills East Elementary

760 Osterville/West Barnstable Road

Marstons Mills, Massachusetts 02648

January 3, 2004

Dear Teacher:

I am asking you to participate in a study relating to the integration of technology into the elementary curriculum at Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School. This study will involve focused training workshops for the teachers in addition to peer mentoring. In addition to attending the training workshops and being part of the mentoring process, you will be asked to complete questionnaires and/or surveys related to the study.

The purpose of this study is to promote teacher proficiency in integrating technology into the curriculum. My goal is that these training workshops and peer mentoring models will be a mutually beneficial experience and that you will find it invaluable and insightful

This study will be implemented during the Bridgewater State College Spring 2005 Semester and is a requirement for my Masters in Education in Instructional Technology. The results of the study will be available in June 2005. If you wish to obtain a copy of these results, you may contact me.

I hope you will agree to participate in this study. Participation is voluntary and involves no unusual risks to you. If for any reason you decide to withdraw, you are free to do so at any time during the study with no negative consequences.

If you have any questions or require further information about the study, please contact me.

Yours truly,

Julia Zangl Colby

Technology Specialist

---------------------------------------------------- Detach and Returned Signed ----------------------------------------------------

I consent to the participation in the study entitled “Effectively Integrating Technology into the Classroom” as described in the letter dated January 3, 2004.

______________________________ ______________________________

Printed Name Signature

______________________________

Date

Privacy and Confidentiality:

APPENDIX C

Technology Integration in
Elementary Education Classrooms

Participant Pre-Training Survey

Please fill this out as if it were the first day of the school year in September, prior to receiving any professional development.

Survey: This teacher survey is being administered in conjunction

with the research study entitled

Technology Integration in Elementary Education Classrooms.

Please check the answer that MOST CLOSELY

REFLECTS your beliefs.

Survey Demographic Information

Categories: Teacher’s Use of Technology

Students Use of Technology

Technology and the Way Your Classroom Works

Study: Involves focused training workshops for the teachers

along with the use of peer mentoring as a professional

development strategy.

Purpose of Study: Promote teacher proficiency in integrating technology

into the curriculum.

Confidential: All data will be private. Only the researchers will

have access to the information collected in this project.

Code # for Teacher: __________________________________

Demographic Information

1. What grade level do you teach?

K 1 2 3 4

2. At the end of last school year, how many years had you been teaching?

3. Regarding computer use, how often do you use the computer?

Never 1-3 Times a Year 1-3 Times a Month 1-3 Times a Week Almost Daily

4. Do you have a computer at home?

Yes No

If Yes, what type of computer?

PC or Macintosh? __________________

5. Is your computer at home connected to the Internet?

Yes No

6. What is the number of working computers in your classroom?

7. How many classroom computers are connected to the Internet?

8. During the 2003-2004 school year, how many hours of technology professional

development did you attend?

9. Have you assessed your own technology skills using the Massachusetts Department of Education Technology Self-Assessment Tool (TSAT)?

Yes No

If Yes, what is your level?

Early Technology Developing Technology Proficient Advanced

10. Are you familiar with the instructional technology standards developed by the Massachusetts Department of Education for PreK-12 students. These standards define what PreK-12 students should know and be able to do in order to

use technologies for learning?

Yes No

11. Are you interested in learning more about using technology in your teaching?

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

12. Do you feel comfortable using technology in the classroom?

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

13. Do you feel if you received focused workshops and peer mentoring, you would be able to more effectively integrate technology into your classroom?

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Teachers Use of Technology

How often do you use technology to –

1. Create instructional materials, tests, lesson plans, etc.