PIP (PROFESSIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) PLAN OF ACTION
Julia Wilson, ET8027 (Cohort 13): EDLD 5301/5397
How the Use of Sustained Professional Development Affects New Technology Integration into Constructivist Learning in Elementary Science Classrooms
The mission of our campus is “to support all students in realizing their potential by providing relevant and challenging learning experiences in a safe, nurturing environment” (Wilshire Elementary, n.d.). These goals stem from a deep-seated belief in student-centered learning and authentic connections of learning objectives to real-life situations. My personal vision for educational technology mirrors many of these same tenets: technology is the vehicle that engages 21st century students in a dynamic, inquiry-based academic environment. I believe this is achieved by integrating instruction with technology and ensuring that our students and teachers are proficient users of these new technologies.
For the 2010-2011 school year, campus teachers in grades 3-6 received a variety of new technology resources for their classrooms, including whiteboards, projectors, laptops, and docking stations. This implementation came to a campus that has shown stagnant STaR Chart results for the past five years, with even a slight decline in the domain of Leadership, Administration, & Instructional Support. (Texas Education Agency, 2006-2010) After receiving this information, I analyzed the teacher surveys collected in May, 2010, and found that teachers on my campus desire more sustained professional development support for the integration of technology into teaching. In addition, the campus instructional leadership team, of which I am a member, evaluated our state assessment data for 2009-2010, which indicated that science scores, at 88%, fall below the exemplary standard. (Texas Education Agency, 2010) Our long-term strategic goal for science holds that 100% of students at our campus will show mastery in science as measured by district and state assessments in the 2010-2011 school year. In light of this data, both improvement in student achievement in science and ongoing, supportive training in technology were identified as critical campus needs. (Schellhorn, 2010)
The district curriculum coordinators are still in the initial stages of integrating technology resources into the science curriculum, and encourage science teachers to participate in development and sharing of lesson templates. This presented an opportunity to utilize the tenets of constructivist learning theory and UDL principles to connect technology integration directly to student learning. In 2001 Robert Marzano, Debra Pickering and Jane Pollock offered to educators nine categories of strategies that have been found over a wide range of studies to have a significant effect on student achievement. (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, pp. 6-8) Commonly known in education as ‘Marzano’s High-Yield Strategies’, these techniques create the foundation of a constructivist classroom. In constructivist theory, learning is shown to be a personal, intimate relationship between student and knowledge: “Constructivists consider learning to be an individual and personal event” (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1999) . Students drive the learning in a constructivist classroom through inquiry and cooperative learning strategies. It is in the effort to create a truly student-centered classroom that technology can prove so powerful. At the very outset of their book, Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, the authors remind us that “integrating technology into instruction tends to move classrooms from teacher-dominated environments to ones that are more student-centered” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 3). This sentiment is echoed by authors Debra Sprague and Christopher Dede: “When one integrates student experiences with technology into the curriculum, the role of the teacher changes. The teacher no longer has to be in charge every minute, but can give some of the control over to the students and the technology” (Sprague & Dede, 1999, p. 7). Twenty-first century students live in a world filled with the means to find information, use that information to create ideas, and express those ideas compellingly. For example, digital portfolios are superior form to other types of assessment tools for documenting higher order thinking and performance skills necessary for students to graduate both college- and career-ready for the 21st century. (Meoller & Reitzes, 2011) Rose and Meyer exhort teachers to individualize teaching strategies to encourage students’ various cognitive networks (Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning, 2002) . Creating a classroom ripe with these opportunities is the goal of both the constructivist teacher and the technology facilitator. In their research study, Collaborative Research Methodology for Investigating Teaching and Learning: The Use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology, authors advise that teachers play the majority role in including technology in pursuing the content aims of lessons and in using the technology to promote quality engagement and student/content interaction. (Armstrong, Barnes, Sutherland, Curran, Mills, & Thompson, 2005) One of the primary goals of the Enhancing Education through Technology Act (2001) involves supporting the ongoing professional development of teachers through constant access to research-based training in teaching and learning through electronic means. This study attempted to answer the following question: In what ways will the creation of a sustained professional development framework affect the integration of new technology into elementary science instruction in order to generate more authentic, student-centered learning?
References:
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005, November). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469.
Enhancing Education through Technology Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 2402, 115 Stat. 1671 (2001).
Moeller, B., & Reitzes, T. (2011). Integrating Technology with Student-Centered Learning. Education Development Center. Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schellhorn, C. (2010). Comprehensive needs assessment: Planning for student success in 2010-2011. Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD, Wilshire Elementary.
Julia-
ReplyDeleteYour plan looks well organized. I have a question. You state that the teachers will have the option to participate or not in the PLC--Do you have any idea what type of participation you will have? Do you anticipate a certain percentage? What are your plans if you have low participation?
My hope is that I will have significant participation in the group; however, if I do have a small, core set of members this year, I will have a clear delineation in my data between those who participated and those who did not. At the very least, I will have as members both fifth grade science teachers, one of the third grade science teachers, one of the second grade teachers(my son's), and the ESL inclusion teacher, who facilitates SIOP in science classes. I think this will be enough of a sample to create collaboration and peer coaching, although the more, the better!
ReplyDelete