Barriers to Teachers’ Adoption and Use of Technology-Supported Learner-Centered Pedagogies Peggy A. Ertmer Department of Curriculum and Instruction Purdue University United States
[email protected] James D. Lehman Sung Hee Park Jeffry Cramer Karen Grove Department of Curriculum and Instruction Purdue University United States
Abstract: Problem-based learning (PBL), a teaching/learning approach that relies o n ill-structured problems to provide opportunities for student learning, can involve technology as a tool for acquiring, manipulating, and communicating information. In this session, we outline the professional development activities we have used over the last three years to support teachers’ implementation of problem-based learning in their classrooms. Based on teacher interviews and PBL implementation data, we describe strategies that have worked, as well as those that haven’t, and outline steps taken t o confront the various barriers teachers encounter as they attempt to incorporate learnercentered pedagogies, supported by technology, within traditional classroom practice.
Introduction Despite the fact that technologies have achieved a ‘substantial’ presence in schools today (Market Data Retrieval, 2002), in-service teachers continue to grapple with both practical and philosophical problems posed by the integration process (Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999). Even among exemplary users, barriers exist (Becker, 1994). Furthermore, barriers may relate to a variety of issues including personal concerns, technical and organizational support, as well as pedagogical beliefs (Ertmer, 1999). Although teachers may not face all of these barriers as they implement new technological tools and strategies within their classrooms, they are likely to face many of them. As Dexter and her colleagues noted: “For teachers to implement any new instructional strategy, they must acquire new knowledge about it and then weave this together with the demands of the curriculum, classroom management, and existing instructional skills” (p. 223). As teacher educators, then, our job becomes one of designing professional development experiences that help teachers manage this change process successfully. Recognizing that meaningful technology use more readily aligns with a constructivist teaching philosophy (Berg, Benz, Lasley, & Raisch, 1998; Ravitz, Becker, & Wong, 1999), current professional development efforts are de-emphasizing the development of isolated technical skills. Instead, emphasis is being placed on developing these skills in the context of designing and facilitating learner-centered activities, including those that occur within problem-based learning units. Little (1993) argued that traditional models of professional development are inadequate for preparing teachers for the challenges of teaching in the climate of reform. Because of the complexities of pedagogies demanded by learner-centered approaches (which may, in fact, be exacerbated by the use of technology), more meaningful professional development experiences are needed. The Education Development Center (1996) suggested that technology development should be directed toward growing human capacities: “It is not training in the technology, but training in how to leverage the technology to provide, increase, improve, and/or assess student learning” (p. 8). Thus, professional development experiences are expected to be more effective if they are linked to
new visions for teaching and learning, made possible with technology, rather than focused on learning how to operate specific software and hardware. In their description of effective professional development strategies, Putnam and Borko (2000) noted that teacher learning and knowing were best supported when developed across a variety of situations. They suggested that effective models for professional development combine multiple contexts such as a summer workshop wherein teachers learn new theoretical ideas, followed by ongoing support during the year that helps them know how to integrate those ideas into their instructional activities. Additionally, research on teacher learning has delineated several core features of professional development that are likely to have significant impact on changes in classroom practice: focusing on content, promoting active learning, and fostering coherence across a broad range of teacher activities in schools (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). Improvements in teachers’ classroom practices were also supported by professional development efforts that provided opportunities for collective participation of groups of teachers from the same settings (Garet et al., 2001). According to Trotter (1999), survey reports from the teachers themselves indicate that professional development that focuses on the integration of technology in the curriculum, along with some basic technology skills training, supported greater use of digital content in the classroom. Based on this rationale, in August 2000 we initiated a 5-year Challenge Grant project that focused on the development and implementation of a problem-based curriculum at the middle school level and that embedded both teacher technology development and student use within authentic problem-solving contexts. Our hope was to help teachers create classroom environments that promoted meaningful uses of technology within learner-centered pedagogies. In other words, teachers were expected to design and facilitate curricular lessons or units that encouraged students’ uses of a variety of software applications (e.g., Internet search engines, spreadsheets, multimedia presentation software) and technology tools (e.g., digital cameras, data probes) while engaged in authentic problemsolving tasks. This paper reports on the professional development activities we have used to support teachers’ implementation efforts over the last 3 years. We describe strategies that have worked, as well as those that haven’t, and outline steps taken to confront the various barriers teachers have encountered as they have attempted to change their classroom practice.
Project Background Tech-Know-Build: Indiana Students Building Knowledge with Technology is a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant project, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, which “combines two powerful trends in educational reform: the infusion of laptop and wireless Internet technology to support learning, and the adoption of problem-centered, inquiry-based pedagogy to enhance teaching. A number of initiatives for systemic school reform have used these tools in isolation; by harnessing the power of both, the Tech-Know-Build project has the potential to substantially alter the landscape of teaching and learning” (Rockman et al., 2002, p. 1). Project partners include the Crawfordsville (Indiana) Community Schools, Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS), Purdue University, and Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI). Due to proximity, Purdue works primarily with the Crawfordsville teachers, and IUPUI works primarily with IPS on professional development activities. This paper focuses primarily on the professional development partnership between Purdue University and the Crawfordsville teachers.
Evolving Professional Development Activities Based on the overarching goal of the grant -- to help teachers facilitate technology-supported, learner-centered pedagogies within their classrooms -- we have introduced teachers to a problem-based learning pedagogy through either a semester-long professional development course (year one) or a 2-week intensive summer institute (years 2 and 3). The intensive professional development experience provides teachers with the opportunity to explore the use of both laptop technologies and learner-centered pedagogies, as well as time to collaborate with other teachers from their buildings to create a problem-based unit that uses technology as a tool for understanding. We believe that problem-based learning (PBL) offers a promising approach because it emphasizes student investigations of complex problems in authentic contexts (Delisle, 1997; Levin, 2001). Additionally, technology readily plays a supportive role as a tool for gathering information, analyzing and representing data, and communicating results. To prepare teachers to utilize this learner-centered pedagogy we utilize an approach that involves modeling PBL
via a realistic activity involving in-service teachers, pre-service teachers, and K-12 students. The modeling activity is used to help teachers understand the problem-based learning process, the roles of teachers and students, and the use of technology as a supporting tool. We involve pre-service teachers because they 1) bring a high level of technology competence, 2) can benefit from the experience themselves, and 3) provide a vehicle for initiating collaboration between pre-service teachers and K-12 teachers and students. We involve K-12 students because we want teachers to work with students as co-learners. A growing body of literature suggests that changes in teacher-student relationships can accompany technology integration (e.g., Coe & Ault, 2001; Ertmer & Hruskocy, 1999). Evaluation data have consistently shown that both teachers and students view this modeling activity positively. In a short period of time, this activity is able to convey the nature and components of PBL to participating teachers. After participating in this modeling activity, teachers work in teams to create their own PBL units, to be implemented during the semester/year following their involvement in the semester course or summer institute. The components of these units include a driving question, curricular objectives and links to curricular standards, possible student investigations and other activities, materials and resources, and assessment tools. Teachers' units are available online at: http://research.soe.purdue.edu/challenge. Based on strategies recommended by Putnam and Borko (2000), we also provide teachers with additional training opportunities (technology and pedagogically-oriented workshops) and on-going support in the form of project fairs, dinner seminars, classroom visits, and an online discussion board. Despite these efforts, however, the number of teachers currently implementing PBL units in their classrooms is extremely small. In the following sections, we describe each year’s successes and disappointments, as well as the approaches taken to overcome the various barriers teachers have experienced.
Year One During the fall of 2000, 20 Crawfordsville middle and high school teachers enrolled in an advanced educational technology course, offered for credit through Purdue’s Office of Lifelong Learning, and which met weekly at Crawfordsville High School. The modeling activity was held early in the semester and included 18 students from grades 6-12 and 6 pre-service teachers. This activity occurred over a 2-day period and involved participants in a PBL activity based on a significant environmental problem (water quality) in the local community. Several additional problem-solving activities, involving the use of technology, were employed during the course. For example, participants engaged in a spreadsheet activity involving prediction of the medal times/distances for track events in the 2000 Summer Olympics, which took place during the course. A WebQuest activity was used to introduce concepts related to evaluation of websites. A history-based activity required teachers to research and develop multimedia presentations to convince their peers of the historical significance of one decade of the 20th century. The final project was the development of a PBL unit to be implemented the following spring. At the end of the year, we gathered data to determine 1) the overall rate of implementation of PBL units, 2) teachers’ judgments of success, 3) perceived strengths and weaknesses of the units, as implemented and 4) teachers’ commitment to implementing their units again. The results indicated that 70% of the teachers had implemented their units, and 86% agreed that they would use them again (however, only 20% of the teachers – 1 team – actually implemented their units a second time).
Year Two Based on the challenges and frustrations described by teachers in the first year, we modified plans for the 2001 summer institute to include the following: • more information about PBL • more examples of teachers using technology in meaningful ways • information about assessment techniques (rubrics, checklists, etc.) In addition, it was suggested by our project evaluator that the modeling activity be focused on a broader social issue, so this also was changed. Six Crawfordsville teachers, four middle school students, and one pre-service teacher participated in Year Two
along with four teams from IPS. (Due to size differences in the two participating school districts, the ratio of IPS-toCrawfordsville teachers was designed to be approximately 4:1) Teachers met in a single location for the majority of the institute, although some development work was completed at teachers’ local schools during the 2nd week. The modeling activity occurred during the first 3 days of the institute and revolved around the question, “How can you describe your community, what makes it special or unique, and how can you improve the image of your community?” Although participants reported enjoying the activity, we noted that the driving question did not require the type of extensive data collection and analysis as the water quality issue had entailed the year before. In retrospect, we believed that this led to a misrepresentation of the type of student-inquiry promoted by PBL. On days 4 and 5 of the institute, teachers attended a variety of mini-workshops that focused on technology skills needed to implement their own units, which they designed, collaboratively, over the second week of the institute. The Crawfordsville teachers developed a unit focused on the question, “What factors influence people’s physical fitness?” Evaluation data collected on the last day of the summer institute indicated that of the 26 teachers who attended the workshop, 70% reported that the institute had enhanced their knowledge and skills in using technology, as well as their understandings of PBL, constructivist teaching strategies, and alternative forms of assessment. On a scale from 1 to 5 (with 5 being high), teachers rated the development of a PBL unit as highly “beneficial to my professional development needs” (mean = 4.6). Technology training averaged a 4.2 rating on this same scale. Yet, despite teachers’ perceptions that the institute had been beneficial, implementation of the PBL units was fairly limited. In Crawfordsville, the PE teacher used the unit quite successfully, but none of the other teachers used the unit at all. Development and implementation of PBL units by IPS teachers was also limited. Given these disappointing results, the project team brainstormed additional strategies for impacting classroom practice. Recognizing that teachers’ classroom practices do not change overnight, we decided to look beyond whether or not PBL was being implemented in the classroom (our long-term goal), to philosophical and/or classroom changes that might be occurring that would pave the way for the successful implementation of PBL. This included increased uses of learner-centered practices such as student-led inquiry, cooperative learning groups, and alternative assessment strategies. Furthermore, increases in students’ general technology skills might be seen as building both student and teacher capacity for successful PBL implementation.
Year Three Based on Year Two results, we made additional changes to the 2002 summer institute: • return to the water quality problem for the modeling activity • more detailed information about the concept of PBL • examples of teachers using technology within a PBL context • explicit discussions about PBL implementation and evaluation issues It was also decided to present the summer workshop in two formats in order to better meet the varying needs of IPS and Crawfordsville teachers. Therefore, participants from the two districts met together only once, during which time they attended mini-technology workshops. The rest of the two weeks was spent working in their local schools. Five Crawfordsville teachers and five middle-school students participated. Participants divided into two teams during the modeling activity and continued to work in these teams to create their own units, to be implemented during the 2002-2003 school year. Two teachers were from the high school, the other three were from the middle school. Survey data were gathered at the beginning and end of the institute to determine if/how teacher knowledge, skills, and attitudes had changed. For example, after the modeling activity, teachers agreed that they had learned a lot of science (mean = 4.0 on a 5.0 scale) as well as new things about technology (mean = 4.6). At the end of the institute, all of the teachers reported feeling more confident about using technology in the classroom. One middle school teacher noted, “This project has continued to ‘spark’ my desire and willingness to try new things in my teaching (methods, assessment, and technology).” In addition to survey data, teachers completed daily reflective summaries as one way to share their ongoing and/or new concerns. In general, Crawfordsville teachers responded very positively to the workshop format. Teachers commented on the value of participating in the modeling activity and on learning more about PBL. As concerns were raised in teachers’ daily reflections, project team members were able
to brainstorm ways to address each issue. As one teacher noted, “After watching the videos and talking to the instructors, I feel very confident that this unit will not be impossible to do.” In order to avoid experiencing the same disappointments as those experienced in previous years, we have implemented several support strategies to assist teachers as they begin implementing their units. For example, a dinner seminar was hosted mid-way through the semester as one way to keep teachers’ enthusiasm at a high level. Teachers from the two Crawfordsville summer teams, as well as previous project participants, made brief presentations to IPS teachers about their current classroom activities related to PBL and other student-centered activities. Presentations included demonstrations of a variety of activities being used in teachers’ classrooms including 1) content-oriented WebQuests, 2) student discussions conducted within ANGEL (the online environment being used in the project), and 3) the use of Inspiration to increase student achievement. In addition, we continue to collect data to determine additional types of follow-up support and training needed by the teachers in order to successfully implement PBL units in their classrooms. Hopefully, by addressing barriers in a more timely fashion, we will be able to provide the type of support needed to get these teachers over the “implementation” hump.
Preliminary Results According to the evaluation report prepared by Rockman et al (2002), both teachers and students have benefited from the efforts of the project, to date. Specifically, Tech-Know-Build teachers have begun experimenting with constructivist teaching practices such as fostering different approaches to classroom learning and allowing students to help define specific learning activities. Almost half the teachers reported consistently incorporating constructivist practices into their classrooms that allow for the emergence of students’ autonomy and student-to-student collaboration. In addition, teachers reported that the Tech-Know-Build project had increased students’ interest in school and schoolwork and had sparked students’ sense of ownership and autonomy in the classroom. Almost all of the teachers reported significant improvements in students’ general technology skills. Students also reported that they had benefited from the project; specifically, they noted that technology helped them figure out information, made it easier to organize information, and made learning more interesting. A couple of representative comments follow (cited in Rockman et al., 2002): I do more studying now with my computer than I did when I didn’t [have one]. With my computer I study a lot, do my homework and stuff. Well, basically the computer is like my friend. I’ve used it a lot and I’ve learned a lot of different things about it. I was like the computer wiz in my class. My teachers use me a lot on the computers. I am always over there at the computer fixing printers and things. That makes me feel pretty good when I can do things the teachers can’t (pp. 20-21). According to the project evaluators, the Tech-Know-Build project “has led to a number of gains in student learning, increased collaboration both within the classroom and at home, as well as shifts in teacher practice” (p. 35). Still, there is a great deal of work left to do. As the project nears the end of its third year and prepares for the fourth iteration of the summer institute, we will continue to strive to achieve our long-term goal, that is, to achieve successful implementation of problem-based learner-centered pedagogies, supported by technology, in the middle school classroom.
Conclusion When technology is integrated into classroom practice in ways advocated by this project, Kerr (1996) warned that it will require “a radical shift in both teaching style and the teacher’s vision of what classroom life is all about” (p. 24). This project highlights the amounts and kinds of support teachers need as they attempt to incorporate more learner-centered approaches within their classrooms. As suggested by our ongoing results, formal professional development is not likely to have lasting effects unless it can provide continuity between what teachers learn and what goes on in the classroom. Professional development efforts must address teachers’ changing needs in both powerful and flexible ways.
References Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 291-321. Berg, S., Benz, C.R., Lasley II, T. J., & Raisch, C. D. (1998). Exemplary technology use in elementary classrooms. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 111-122. Coe, M. T., & Ault, P. C. (2001). Students, teachers, and technology building better schools: Generation www.Y project evaluation. Retrieved October 16, 2002 from http://www.genyes.org/media/nwrel.annual.final.pdf Deslisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers' views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 221-238. Education Development Center (1996). National study tour of district technology integration: Summary report (CCT Reports, No. 14). New York: Center for Children and Technology. Retrieved October 14, 2002 from http://www2.edc.org/CCT/cctweb/public/include/pdf/12_1996.pdf Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61. Ertmer, P. A., & Hruskocy, C. (1999). Impacts of university/elementary school partnership designed to support technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 81-96. Kerr, S. T. (1996). Visions of sugarplums: The future of technology, education, and the schools. In S. T. Kerr (Ed.) Technology and the future of schooling: Ninety-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, (part 2), pp. 1-27. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levin, B. B. (Ed.). (2001). Energizing teacher education and professional development with problem-based learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151. Market Data Retrieval (2002). Technology in education, 2002. Retrieved September 23, 2002 from: http://www.schooldata.com/publications3.html Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Ravitz, J., Becker, H., & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist compatible beliefs and practices among U. S. teachers. Retrieved October 10, 2002, from University of California, Irvine, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations Web site: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings.html Rockman et al. (2002, October). Tech-Know-Build: Indiana students building knowledge with technology. Year 2 Evaluation Report. Bloomington, IN: Author Trotter, A. (1999). Preparing teachers for the digital age. [Electronic version]. Education Week, 19(4), 37-43.
