Results
Next Section

Intech Article | Professional Development Articles

For research questions 1-7, a 2 x 3 repeated measures factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the effectiveness of three training approaches on 13 dependent variables. The between subject variable (GROUP - S/I, I/S, S&I) had three levels corresponding to the three types of training approaches. The within variable represented the number of repeated measures (TIME - pre/post). The following hypotheses were tested for each dependent variable. Hypothesis 1 represents the between factor and hypothesis 2 represents the within factor.

Hypothesis 1:

There will be no significant differences among the three training groups on the dependent variables.

Hypothesis 2:

There will be no significant differences between pre- and posttest measures for the three training groups on the dependent variables.

Hypothesis 3:

There will be no significant interaction between the two main effects of GROUP (S/I, I/S, S&I) and TIME (pre/post) on the dependent variables.

Below is a summary of the results.

1. No significant interactions were found for any of the 13 dependent variables.

2. All 13 dependent variables yielded significant main effects for TIME (pre/post).

3. Two dependent variables (number of instructional purposes and the number of software programs used) yielded significant main effects for GROUP. However, the researcher was not interested in group differences; therefore, these two findings were ignored.

Research Questions 8-9

Question 8. What effect did the implementation of technology have on the overall teaching and learning process?

Educational technology affords the opportunity for shifts to occur in the teaching and learning process. Therefore, on the posttest version of the Teacher Questionnaire, Item 13 was added allowing teachers to indicate to what degree certain shifts, specified by Collins (1991), occurred in their classrooms over the 1996-1997 school year. A five-point Likert scale was used with responses ranging from 1 (low shift) to 5(high shift). Mean scores were calculated for each group on each shift (see tables below).

Shift 1: Shift from whole-class to small-group instruction .

S/I

I/S

S&I

3.440

3.565

3.391

Shift 2: Shift from lecture and recitation to coaching.

S/I

I/S

S&I

3.320

3.391

3.304

Shift 3: Shift from working with better students to working with weaker students.

S/I

I/S

S&I

3.200

3.261

3.000

Shift 4: Shift toward more engaged students.

S/I

I/S

S&I

4.080

4.348

3.826

Shift 5: Shift from assessment based on test performance to assessment based on products, progress, and effort.

S/I

I/S

S&I

3.480

3.478

3.609

Shift 6: Shift from a competitive to a cooperative social structure.

S/I

I/S

S&I

3.480

4.217

3.609

Shift 7: Shift from all students learning the same things to different students learning different things.

S/I

I/S

S&I

3.520

3.435

3.435

Shift 8: Shift from primacy of verbal thinking to the integration of visual and verbal thinking.

S/I

I/S

S&I

3.640

3.696

3.522

Question 9. What components of the InTech Project were viewed by participating teachers as being the most useful in helping them integrate technology into the curriculum?

This question was assessed through the administration of the InTech Project Summative Evaluation instrument as a form of posttest. Nine components of the InTech Project were included on the InTech Project Summative Evaluation instrument. The nine components include (a) training on a variety of hardware, (b) training on a variety of software, (c) training on how to integrate computers into the curriculum, (d) the opportunity to plan and develop projects and activities, (e) the opportunity to collaborate with other teachers, (f) the availability of InTech Project staff as resource personnel, (g) the opportunity to take additional training throughout the school year, (h) the opportunity to take a computer home for the summer, and (i) access to a wide variety of curriculum-based software. Participants were asked to rate each component on its degree of usefulness in helping them integrate technology into the curriculum by choosing one of five Likert-scale response choices ranging from 1 (low usefulness) to 5 (high usefulness). Mean scores were calculated for each group on each component (see tables below).

Component 1: Training on a variety of hardware.

S/I

I/S

S&I

4.840

4.783

4.696

Component 2: Training on a variety of software.

S/I

I/S

S&I

4.920

4.826

5.000

Component 3: Training on how to integrate computers into the curriculum.

S/I

I/S

S&I

4.800

4.652

4.696


Component 4: The opportunity to plan and develop projects and activities to utilize in your classroom.

S/I

I/S

S&I

4.560

4.435

4.565

Component 5: The opportunity to collaborate with other teachers.

S/I

I/S

S&I

4.680

4.696

4.609

Component 6: The availability of the InTech Project staff as resource personnel.

S/I

I/S

S&I

4.800

4.696

4.870

Component 7: The opportunity to take additional training throughout the school year.

S/I

I/S

S&I

4.760

4.565

4.739

Component 8: The opportunity to take a computer home for the summer.

S/I

I/S

S&I

4.880

4.739

4.826

Component 9: Access to a wide variety of curriculum-based software.

S/I

I/S

S&I

4.920

4.826

4.913

The Summative Evaluation instrument also included two open-ended questions. First, the participants were asked to describe any changes they would recommend to improve the InTech Project. The frequency of each recommendation from Groups 1, 2, and 3 are summarized in rank-order in the tables below. Second, general comments about the project were solicited. The frequency of each general comment from Groups 1, 2, and 3 are also summarized in rank-order the tables below. Not all participants chose to make recommendations or general comments concerning the InTech Project.

 

Group 1 (S/I) - Teachers Suggestions on How to Improve the InTech Project

Suggestion

Frequency

1. Cover fewer software programs.

4

2. Allow more time to "play" with software.

3

Group 2 (I/S) - Teachers Suggestions on How to Improve the InTech Project

Suggestion

Frequency

1. Present skills the first week, integration the second week.

4

2. Cover less material.

3

4. Continue to provide opportunities for teachers to share ideas between schools.

2

5. Present skills combined with integration.

2

6. Cover fewer software programs.

2

Group 3 (S&I) - Teachers Suggestions on How to Improve the InTech Project

Suggestion

Frequency

1. Cover less material.

11

2. Group teachers based on computer experience.

3

3. Slow down the pace.

2

4. Focus more on integration skills.

2

Group 1 (S/I) - General Comments about the InTech Project

Suggestion

Frequency

1. Excellent project.

7

2. This project has increased my self-confidence.

5

3. This has been the most valuable training experience I have ever had.

2

4. This project should be ongoing.

2

5. Instructors were excellent.

2

Group 2 (I/S) - General Comments about the InTech Project

Suggestion

Frequency

1. Instructors were great.

4

2. Unquestionably the best training experience I've had.

4

3. I have experienced an increase in my self- confidence.

3

4. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to participate in the InTech Project.

3

5. This has been a wonderful training opportunity.

2

6. Continue to offer this project.

2

7. Very useful project.

2

Group 3 (S&I) - General Comments about the InTech Project

Comment

Frequency

1. Excellent instructors.

8

2. This project has changed my teaching style.

6

3. This has been the greatest learning experience.

6

4. Extremely beneficial course.

3

5. I have loved this project.

3

6. This has been the most beneficial staff development I've ever taken.

3

7. I self-confidence has increased.

3

8. Thankful for the opportunity to participate.

2