“How do teachers use o f technology differ in personal use and classroom use as compared to students?” In an attempt to understand how teachers and students used the technology in a one to one laptop programs, frequencies of the types and uses o f different applications and strategies were studied.
Students and teachers were asked similar questions regarding their personal use of technology. While a formal analysis between the teacher and student data is not appropriate in that the data comes from two separate surveys and had different sample sizes coming from different school districts, the responses to similar questions still
provide useful information. Some differences in percentage o f respondents in various categories o f applications were found. 99% o f teachers (N=94) reported using email fairly often or very often compared to 58.8% of students (N = 705). 22.6% o f students reported that they never used email.
Teachers reported other use of some applications more than students; (a) teacher blogs almost double the rate of student blogs, 19% to 10% fairly often or very often respectively; (b) RSS feeds almost triple the rate at 24.4% to 7.8% occasionally or more often; and (c) Internet browser, 92.7% to 72.2% respectively fairly often to very often. The use o f social networking by teachers was reported to be much less than students at 32.9% to 71.2% fairly often or very often. Figures 16 and 17 show frequencies by percentage of responses for teachers. The frequencies by percentage o f responses for students are shown in Figure 18 and 19.
Roles played by teachers when using technology in the classroom were identified as outlined by (Lemke, 2009). The scoring guide provided with the survey established the questions to be included within each role in each category o f TPU, TPP, and TCU. Table 44 - 46 presents the mean and standard deviation o f each individual question as
calculated from Table 15.
Table 44:
TPU roles: Mean, standard deviation andfrequency percentages o f LoA
TPU Teacher frequency percentage in LoA levels
Mean Std. Dev. LoA Level 1% LoA Level 2 % LoA Level 3 % LoA Level 4 % N Change Agent 2.31 .892 19.1 40.4 30.9 9.6 94 Communicator/Connector 2.49 .925 16.0 33.0 37.2 13.8 94 Contributor 1.78 .798 41.5 39.4 17.0 2.1 94 Producer 2.19 .942 29.8 27.7 36.2 6.4 94 Consumer 2.35 .799 9.6 56.4 23.4 10.6 94 Table 45:
TPP roles: Mean, standard deviation andfrequency percentages o f LoA
TPP Teacher frequency percentage in LoA levels
Mean Std.Dev. LoA
Level 1% LoA Level 2 % LoA Level 3 % LoA Level 4 % N Change Agent 2.32 .870 17.0 43.6 29.8 9.6 94 94 Communicator/Connector 2.14 .811 22.3 45.7 27.7 4.3 94 Contributor 1.67 .835 53.2 29.8 13.8 3.2 94 Producer 2.53 .842 11.7 34.0 42.6 10.6 93 Consumer 2.61 .765 4.3 43.6 39.4 12.8 94 Implementer 2.93 .845 4.3 26.6 41.5 27.7 94
Table 46:
TCU roles: Mean, standard deviation and frequency percentage o f LoA
TCU Teacher frequency percentage in LoA levels
Mean Std. Dev. LoA Level 1% LoA Level 2 % LoA Level 3 % LoA Level 4 % N Change Agent 2.07 .930 35.1 26.6 34.0 4.3 94 Communicator/Connector 2.01 .933 35.1 36.2 21.3 7.4 94 Contributor 1.66 .911 59.6 19.1 17.0 4.3 94 Producer 2.17 .900 25.5 49.4 27.7 7.4 94 Consumer 2.70 .902 10.6 35.1 40.4 13.8 94 Implementer 2.57 .861 11.7 24.5 45.7 18.1 94
In order to graphically compare the three indices in regards to LoA levels, Figures 20-24 are presented. Due to the lack o f internal consistency o f questions to determine TPU and TCU Consumer (Chronbach alpha < .70), indices for those categories were not calculated.
Commumcaiw 60
50
Level I Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
• TK J • T P ? ♦ TCU
Figure 21. Communicator role levels o f LoA fo r TPU, TPP, and TCU
Producer 60
1
Level I Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
• TPU • TPP ♦ TCU
Figure 23. Producer role levels o f LoA fo r TPU, TPP and TCU.
The individual questions asked o f teachers used in the development o f TCU reveal additional information regarding their use o f technology in the classroom and the roles they play. Figures 25 to 30 present the responses to the indicated questions for each individual roles teachers play in the classroom according to the Lemke framework (Lemke, 2009). Teachers and students had the option to select an additional response for the specific applications for classroom use that stated they would use the application more if it was not blocked at school. This response choice created non-random missing data, with the actual N reported with each representation of data.
Teacher Roles: CHANGE AGENT
N - 94 Never
Rarely (Yearly)
Occasionally (Monthly) Fairly Often (Weekly)
Very Often (Daily or Almost Daily)
Use visualization tools, from Inspiration for concept mapping to tools such as Stella, which allows students to represent complex systems and the relationship o f members of that system.
Use computer or web- based simulation programs to more deeply understand events or complex concepts and relationships.
Conduct original research using online social science databases such as census data or elections data.
Create a presentation to be given to an audience outside o f the class, but related to topics studied, using presentation software such as Keynote or PowerPoint.
Teacher Roles: COMMUNICATOR 80 70 60 50 g 40 H <5* 30 20 10 0 N - 94 Never Rarely (Yearly) Occasionally (Monthly) Fairly Often (Weekly)
Very Often (Daily or Almost Daily)
2J
20 21
n i n
Use email to communicate with students in other schools, experts, or others for purposes related to classroom activities.
Use web-based social networks, established either by you or by other students, for collaboration related to learning in your classroom.
Work collaboratively with students from other regions or nations via electronic communications.
Figure 26. Teacher classroom roles: communicator
SO 70 60 50 9 Si 40 a £ 30 20 10 0
Teacher Roles: CONTRIBUTOR N - 94
Never Rarely (Yearly) Occasionally (Monthly) Fairly Often (Weekly)
Very Often (Daily or Almost Daily)
Participate in andfor contribute to wikis or blogs that you have created as the teacher.
Create original wiki or blog content to demonstrate what they have learned.
Contribute to web-based communities o f interest related to the topics they are learning about in your class.__________ Figure 27. Teacher classroom roles: contributor
Teacher Roles: PRODUCER
■ Never ■ Rarely (Yearly) ■ Occasionally (Monthly) ■ Fairly Often (Weekly)
1$ Very Often (Daily or Almost Daily)
Use round-editing • Use photo editing roftw art to either create software or web- custom m usic fat dbetr based photo editors, projects o r to create
Use online survey tools to conduct original research related to their learning. U se computer-based data analysis program s to graph or analyze <kta sets.
Create an original 1 Use web-based tools
video o r audio such as com ic builders documentary o r digital or cartoon construction story. sites.
Figure 28. Teacher classroom roles: producer
Teacher Roles: IMPLEMENTER
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 N - 94 ■ Never ■ Rarely (Yearly) I Occasionally (Monthly) ■ Fairly O ften (Weekly)
' ■ Very Often (Daily or Almost Daily)
Publish their woik using word processing or publishing programs such as Pages or Word.
Use spreadsheets for problem solving and/or data analysis.
Use databases to sort data and create reports.
Conduct research using web-based search engines and directories.
80 70 60 50 3> E 40 30 20 10 0 31 -2 7 - 2)
Teacher Roles: CONSUMER
N - 94
29
25 25
Use drill-and-practice software or websites to improve basic skills.
■ Never ■ Rarely (Yearly) ■ Occasionally (Monthly) ■ Fairly Often (Weekly)
S Very O ften (Daily o r Almost Daily)
38
20
■
i r 10
Use computer or web-based testing I Use learning objects (self-contained programs (STAR Reading or Math, learning episodes, often web-based Fitnessgnm) for formative that may include tutorials, activities,
assessment. and assessments).
Figure 30. Teacher classroom roles: consumer
Students responded to several questions aligned to the teacher survey and according to teacher roles. The results from these questions are presented in Figures 31 34.
8 0 ---
■ Never
7 0 --- ^ (Yearly)
*0 ______________________________ I Occasionally (Monthly) ■ Fairly Often (Weekly)
" 50 --- --- --- 3 Very Often (Daily or Almost Daily)
Create a presentation using presentation software such as Keynote or PowerPoint. Figure 31. Student use o f presentation applications (N—678)
Figure 32. Student use o f communication tools in the classroom (N=-687, 705) 80 70 60 SO .1 8 40 30 20 10 0 - 2 6 - - 3 9 - 25 TT 20 23 SI
Publish their work using won) processing or publishing programs such as Pages or Word.
I Use spreadsheets for problem solving and/or data analysis.
■ Never ■ Rarely (Yearly) ■ Occasionally (Monthly) ■ Fairly Often (Weekly)
W Very Often (Daily or Almost Daily)
I
19i i i i m
i i i i i i i r - i i
Use databases to sort data and create reports.
80
■ N ever ' ■ R jrc ly (Y e a rly)
■ O ccasio nally (M o n th ly ) ■ F a irly O fte n (W ee kly)
3 V ery O fte n (D a ily o r A lm o st D a ily )
Use J rill m ti practice software or • to ia nrove tn s k skills.
I Use compusa or wtfc-bascd m ra if I UK Icarnmo objects (sclf^ootstnod peoframs (STAR R a d f o r Math. leam iai episodes, often weW iased lhal Fitncss(rsn>) fo r fo rm b v c assessment, n f mehide luloeials activities, n n l
Figure 34. Student consumptive technology uses in the classroom (N= 704, 705, 695)
Some similarities and differences are indicated in the teacher and student responses. Teachers reported student use o f visualization tools and use o f online social science data at about the same rates with about 28% of teachers reporting occasionally use or use more frequently. They reported students using simulation programs to demonstrate complex concepts at an increased rate o f 46% using these teaching tools occasionally or more often. Presentations by students to an audience outside of class but related to topics studied, followed, with 44% o f teachers reporting occasional or more frequent use. Sixty percent (60%) o f students reported that creating presentations monthly or more frequently was a classroom use o f the laptop, in and outside o f class.
The use o f the laptops for student communication purposes had 58% o f teachers reported having students use email occasionally or more often with others outside of school related to classroom activities. Use o f social networks by students for
collaboration related to learning was much less with 14% o f teachers reporting weekly or more and 60% never using the applications for those activities. Seven percent (7%) o f teachers reported that student worked collaboratively with students from other regions with 60% never using this strategy. Correspondingly, 39% o f students reported using email for learning related activities with people outside o f school occasionally or more
often. Seventeen percent (17%) o f students reported using social networks for class related purposes and 56% reported never using the applications.
Twenty-four percent (24%) o f teachers reported that they had students use a wiki or blog created by the teacher occasionally or more often. Eighteen percent (18%) o f teachers had students create original content for a wiki or blog to demonstrate what they had learned occasionally or more frequently. Nineteen percent (19%) o f teachers had students contributing to web based communities related to classroom topics. Around 60% of all teachers reported they never had students participating in these activities.
Forty-five percent (45%) o f teachers reported that students used sound-editing software to create custom music for project occasionally or more often as did 34% o f students use of photo-editing software. Forty-five percent (45%) of students were
reported to create an original digital story as often. Thirty-three percent (33%) o f students were reported to use online survey tools to conduct original research and computer based data analysis occasionally or more often. Teachers reported that 34% o f students in their classes used online comic builders. Comic builders and online survey tools were reported as never used by between 42-45% o f teachers.
Teachers reported student use o f the implementer role o f technology was more broadly spread in classrooms. Student creation of published work with a word processor or publishing program was reported occasionally or more often n 72% of classrooms with 46% at lest weekly and 27% daily. The teacher reported use o f spreadsheets by students at a decreased rate o f 44% occasionally or more frequently, decreasing again to 37% for the use o f databases. Students reported these uses at approximately the same
percentages. Student research through search engines was reported by both teachers and students occasionally or more frequently at approximately 78% with about 25%
participating daily.
Drill and practice software and computer based testing was reported to be used by students from around half o f the teachers. Both were reportedly used by approximately 30% of teachers monthly. Student use o f learning objects with self contained lessons, activities and tutorials were reported to be used by 63% o f teachers, with 38% o f them
reporting using the objects monthly. When student responded to the same questions, their reported use was less (drill and practice, 21%; computer based testing, 27%, and learning objects, 48% for the same frequency o f occasional to very often). The percentage o f teachers reporting never using these strategies came to the following percentages: 27% for drill and practice, 25% for computer based testing, and 17% for learning objects while the percentage of student reporting never using them were 63% for drill and practice, 45% for computer based testing, and 32% for learning objects.
Figure 35 shows the percentages o f Internet use required of them by the school reported by students in different subject areas. Internet use with the laptop assigned to the student in a one to one laptop school is something that would be expected. Highest
Internet use in school was in English/language arts, followed by science and then social studies. Lowest uses were in vocational education classes and cultural studies. At home use for each subject was less than half o f what the in school use was reported. The requirement of Internet use at home may be one of availability in some o f the communities surveyed. A study by another member o f the Tech Cohort will address questions around the use o f the internet in this sample o f one to one laptop schools in communities (Lloyd, 2012).
Students: Technology Use in Subjects
1 0 0 ---
83.9
■ Math ■ Science ■ English/LA ■ Social Studies Cultural Studies *1 VoTech
m
ElectiveFigure 35. School subjects using Internet at school and at home reported by students