1. Differences among Students, Teachers, and Administrators on the Quality and Effectiveness of Technology Integration Ben Smith Towson University Monday, January 04, 2016Monday, January 04, 2016Monday, January 04, 2016Monday, January 04, 2016

2. Background Information Physics Teacher / Science Chair, Pennsylvania Doctoral Student at Towson University Keystone Technology Integrator STAR Discovery Educator Educational Technology Consultant - EdTechInnovators ISTE Board of Directors - PK-12 Representative ISTE Faculty - Professional Development

4. Background One School’s Technology Classrooms for the Future (CFF) 17 Mobile Labs Interactive Whiteboards Student Response System Projectors Probes

5. PATI Survey

10. Problem Teachers and Administrators agree that 21st century skills are important to integrate Teachers and Administrators disagree on the definition (level and quality) of technology integration

11. How do different groups differ in their definition of technology integration? Do administrators, teachers, and students agree on the amount of use of technology tools for curricular activities? How do administrators, teachers, and students differ in their perception of technology integration? Significance: Investigate why there is a gap between teachers and administrators Research Questions

12. Methodology Mixed Method Quantitative Survey Questions to Students, Teachers, and Administrators Qualitative Interviews with Students, Teachers, and Administrators

13. Instruments Surveys Interview Protocol Survey Questions Florida Innovates

14. Survey Importance of Technology Essential Very Important Somewhat Important Not at All No Basis for Answer Frequency of Use Every Day Several Times per Week Once per Week Once per Month Once per Marking Period Not at All

15. Analysis & Results Differences among groups Scheffè’s Interval Coding Interview results

16. Interview Responses Lack of consistency in defining technology integration Teacher Themes Mention of students Technology should engage students No mention of thinking skills Administrator Themes No mention of students - focus on teacher actions Technology should expand what is currently done in the classroom

17. Interview - Why are there differences? Teachers Technology Users get noticed Administrators are not in classroom enough Administrators Teachers may lack training or knowledge

18. Frequency of Use

19. Differences Among Groups

20. How Important to Learning is this Technology?

21. Differences Among Groups

22. Next Steps Further defining technology integration

23. Taxonomy Analysis Taylor - Tutor, Tool, Tutee (1980) US Dept of Education (Means, et. al, 1993) Moeresch - LoTi (1995) Russell - Stages in Learning New Technology (1995) Bruce & Levin - Taxonomy for the Use of Comptuers (1997) Vessels - Modified Levels of Use (1998) Bailey - Taxonomy of Technology-Fostered Cognitive Objectives (2002) Russell, Bebell et. al. - Categories of Teacher Technology Use (2003) Tomei - Taxonomy for the Technology Domain (2003)

24. A New Taxonomy

25. Taxonomy Strengths Designed from student perspective and aligned to student actions Pragmatic for teachers and administrators Aligned to cognitive processes Associated with constructivist style of teaching and learning Aligned to Levels of Use Common Language

26. Expected Use of Learning Activities

27. Questions Email: info@edtechinnovators.cominfo@edtechinnovators.com Website: www.edtechinnovators.comwww.edtechinnovators.com