The Impact of
Technology Equipment on the Third-Grade Teachers and Students at
by Jan Clery, June 12, 2006
The purpose of
this action research was to follow the conversations of the teachers as we
received the equipment and began to use it in each of our classrooms. The
questions we were exploring as a grade were slightly
different than the essential question of the action research [see box below).
As a team, we wanted to know how to use the equipment (technical aspect), how
to incorporate it into our teaching (practical), how it would impact teaching
and learning in our classrooms, and how it would impact our team conversations.
It is the latter question that this action research followed, but the other
questions were naturally embedded into the research (and so became
sub-questions).
Essential Question:
How would the grade conversations about the equipment change throughout the
year?
Related Sub-Questions:
How does having this equipment in each classroom affect teaching and learning?
How do we use this equipment, and what supports are needed for its use?
How can we incorporate this equipment into our teaching?
Our expectation was that as we become more comfortable using this equipment, conversation would change: initially there would be discussions about the equipment itself (how it works, problem-solving, maintenance, physical constraints, etc.), but as the year progressed, the discussions would focus more on using the equipment and sharing what we discovered (how to integrate the equipment into various curriculum areas, specific sites and links found, successful lessons using it, ideas for its use, kids’ interactions with it, its impact on various kinds of learners, teacher prep required, suggestions for working it seamlessly into a lesson or activity; problems, surprises, kids’ remarks, questions, suggestions, reflections on our own growth and its impact on our teaching, etc.). It was our hope (hypothesis) that having this equipment in the classroom would stimulate conversation, build trust and respect, and facilitate sharing of ideas among the teachers on the grade.
Getting Started: Creating a Data Collection
Plan
To answer those questions, I developed a plan for
collecting data. The contract for our grant specified that we meet monthly as a
team to discuss the use of the equipment. In writing the grant, we hoped that
becoming familiar with the equipment would motivate us to meet together more
often in order to share and support each other in its use. We agreed to meet
regularly, so I took notes on those conversations. Each of the teachers
intended to keep track of their use of the equipment, their plans, thoughts,
and reflections, as well as kids’ comments about its use over the course of the
year, either in journal form, in a log, or on the computer. I used a simple
rating system to keep track of each teacher’s comfort level with the equipment,
and I asked each teacher to complete a questionnaire in the spring. The primary
source of data, however, were the grade meetings, as
the essential question was how the conversation about the use of the equipment
changed over time. I collected data from the teachers at these meetings, from
individual conversations with them, and through the questionnaire.
Results of the Data
Though we received the equipment in bits and pieces from October through
December, we were all starting to use some or all of it by early November.
Andrew Hess, our Technology Curriculum Coordinator, helped us throughout the
year in various training and support ways: setting up the equipment, showing us
how to use it, problem solving technical problems, and suggesting ways to use
it in the classroom. Our initial conversations in the first couple months
revolved around getting the equipment (what had been received, what was
missing, what was not working) and learning how to use it (what each piece of
the equipment does and how to work it). For example, initially we had
difficulties focusing the document camera and aligning the papers and books
under it. We had problems with the splitter: it was difficult to read words on
the computer or there was ghosting on the screen. The general tone of the group
at this time was mixed: teachers were excited about the potential of the
equipment and anxious to get everything working, yet somewhat frustrated by the
technical difficulties.
By January, the tone at our teacher meetings
had changed a bit: the conversation was divided equally between concerns about
and use of the equipment and discussion about ways in which teachers were
beginning to use it. Teachers were using it to show videos from United
Streaming, for writing and math, and to access internet sites for social
studies. We identified a few problems with the equipment (i.e., computer
freezes, keyboard and mouse don’t always work) and posed questions about the
equipment (i.e., how to zoom? how to change brightness in the doc cam?), and we
discovered that we already had gained some expertise in using the equipment, as
we were able to give suggestions to each other. I asked the teachers
periodically, “On a scale of 1-10, how confident do you feel using the
equipment?” In January, scores ranged from 5-7,
with a total of 30, averaging 6.
In February, we met with our Technology
Curriculum Coordinator to discuss how to use the remaining money from the
grant. We shared how we were presently using it and weighed the pros and cons
of the possible equipment choices. Though this meeting focused on equipment,
the tone was much different than previous meetings. We were all more
knowledgeable in using the equipment and able to discuss it and its use more
easily. We compared each of our set-ups, and our Tech Coordinator helped us
understand how the technical problems we were each experiencing related to our
different set-ups. He also related that he had set up a sharepoint
page for us as a possible means for communication and sharing.
In March and April we spent less time
discussing the technical aspects of the equipment and more time sharing how we
were actually using it. We also had to make decisions regarding the
supplemental expenditures and allocation of monies. We all agreed that we
wanted our future meetings to focus on sharing how we were using the equipment
in the different curricular areas. It was clear that each teacher was keeping track
of their use of the equipment in their own way. Teachers recognized that the
spectrum of uses for the equipment was growing: teachers were using it
equipment for clarification of concepts and it was becoming a routine part of
the curriculum. The change was subtle.
Teachers shared experiences and examples. When
they showed kids’ work on the projection screen using the document camera or by
accessing it on the computer; they said the kids “feel important when their
model goes up” and they “like looking at their work going up.” Teachers shared
specific experiences in using the equipment for different purposes: what was
changing was that now the sharing was of actual ‘in the moment” experiences. Teachers also shared specific examples of difficulties they were
experiencing in learning to use the equipment. Some comments included: “It’s
not easy to do United Streaming.” “It’s not easy to get the paper straight
under the projector: it’s lopsided or crooked.” “If you enlarge, you get 1/3 of
the paper.” “Kids knock the cart, so I have to adjust it.” “The cart becomes a
table, collecting stuff on it.” “I plan to use it for my punctuation book every
week, but I put it on and forgot about it.” “At the beginning, I was conscious
of turning it on; now it’s second nature.” In spite of this, teachers were very
excited about the equipment, and they were already seeing positive results from
using it with their students. They recognized already that the equipment was
changing their teaching by “allowing access to live examples that enhance
lessons.” In March, the teachers rated their comfort level with the equipment
from 4 to 8/9, totaling 32, averaging
6.4.
At the April meeting, there was no conversation
about technical problems. Instead, teachers eagerly shared ways that they were
using the equipment. Some of these ways included: showing the class web page,
demonstrating what they would be doing at computer lab, creating the weekly
class newsletter together, sharing work, accessing websites, showing how to
punctuate a passage, exploring geometric shapes, and showing friendly sites for
research. It became clear that teachers were involving kids in the use of the
equipment as well.
At this point, I felt a personal conflict
emerging regarding our meetings and this action research project. I didn’t want
to guide or lead the meetings, as the objective of the action research was to
observe what would occur naturally over the course of time. I needed to
consider this question: How does my action research impact the conversation among
the teachers at the monthly meetings? Is it the natural conversation that would
have occurred if I had not been doing this action research, or is it directed
by my focus questions? I recognized this as a concern and decided to try to be
aware of this.
In May I asked the teachers to complete the following questionnaire:
1. What are/were your individual expectations or goals for this year
regarding the equipment? Where do you want to be with the equipment in June?
2. Has this equipment changed your teaching? if so,
how? Please be specific. Are you now using any new methodology?
3. Has
it impacted your students’ learning? if so, how?
4. Has the equipment impacted your conversations with other teachers on the
grade? If so, how?
5. What level of support have you needed? Where/how did you get it? What
further support do you need?
6. Are there any questions that you would like to pursue in regard to future
use of this equipment?
7. What
questions emerge as a result of using this equipment in the classroom this
year?
Though answers to the questions were somewhat
varied, all teachers expressed initial hope that by June, they would be able to
use the equipment when needed at a moment’s notice to “show/demonstrate/share
our work and teach in a way that the whole class would be engaged.” They also
hoped they would have several routine uses for the equipment and established
ideas for using it quickly. The questionnaire clearly showed that teachers had
become comfortable with the equipment and had found ways to use it regularly.
One teacher found that it “helped with clarity of purpose and process”; looking
at student samples of work as a class has become a more widely used method of
teaching due to the document camera. Another teacher found the document camera
to be “an excellent venue for teaching,” as it allows for personalization,
large audience viewing, demonstrating by the children of strategies, showing
objects, showing passages in literature, explaining directions. She found that
she was using it in multiple ways, placing “most anything under the ‘camera lens’.” Yet another teacher acknowledged the group’s
frustrations regarding technical difficulties and shared ways that she
routinely uses the equipment: to show student work, websites, and United
Streaming videos to the class; to show a concept using math manipulatives
or samples from literature; and as a preparation for Computer Lab by
introducing the session work on the computer beforehand. Another teacher
regularly used it to access examples from the internet, to retrieve videos from
United Streaming, and to share or highlight text, both in literature and in
student work.
Teachers felt the equipment had impacted their
students’ learning in various ways. Students were more eager to take a close
look at some otherwise mundane tasks, such as grammar. Kids were proud of their
work when it was shared via the doe camera or computer. They were accessing
computer sites and United Streaming videos more often. Computer Lab was more
productive after introducing the work beforehand. Using the doc camera to show manipulatives made it easier for kids to see, thus
impacting learning in a positive way. It “helped students understand concepts
in real time.” Also, “the document camera saves me a ton of time; I don’t have
to make copies for each child for a short discussion and I don’t have to
enlarge anything to make it easier for a child to read.” Teachers felt that
using the equipment enriched or deepened their students’ understanding of
concepts
The impact on conversations with other teachers
was positive. Teachers spoke of the group’s initial frustrations with the
equipment and hopes for its use. They felt that it helped give “a variety of
ways to approach concepts and materials” and “it’s interesting to hear how we
.each have our own struggles and creative ideas for its use.” Teachers seemed
to get ideas from each other; though they had hoped for more time to share
ideas, they found that “as the year progressed, so many uses came to light on
my own.” One teacher mentioned the value of sharing both positive and negative
experiences and noted her comfort in seeking help from colleagues when needed.
In terms of future use and future questions,
teachers felt an interest in suggestions for integrating the use of the
keyboard, resolving some technical difficulties, and pursuing more uses for the
equipment in general; they could see ways to expand with additional equipment
and had interest in using it for power-point presentations and “to create some
bi-monthly workshops regarding the use of United Streaming and other shared
possibilities. ‘
Questions were raised regarding cost-effective ways to maintain and
replace the equipment when needed, whether this equipment will be able to stand
up to constant changes in the “tech world,” and “specifically, when computers
are updated, will the equipment be compatible?”
Analysis and Reflection
Initially frustrated by technical problems using the equipment, I appreciated
the support of our Curriculum Technology Coordinator, who was always willing to
help out. Sharing frustrations with my colleagues was comforting, knowing that
I was not alone in my equipment difficulties. I recognize that having the
equipment in the classroom, available at a moment’s notice, made it much easier
to adjust to it, simply because we were more likely to try it out more often when
it was easily accessible, and we were more likely to try it in different ways.
If the equipment had been on a shared cart, it would have taken us all much
longer to become familiar with it, and obviously, we wouldn’t be able to use it
as often. As I was adjusting to the equipment, I found my students were
extremely helpful, and they learned about its uses along with me. I was aware
throughout the year of how they were responding to it, so I was constantly
analyzing how I was using it. I kept asking myself: Should I be using it more?
Are my students tiring of it? I started to identif,’
situations in which the document camera could be used. I was stimulated by my
conversation with the other teachers who were also using the equipment, as I
compared my thoughts, concerns, ideas, questions, and reflections with theirs.
In looking at the questionnaires and in talking
to teachers, I feel that we as a team have met our primary goals: becoming
familiar with the equipment, learning how to use it, becoming more comfortable
with its use, and sharing and learning from each other. I can see that it has
impacted each of us and our students in positive ways and enhanced our
teaching. We can now see even more potential for its use in our classrooms, and
we each can identify areas of strengths and areas we’d like to focus on next
year. It is my hope that next year we can spend more time doing what we’d hoped
to do this year: look at the varied ways we are each using the equipment to
enhance our curriculum. If there was any surprise that came out of this year,
it was that it took longer than we expected to learn how to use the equipment,
so we had less time than we had hoped for conversations about its actual use in
the classroom. However, I feel that it has opened a door for us as a team, as
it gave us a shared learning experience and an opportunity to build trust and
respect. It has given us a chance to learn from each other, and I feel that
next year we will each continue to explore its use on our own and in
conversations with each other, expanding our knowledge and enriching our
teaching. There is quite definitely great value in having this kind of
equipment in a classroom, available at a moment’s notice. I feel fortunate that
we teach in a district that supports this kind of exploration, as well as this
kind of action research.
Implications for the Future
Clearly, the impact of this equipment on the teachers and the students has been
positive. But a question remains: Did this equipment facilitate sharing,
discussion about curriculum, build trust, respect, and
comfort among the teachers on the grade? From my perspective, I would say yes.
So what are the implications for the future? As stated above, each teacher
recognizes how the equipment has impacted their practice this year. Each
teacher clearly sees this equipment now as an integral part of the classroom
and in thinking about next year will probably plan a little differently with
the equipment in mind. The teachers on the grade have established a different
kind of respect and trust that should carry forward into future years, opening
opportunities for future sharing. The teachers all see potential for expanding
the use of this equipment even further in their classrooms in the future, and each teacher has questions they wish to pursue.
The 21st century will bring many changes in the field of technology, and our students will be expected to keep up with them. It’s important for schools to keep up as well. Teachers need to model the use of current technological equipment in the classroom so students learn how to use it as a tool and a resource and build comfort with it. It’s a challenge for teachers to constantly adapt their teaching to keep up with the advances of technology, but it’s also a necessary one. This action research has shown the importance of having such equipment easily accessible and having collegial support in learning how to use it.