slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Professional development that increases technology integration by K-12 teachers: The influence of the TICKIT Program. John B. Keller, Lee H. Ehman, Curtis J. Bonk, Indiana University. April 21, 2003. AERA. Chicago. TICKIT.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'John B. Keller, jbkeller@indiana Lee H. Ehman, ehman@indiana' - oren

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Professional development that increases technology integration by K-12 teachers:The influence of the TICKIT Program.

John B. Keller,

Lee H. Ehman,

Curtis J. Bonk,

Indiana University

April 21, 2003




Teacher Institute for Curriculum Knowledge about Integration of Technology

overview of tickit
Overview of TICKIT
  • In-service teacher education program
  • Rural schools in central & southern Indiana
  • Supported by participating school systems, Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and Indiana University
  • Cohorts of 4-6 teachers from 4-6 school corporations
tickit goals
  • Knowledge, skill, & confidence
  • Thoughtful integration of technology
  • Leadership cadres in schools
  • Link schools and university
  • Help schools capitalize on their technology investments
program structure
Program Structure
  • Teachers attend three workshops at I.U. for a total of 4 days
  • Curriculum-based, technology supported classroom unit or lesson each semester
  • In-school workshops to support teachers in their unit or lesson design
  • Final products are two action research reports
  • Reports to colleagues and school “giveback”
program structure1
Program Structure
  • Various online activities using a course management tool (COW, Virtual University, Blackboard, Web CT, Oncourse)
    • Article critiques
    • Chats with technology experts (Bernie Dodge, Annette Lamb)
    • Free Tool Reviews
research question
Research Question

Do teachers who have been through the TICKIT program differ from teachers who have not on dimensions of computer integration?

structure of paper
Structure of Paper
  • How the TICKIT program compares with the literature on effective professional development.
  • Results of the study.
  • Discussion of the relative impact of the TICKIT program.
  • Limitations, Future Directions, Conclusion
professional development literature
New Vision:

Darling-Hammond (‘97)

Palincsar (1999)

Technical vs. Intellectual View of teaching

Richardson & Placier (‘01)


Characteristics of:

Little (1993)

Loucks-Horsely et al. (1998)

Hawley and Valli (1999)

Professional Development Literature
effective professional development
Effective Professional Development



Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Suk-Yoon, 2001

effective professional development1
Effective Professional Development




Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Suk-Yoon, 2001

methodology 1 3
Methodology 1/3

Study Design

  • TICKIT Completers
    • Teachers from the first four years of TICKIT
    • The survey is a post measurement
    • Dropouts. . .
  • TICKIT Applicants
    • Teachers who applied for the fifth year of TICKIT
    • The survey is a pre measurement
methodology 2 3
Methodology 2/3


  • Schools
    • Rural
    • Central and southern Indiana
    • Better than average technology infrastructure
  • Teachers
    • Cohorts of 4-6 teachers from each school
    • Average teaching experience 11.5 years
methodology 3 3
Methodology 3/3


Two Part Survey

  • Demographics and TICKIT-Related Questions
  • Levels of Technology Implementation Survey (LOTI) Moersch (1994, 1995, 2001).
results 1 3
Results 1/3

Survey Returns= 79 %

results 3 3
Results 3/3

**p< .01 ; ***p< .001All effect sizes favor TICKIT group

Lower scores on factors two and three indicate more positive responses

 The ‘n’ for each comparison varies due to incomplete data. We used list-wise deletion of missing data (Completers n=66-77; Applicants n=18-20)

relative impact 2 2

Multiple Sources

Relative Impact 2/2

From which individuals do you seek primary guidance, information, and/or direction relating to the integration of technology into your curriculum?

internal motivation influences
Internal Motivation Influences
  • I want to be able to help provide the most challenging, interesting lessons for students. As a result of this I need to keep current.
  • I’m not required to use the technology but do so to learn for myself and help the students.
  • Even before the TICKIT experience, I was looking for ways to integrate technology into my classroom. I am enthusiastic and committed to this.
tickit teacher voices
TICKIT Teacher Voices
  • “This class was very helpful. I gained a lot of confidence as a technology user from this class.”
  • “The door is now open. I will continue to try to find technological ways to teach them.”
  • “This was the best program I have ever been involved with as a teacher.”
  • Non-random sample
  • Participants not representative
    • Above average infrastructure
    • Above average interest in technology
  • Self-reported data
  • No correlation to corroborate the constructs identified by factor analysis
  • Ex post facto analysis limits ability to infer change due to the TICKIT program
  • Researchers and Teacher Educators
  • K-12 Teaching and Administrators
  • Government Officials and Politicians
future directions
Future Directions

Additional Research

  • Growth of current cohort over the course of this year
  • Correlation of other data sources with current findings (i.e. observation, document analysis)
  • Impact of technology integration on student learning
references 1 2
References 1/2

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.

Loucks-Horsely, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

references 2 2
References 2/2

Moersch, C. (1994). Levels of Technology Implementation. Retrieved February 13, 2002, from

Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology Implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 40-42.

Moersch, C. (2001). Next steps: using LoTi as a research tool. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(3), 22-27.

Palincsar, A. (1999). Response: A community of practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 272-274.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905-950). Washington D. C.: American Educational Research Association.