The initiatives of schools administrators to evolve in the delivery of academic instruction through technology integration, is a billion dollar industry (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). This includes $400 million provided in federal funding in years past. Despite these large budgets, national reading scores have not made significant improvements to justify the expense. As part of a doctoral program requirement, I began a research study to investigate the stagnant literacy scores in relation to technology procurements. Ten educators from Chicago and neighboring city schools in IL shared their experiences of technology integration successes and struggles. The results lead me down an unexpected path, but one that has helped shape me as an educator. I won't bore you with all the literature on reading, reading scores, historical context of technology in schools, and the like. (I can get you a copy of my dissertation if you are interested). I would like to highlight just a few important background facts.
Stats
Research conducted is indicative that remediation can be successful if implemented in earlier grades. Remediation past second grade is possible, but more challenging (Foorman, Breier & Fletcher, 2003; Jones, Ostojic, Menard, Picard & Miller, 2017; Lovett, Frijters, Wolf, Steinbach, Sevcik & Morris, 2017). In Illinois, the history of stagnant and declining literacy scores continues. Eighth grade literacy scores were unchanged from 2013 to 2015. A one point increased was reported for fourth graders for the same time period. The NAEP denoted that this one-point increase is considered no significant change. In looking at level of proficiency, 65% of fourth-grade students were below proficient in the area of literacy (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). For the reporting periods between 2015 and 2017, an increase was seen in the number of students who do not obtain the “met” or “exceeded” designation. It is reported that 66% of fourth graders did not meet or exceed standards in 2015, which increased to 68% for 2016, and 67% in 2017. Similarly for eight graders, 64% did not meet or exceed standards in 2015, which increased to 67% in 2016, and remained at 67% in 2017 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). While the standards and assessment delivery has changed, Illinois continues its history of stagnant and declining literacy scores.
Policy
In order to advance 21st century skills, $400 million in federal funding became available to schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). This was in part due to the National Reading Panel (2000) report that indicated the education community would benefit form finding effective ways to integrate technology (National Reading Panel, 2000). This report has had a significant impact to education as it is referenced in many journal articles, as been the basis for national reform, and a reference point for administrators to guide the progress of their school districts. Although this report continues to be referenced in research, it has not been updated despite its almost 20 year longevity. It is noteworthy to mention this report indicates that research related to the use of technology with reading is lacking, and an unexplored segment of education. A recommendation stated schools should move forward with the integration of technology despite the lack of research supporting technology in schools. This, in my personal opinion, is CRAZY!!!! Yet, this is where we still find ourselves today, 18 years after the release of this report.
Research
Specifically for literacy, research is lacking medium-large scale studies supporting specific technology resources integration with literacy curriculum. Given the financial investments schools are making in technology procurements and infrastructure improvements, administrators would hope to see a return on this investment. Studies conducted raised concerns over the abundance of technology procurements in comparison to the lack of return-on-investment (ROI). Three independent studies found that technology was utilized for basic skills in the area of math. Students engaged in learning consisting of drill and practice of math facts, use of spreadsheets, and use of statistical software (Boser, 2013; Hohlfeld, et al., 2017; Richtel, 2011). All of the applications highlighted lacked the direct association to literacy instruction. The review of literature and statistics that was conducted showed no indication that a large-scale study was conducted that related to ROI.
Teachers Perspectives
I conducted a qualitative study of 10 Illinois teachers from Chicago and surrounding suburbs, from both public and private schools. The criteria for inclusion was access to five or more technology resources (hardware, software, or a combination of both). What was discovered were four key themes that consistently came up in participants responses: student motivation, inconsistent support, how students interact with technology, and the need for quality resources. Teachers shared that technology assisted in student's motivation and level of engagement - no surprise there. It was also shared that several resources provided self-monitoring students and tracking for teachers such as NoRedInk, Raz-Kids, Read 180. Integration of audiobooks with Daily 5 was beneficial for differentiation and classroom management. Despite this, 40% of teachers do not have the confidence with their ability to integrate technology into their classrooms in a way where students were the primary uses of the resource. Teachers could verbalize the importance of technology, but were unable to find, in their opinion, were effective and authentic learning opportunities to engage students. Some of the resources were more 'seat work'.
One of the hindrances of technology integration related to training and professional development. One teacher expressed that the era for certain training had passed, although she had not been exposed it (such as Smartboards). Another participant stated that her profession has changed so much since she was in college almost a decade ago. As a result, the areas of technology training she received, she felt, are no longer applicable. Several other participants indicated they did not feel they were prepared to integrate technology into the classroom. Additionally, professional development shows you what you can do, but not necessarily how to teach it to their students.
Implications
The findings align with previous research on teacher’s beliefs that professional development, access to technology, and curriculum are vital factors towards effective technology implementation as well as these items presenting as barriers. The stories teachers communicated offered valuable insight regarding quality training, possible approaches towards how students should interact with technology, the need for quality resources, the desire for consistent support, and motivational factors. Prior research is in alignment with these findings that technology is not frequently used due to lack of teachers’ knowledge. Lack of administrative support causing avoidance of technology integration and organization culture are have also been reported in research. This study included similar results suggesting that while technology has advanced, the core problems in technology integration methods still exist.
The ROI for technology procurement in respects to standardized assessment scores is not what many school districts had anticipated, or want to admit, but is a vital issue that needs to be addressed. Best practices were identified through one teachers support school culture. (Research confidentiality does not allow me to divulge the school or teacher). First, is the creation of teacher lead technology committees. Committees of teachers’ direct peers may offer the greatest chances of success in understanding the nuisances of a teacher’s day and the challenges they are presented with. Second, is the integration and utilization of adaptive technology. Incorporating adaptive technology that provides visual progress monitoring and immediate feedback, provides a means to motivate and engage students in learning. These suggestions would allow schools to utilize many of the equipment resources they currently have, utilize the strengths of the staff, and efficiently track the progress of students while remediating gaps in learning.
It is understandable that these recommendations and potential changes would alter a schools culture on how technology integration is viewed. What was learned is that there is no perfect fit that can be applied to every school. Rather, we need to seek the cooperation of our school leadership to find solutions to the specific concerns in our school in a way that will build trust and motivate each other to try out new methods and new resources for the betterment of our students.
References
Boser, U. (2013). 'Are schools getting a big enough bang for their education technology buck?', Center for American Progress, [online] Available at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2013/06/14/66485/are-schools-getting-a-big-enough-bang-for-their-education-technology-buck/
Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K. and Wilson, M. L. (2017) 'An examination of seven years of technology integration in Florida schools: Through the lens of the levels of digital divide in schools', Computers & Education, vol. 113, no. pp. 135-161.
Richtel, M. (2011). In classroom of future, stagnant scores. The New York Times, A1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
U.S. Department of Education (2016). 'Race to the top fund', [online] Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html