SurveyMonkey Assessment

The questions developed in the survey for this study have been based on the Survey of Pre-service Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology instrument (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler, Mishra, & Shin, 2009). This instrument is selected to identify quantitative and qualitative data for this research (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler, Mishra, & Shin, 2009). The questions are created using an online SurveyMonkey form, which is located at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RN3D3XV and these questions are also available in Appendix A of this paper.

Importance of Additional Data in Research Proposal

Today’s standards in teaching and student learning continue to change based on the different demands and challenges that have been created from emerging policies (Shulman, 1986). Teacher preparation, in particular, has been a target of improvement with regard to the testing standards and evaluation of teachers’ knowledge and skills to develop and implement effective classroom instruction (Shulman, 1986). For instance, many teachers have portrayed effectiveness in the classroom based on careful attention to management of students and management of ideas within classroom discourse (Shulman, 1987). In doing so, it has been considered a good practice for many teachers to build classroom management skills to provide students with an environment that is highly conducive to teaching and learning (Shulman, 1987).

In this study, additional data will be gathered to inform its readers with information on the impact of technology integration with elementary classroom teachers, particularly the 5 fifth grade teachers who will participate in this research. The purpose of gathering the additional data for this study includes: (a) identifying opportunities in technologies to deliver content and implement effective instruction; (b) use various ways and strategies to develop understanding and knowledge of different content areas; (c) use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom setting, including cooperative learning, collaborative teaching and learning, constructivist approach, direct instruction, whole/small groups, differentiation/modification strategies, and the like; (d) select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning; (e) use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches to use in the classroom to enhance teaching and student learning; (f) develop critical and analytical thinking on how to use technology in the classroom; and (g) demonstrate evidence of an effective model of combining content, technologies, and teaching approaches in teaching.

Appendix A

Tech Survey Research Questions

The following are the questions of the technology survey for this research:

• a. I have sufficient opportunities to work with different technologies, such as iPad applications, computer software, and mobile technologies. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• b. I have various ways and strategies in developing my understanding and knowledge of Mathematics. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• c. I have various ways and strategies in developing my understanding and knowledge of Science. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• d. I have various ways and strategies in developing my understanding and knowledge of English Language Arts and Reading. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
• e. I have various ways and strategies in developing my understanding and knowledge of Social Studies (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• f. I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom setting (i.e. cooperative learning, collaborative teaching and learning, direct instruction, whole/small group, inquiry learning, problem/project based learning, critical thinking, higher levels of questioning, hands-on approach, use of manipulative, etc.) (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• g. I know how to select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• h. I can use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches to use in my classroom to enhance what I teach, how I teach, and what students learn. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• i. I am thinking critically about how to use technology in my classroom. (Answers selection: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree)
• j.In general, approximately what percentage of the PreK-6 cooperative teachers have provided an effective model of combining content, technologies, and teaching approaches in their teaching? (Answers selection: 25% or less, 26% - 50%, 51% - 75%, 76% - 100%)

Appendix B TPACK Research: Research Project Design

Description of the Population and Sample Under Study

The participants in this study will include 5 Fifth Grade classes in an elementary school where the classroom instructors implement a departmentalized approach in teaching their specialization in the areas of Math, Science, English Language Arts and Reading (ELAR), and Social Studies. The students from these classes are mostly (a) Hispanics, (b) English Language Learners (ELLs), (c) identified as economically disadvantaged, (d) belonging to a free/reduced lunch program; and/or (e) identified as Language English Proficient (LEP). The physical layouts of these classrooms consist of diverse sections, such as a balanced literacy area, classroom library area, Math and Science word walls, ELAR and Social Studies word walls, literacy station/centers, Math/Science centers, to name a few. Each fifth grade class follows a 7:30 am to 2:45 pm schedule, where students spend 90 minutes of instruction for Math and ELAR.

Description of Research Design

This study will use mixed method in gathering data and information, where quantitative instruments will include questionnaires, surveys, and structure observation, and where qualitative instruments will include in-depth interviews and focus groups.

Explanation in the Selection of the Instrument

Teacher knowledge plays a highly significant role in providing rigorous and relevant teaching and student learning (Schulman, 1986). Teacher knowledge is not only composed of understanding content and curriculum, but as well as the pedagogical methodologies and practices that embody the characteristics and philosophical beliefs of an individual (Schulman, 1986). In doing so, teacher content knowledge is composed of different categories, namely: (a) subject matter content knowledge, (b) pedagogical content knowledge, and (c) curricular knowledge (Schulman, 1986, p. 9). Teachers need to embody these three different categories and immerse a lifelong learning commitment to expanding their knowledge and skills, which eventually contribute to the continuous formation and development of growth and desirable teaching and learning behaviors (Schulman, 1986). It has been previously mentioned that this study will be utilizing a mixed method research design to gather data and information. For this reason, this study will implement the Survey of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology instrument to identify quantitative and qualitative data for this research (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Koehler, Mishra, & Shin, 2009). This instrument is selected based on the following reasons: (a) the organization and distribution of questions to gather quantitative and qualitative information, (b) the inclusion of demographic information within the survey that can provide valuable information to further support the validity of this study, (c) the inclusion of appropriate and relevant question stems in relation to targeting specific concepts of technology integration, (d) the inclusion of open-ended questions that can provide prospective respondents with opportunities to cite more detailed examples to support their self-assessment in the use of technology, and, (e) the establishment of awareness and understanding in distinguishing the different aspects of assessing teacher knowledge and use of technology integration (Schmidt, et al, 2009).

References

Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3833–3840). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Herreid, C., Schiller, N. A., Herreid, K. F., & Wright, C. (2011). In Case You Are Interested: Results of a Survey of Case Study Teachers. Journal Of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 76-80

Loticonnection.com (2012). LOTI Level of Technology Integration Sniff Test, Retrieved from http://loticonnection.cachefly.net/global_documents/LoTi_Framework_Sniff_Test.pdf.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, E. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). 42(2), 123-149.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Abstract: Educational technology provides public and private school educators with the study and practice of effective technological practices to support student learning and teacher professional development. This includes the facilitation of theory and practice in building connectivism and professional learning networks to supplement and improve current knowledge and skills. This paper is a report on networked learning as one of the significant strands in technology that supports the development of professional learning communities. Discourse analysis will be used to identify the different stages of development and implementation of networked learning, including the (a) 1970s when the Advanced Research Projects Network (ARPANET) became the first operational packet switching network; (b) 1980s when the HyperCard was developed as an application program and programming tool for Apple computers, (c) birth of the World Wide Web (WWW) that further established the interlinks of hypertext documents through the Internet; and, (d) development of the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) as an online digital library of education research and information.

Introduction

Educational technology provides public and private school educators with the study and use of effective technological practices to support student learning and teacher professional development (Fonseca, 2011). This includes the facilitation of theory and practice in building connectivism and professional learning networks to supplement and improve current knowledge and skills, effective communication, and constant learning (Fonseca, 2011, p. 60). Networked learning influenced the beginning and ongoing expansion of professional and personal learning networks among individuals, groups of people, countries, and nations to establish (a) interdependent connections; (b) unstructured collective learning experiences, (c) life long learning and interaction; and, (d) reflection of social networked learning ideas (Fonseca, 2011, p. 60). The desire to stay connected and establish relevant and productive learning networks began with the earlier use of customized or personalized learning (Drexler, 2010).  Customized or personalized learning has become the trend among individual learners, which continues to be a significant element in the expansion of emerging web applications (Drexler, 2010, p. 369). Personal webs have materialized to support the necessity of individual learners to organize, write, edit, publish, and manage online digital content as part of networking and collaborating with fellow learners (Drexler, 2010, p. 369). Prior to the advancement of networked learning in building professional learning networks and communities, its historical development provided significant and interesting stages to illustrate the validity of its chronological experiences. The historical perspectives in networked learning stems from the influences of the early developmental stages of electronic computers and the launch of Sputnik by the Russian government in the 1950s (Kleinrock, 2009). This includes the creation of data networks and the establishment of the ARPANET in the 1960s and 1970s (Kleinrock, 2009). Apple’s development of the HyperCard in the 1980s also contributed to the development of the Internet, which eventually led to the development of networked learning as it is presently utilized (Kahney, 2002). Meanwhile, the birth of the WWW marked the establishment of interlinks in hypertext documents through the Internet, which significantly contributed to the one of the essential foundations of networked learning (Connolly, 2000). The development of the ERIC database also serves as an example of networked learning based on the functionality of ERIC as an online digital library for education research and information (Education Resources Information Center, 2012).

The Study

This paper will use the Four-Quad Analysis methodology to gather the necessary data in this report. This type of methodology provides the research with significant opportunities in gathering data, interpreting findings, segregating relevant from irrelevant information, and understanding the elements that contribute meaningfully to this report. The Four Quad Analysis methodology is composed of four parts. These parts include (a) Quad 1, which defines the theory, research, and best practices of the study; (b) Quad 2, which identifies the federal and state laws, rules and data of this report; (c) Quad 3, which describes the district or campus perceptions, feelings, beliefs, and experiences in relation to this report; and (d) Quad 4, which provides the district or campus policies, regulations, records, and data of this report. Furthermore, this paper also explores the use of qualitative methodological instruments, such as informal interviews, online surveys, observations, and face-to-face consultation with different stakeholders of the school community.

Findings

Drexler’s (2010) study, The Networked Student Model for Construction of Personal Learning Environments: Balancing Teacher Control and Student Autonomy, provided a conceptual framework on The Networked Teacher (Couros, 2008) as show below. This framework illustrated the different elements that comprise the necessary tools, resources, and ideas of networked learning (Drexler, 2010). It is a model that illustrates what teachers use to build professional learning networks among fellow educators to develop collaboration and communication and actively participate in networked learning for professional development (Drexler, 2010, p. 371).

Figure 1. This figure illustrates the conceptual framework of The Networked Teacher (Couros, 2008).

Furthermore, Drexler (2010) included in his study another illustration of a conceptual framework on The Networked Student as shown below (Drexler, 2010). In this figure, the idea of networked learning follows the concept of constructivism to support student learning (Drexler, 2010).

Figure 2. This figure illustrates the conceptual framework of The Networked Student (Drexler, 2010).

From these illustrations, the concept of networked learning stems from the interdependent connection of different technology-based and education-based theories and practices, such as synchronous communication, social networks, contacts, information management, colleagues, blogs, wikis, tool/content development communities, and digital/online learning communities (Drexler, 2010).  These current theories and practices were made possible through the early developments of the Internet, particularly during the historical stages of ARPANET, HyperCard, WWW, and the ERIC database.

The ARPANET came into existence in the 1970s and it was recognized as the first operational packing switching network and recognized as the origin of the Internet (Markoff, 1999). The Department of Defense of the United States (US) initialized the development of the ARPANET to support military-based projects, particularly during the US-Russian Cold War (Markoff, 1999). J.C.R. Licklider (1962) developed the earliest ideas of creating a computer network to allow general communications among computer users (Markoff, 1999). Ivan Sutherland and Bob Taylor (1963) were convinced by Licklider (1962) to participate in creating computer communications networks, which led to the invention of online communication through the use of computers (Markoff, 1999). Likewise, Taylor’s (1963) complete computer network plan provided the avenue for ARPANET to host computers and be connected to the network (Markoff, 1999).

Apple Computer’s HyperCard was developed during the 1980s, which served as a small self-contained hypertext system and was a successful hypermedia system before the WWW (Needle, 1987). The HyperCard was composed of virtual stacked cards that hold data (InfoWorld, 1989). Users of the virtual stacked cards were able to browse through the available information by navigating from card to card, including the use of existing features (i.e. search mechanism, user-created scripts) (InfoWorld, 1989). This concept can be tied with the present browsing and searching capabilities, navigation of data within different Internet browsers, and customized add-ons in Internet browsers.

The WWW came into being during the 1980s and the early 1990s, as more people recognized the increasing need to find, organize, and manage files and information online (Deken, 2006). Tim Berners-Lee created the network-based version of the hypertext concept that provided wider opportunities for technology to be available to individual users (Deken, 2006). The most significant evidence of Internet expansion was the creation of the Mosaic web browser (1993) by Marc Andreessen (Deken, 2006). As history continued to unfold, the Mosaic web browser eventually evolved into the Netscape Navigator, which was developed by Andreessen in 1994 (Deken, 2006). This popularity of the Netscape Navigator was ultimately overshadowed and taken over by Bill Gates’ Internet Explorer, which was created in 1995 (Deken, 2006). However, Andreessen was not deterred in moving forward when he was able to use a special code that was supposedly intended in revamping Netscape Navigator (Payment, 2006). This code was used to develop Mozilla Firefox, which is one of the most used Internet browser today (Payment, 2006).

The ERIC database resides in a complex system that provides individual users with a wide range of information that are searchable, user-friendly, and retrieved from bibliography-based websites, online academic journals, and research-based information (Education Resources Information Center, 2012). The development of the ERIC database serves as an example of networked learning based on the functionality of ERIC as an online digital library for education research and information (Education Resources Information Center, 2012). Likewise, this database is a significant evidence of an improved and a well-designed web-based system that incorporates the evolvement of the Internet and the network’s capabilities (Education Resources Information Center, 2012).

Conclusion

Networked learning has developed through the years of progress and expansion in the realm of web-based applications, Internet browsers’ capabilities and features, and individual users’ conceptualization of effective collaboration and communication online (Drexler, 2010). The desire for diversity in knowledge, expertise, and application; establishment of individualized values and decisions; building of more meaningful and relevant interactivity among fellow learners; and, fostering of openness in perspectives, have influenced the continuous growth in professional and personal learning networks (Fonseca, 2011). The historical evidences in the different developmental stages of networked learning provided the beginning of an era of technology-based interdependence, where distance is no longer a question. More so, these historical accounts serve as recollections to commemorate how the past have been significant in establishing present and future innovations.

March Lowell Andreessen was born on July 9, 1971 at Cedar Falls, Iowa, and raised in New Lisbon, Wisconsin by Patricia and Lowell Andreessen (Markoff, 1994). Marc Andreessen’s educational experience included completing a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and a summer internship at IBM in Austin, Texas (Payment, 2006). The yearning to discover and explore the many possibilities of the unknown has influenced Marc Andreessen to begin his quest for innovative ideas, which included teaching himself to program computers based on the information he obtained from library books (Payment, 2006). Marc Andreessen’s inventions were marked significantly with the creation of Mosaic, the first widely used web browser that made it easier for an individual to use the World Wide Web (Intruders: Inside Innovation, 2012). Marc Andreessen’s successful creation of Mosaic emphasized his desire to unlock information and to make it readily available for public consumption (Intruders: Inside Innovation, 2012). Marc Andreessen’s different creations provided opportunities for the public not only to access and use available information, but also to transform information into more innovative and productive ideas (Intruders: Inside Innovation, 2012).

Marc Andreessen, together with Jim Clark, co-founded Netscape, which paved the way for the development of Netscape Communications and the flagship Web browser, Netscape Navigator (Rogers, 2012). Netscape Navigator was the name that replaced Mosaic, which was one of the early web browsers that enabled browsing for information in the World Wide Web (Rogers, 2012). The name change resulted from the unfavorable reaction by the University of Illinois, which also prompted the company’s name to be changed from Mosaic Communications to Netscape Communications (Rogers, 2012). Furthermore, Netscape Navigator featured the Netscape Composer that enabled the use of Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) programming and design as part of enhancing hyperlink text, images, and graphics in the Web (Rogers, 2012). The emergence of the browser wars, specifically the introduction of the Internet Explorer by Microsoft, and the lack of immediate updates to address the different technical flaws of Netscape Navigator, led to the falling of Netscape Communications (Businesswire, 1999). Prior to AOL purchase of Netscape, the source code for Netscape Navigator was released that created the Mozilla Organization (Businesswire, 1999). This source code was rewritten based on the Gecko rendering engine, which was later used to develop Mozilla Foundation’s Firefox browser (Rogers, 2012).

Marc Andreessen is extremely knowledgeable not only in the field of innovative technologies, but as well as in establishing highly profitable business with fellow business minded individuals (Intruders: Inside Innovation, 2012). His extreme intelligence and business-savvyness paved the way to the development of more partnerships and technology-based discoveries (Andreessen, 2012). This included co-founding Ning, Loudcloud, Opsware, Twitter, and Qik (Andreessen, 2012). Moreover, Marc Andreessen continued to build his vast business folder by establishing portfolio holdings, together with business partner Ben Horowtiz, which included Facebook, Foursquare, Plazes, Netvibes, CastTV, RockMelt, GitHub, Digg, Pinterest, Skype, Twitter, Jawbone, Groupon, LinkedIn, and Zynga (Andreessen Horowitz, 2012).

Today, Marc Andreessen’s eagerness and aggressiveness continues to propel the emergence of different business start-ups, ventures, and innovative creations (Perlroth, 2012). Instagram is one of business ventures that Marc Andreessen invested for a short period of time (Perlroth, 2012). Instagram was sold to Facebook for a considerable amount, which Silicon Valley market thought could have been worth much more, should Marc Andreessen preserved his investment interest in the said mobile application (Perlroth, 2012).

The many successes of Marc Andreessen eventually facilitated the birth of newer and younger innovators, which included Larry Page and Sergey Brin who are the co-founders of the well-known multinational corporation, Google. Larry Page was born on March 26, 1973 in East Lansing, Michigan to Carl and Gloria Page (Google, 2012). Larry’s parents are both highly educated and recognized in their respective fields (Google, 2012). Larry’s father, Carl Page, obtained his doctoral degree in computer science in 1965 and is considered as a pioneer in computer science and artificial intelligence (Google, 2012). Meanwhile, Larry’s mother, Gloria Page, was a computer science professor at Michigan State University (Google, 2012). Larry Page’s educational background included completing a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering from the University of Michigan and a master’s degree in computer science from Stanford University (Google, 2012). In 1988, Larry Page co-founded Google with Sergey Brin while the former was pursuing his doctoral degree in Stanford University (Google, 2012). Larry Page became the first Chief Executive Officer of Google in 1988 until 2001, and from 2001 to 2011, he was president of products (Google, 2012).

Meanwhile, Sergey Brin was born on August 21, 1973 in Moscow, Russia to Michael and Eugenia Brin. Sergey was six years old when his family decided to migrate to America (Google, 2012). The Brin family’s life in Russia was filled with many challenges since they are Jewish, which led to lesser opportunities to obtain better standards of living (Google, 2012). The migration to the United States opened the doors for Sergey’s family to obtain a more humane and suitable way of living (Google, 2012). Sergey’s educational background began with homeschooling where Sergey’s father nurtured Sergey’s interest in mathematics and Russian-language skills (Google, 2012). In 1993, Sergey received his bachelor’s degree in computer science and mathematics with honors from the University of Maryland. Sergey completed his graduate degree in computer science at Stanford University, where he obtained a graduate fellowship from the National Science Foundation, in 1993 (Google, 2012). In the same year, Sergey was an intern at Wolfram Research, who is the maker of Mathematica (Google, 2012). Sergey published many academic papers, which included: (a) Extracting Patters and Relations from the World Wide Web; (b) Dynamic Data Mining: A New Architecture for Data with High Dimensionality (published with Larry Page); (c) Scalable Techniques for Mining Casual Structures; (d) Dynamic Itemset Counting and Implication Rules for Market Basket Data; and (e) Beyond Market Baskets: Generalizing Association Rules to Correlations (Google, 2012).

Larry Page met Sergey Brin at Stanford University in 1995 (Google, 2012). They built a search engine, which was initially called BackRub, in 1996 and featured links that was used to determine the status and importance of individual webpages (Google, 2012). Google, Inc. was founded in 1988, where the name Google was derived from playing with the word “googol”, which is a mathematical term for a 1 followed by 100 zeroes (Google, 2012). Google, Inc.’s initial investment of $100,000 was provided by Sun Microsystems co-founder Andy Bechtolsheim (Google, 2012).

Larry Page and Sergey Brin’s research on a better system to determine websites’ relevance and importance prompted the birth of Google as today’s significantly used search engine (Google, 2012). The popularity and usefulness of Google’s PageRank mechanism led to the company’s financial growth and development (Google, 2012). Google, Inc.’s financial status led to the establishment of different business partnerships and acquisitions, including (a) Keyhole, Inc. in 2004, which developed the product, Earth Viewer, and eventually was renamed to Google Earth in 2005; (b) GrandCentral in 2007, which was later changed to Google Voice; (c) On2 Technologies in 2009, which was a video software maker; (d) Aardvark in 2009, which was a social network search engine; and (d) Agnilux in 2010, which was a hardware startup (Google, 2012).

Today, Google, Inc. does not only own one of the most popular search engine, but also the development of other innovative and productive technologies, including (a) Google Chrome (Google’s open source Internet browser); (b) Google Plus (Google’s social networking site – a counterpart of Facebook); (c) Google Docs (Google’s free online productivity suite); (d) Google Apps (Google’s mobile and web-based enterprise service offering); (e) Google Goggles (Google’s mobile application for image recognition and non-text-based search); and (f) Google Wallet (Google’s wireless payments) (Google, 2012).

Marc Andreessen, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin share many things in common, which include but not limited to (a) the desire to go beyond the norm of conventional learning and discovery of innovative and ingenious technologies; (b) reaching what seemed to be impossible from what is currently available to public communication, collaboration, and understanding; (c) the development of highly creative and productive ideas that will reap both financial and intellectual rewards; (d) the initiative to contribute to society in the form of philanthropic projects that serve the common good; and (e) the discoveries of innovative solutions that would benefit human society.