University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners

(USC Thesis Other)

Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL: USES IN DIFFERENTIATED CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION FOR GIFTED LEARNERS by Michelle S. McGuire ________________________________________________________________ A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION December 2012 Copyright 2012 Michelle S. McGuire ii DEDICATION To my mother, Sherry, who told me I could accomplish anything if I put my mind to it for as long as I can remember, To my father, Michael, who over the years has become one of my best friends, And to my husband, Garrett, who believed in me and walked with me every step of the way. I will love you forever. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my unending gratitude and thanks to my chair, Dr. Sandra Kaplan. I apologize for being late to my first class with you, but from the moment I sat down, I was mesmerized with your ability to make teaching seem so magical. Thank you for opening me up to the world of gifted education where I know that anything is possible and learning is treasured, and a heartier thanks is for challenging me throughout the years to find my way in education just as I am. I would also like to thank my committee member Dr. Brian Housand, though many miles away, for staying so connected with me throughout this process and being so gracious with his time and support. I would have never imagined that podcasting one summer in Connecticut would lead to this! Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Robert Keim, my other committee member, for his kindness and patience through many iterations of data analysis. I am grateful for the expertise you have shared throughout this process. To all my friends and family who have been patient and supportive, thank you for making me feel loved, and to my dear friend Pamela, thank you for always listening and being there. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables v List of Figures vii Abstract xi Chapter One: Introduction 1 Chapter Two: Review of Literature 25 Chapter Three: Methodology 67 Chapter Four: Findings 80 Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusions 172 References 210 Appendices 233 Appendix A: Survey of Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and 233 Technology Appendix B: Survey of Instructional Technology Choices: 239 Differentiated Lesson Set Appendix C: Rationale Options to Support Teacher Technology 240 Choices Appendix D: Differentiated Lesson Set 241 Appendix E: Correlations Between Teacher Demographic Data and 259 Knowledge Data v LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: National Education Technology Standards for Students 7 (ISTE, 2007) and Teachers (ISTE, 2008) Table 1.2: Examples of the Relationship between Differentiation, 13 Technology, and 21st Century Skills Frameworks Table 3.1: Knowledge Domains and Content Areas Measured by the 72 Survey of Knowledge of Teaching and Technology Table 3.2: Description of Differentiated Lesson Set 73 Table 3.3: Teacher Rationale Options to Support Technology Choices 74 Table 3.4: Summary of Survey Instrumentation Protocol 76 Table 4.1: Summary of Research Questions, Survey Instruments, and 82 Findings Table 4.2: Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Pedagogical Knowledge 86 Domain Table 4.3: Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Technology Knowledge 88 Domain Table 4.4: Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Technological Pedagogical 90 Knowledge Domain Table 4.5: Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Content Knowledge 92 Domain Table 4.6: Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Pedagogical Content 94 Knowledge Domain Table 4.7: Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Technological Content 96 Knowledge Domain Table 4.8: Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Technological Pedagogical 98 Content Knowledge Domain Table 4.9: Knowledge Domain Mean and Standard Deviation 100 Table 4.10: Differentiated Lesson Set: Models of Teaching Description and 104 Content Areas vi Table 4.11: Highest Rated Knowledge Domain Indicator Statements 168 Table 4.12: Lowest Rated Knowledge Domain Indicator Statements 169 Table 5.1: Knowledge Domain Means and Standard Deviations 177 Table 5.2: Frequency of Technology Choices Distinguished by Model 196 of Teaching Table 5.3: Frequency of Technology Choices Distinguished by Content 197 Area vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) 15 framework Figure 4.1. Percentages of all technology choices in Differentiated Lesson 101 Set Figure 4.2. Percentages of all technology choice rationale in Differentiated 102 Lesson Set Figure 4.3. Self-selected technology choices for integration in motivational 106 phase of language arts lesson Figure 4.4. Rationale choices selected for motivational phase of language 107 arts lesson Figure 4.5. Self-selected technology choices for integration in state the 108 objective phase of language arts lesson Figure 4.6. Technology rationale choices in state the objective phase of 109 language arts lesson Figure 4.7. Self-selected technology choices in the demonstration phase of 110 language arts lesson Figure 4.8. Technology rationale choices in demonstration phase of 111 language arts lesson Figure 4.9. Self-selected technology choices in check for understanding 112 phase of language arts lesson Figure 4.10. Technology rationale choices in check for understanding 113 phase of language arts lesson Figure 4.11. Self-selected technology choices in the structured practice 114 phase of language arts lesson Figure 4.12. Technology rationale choices in structured practice phase of 116 language arts lesson Figure 4.13. Self-selected technology choices in the guided practice phase 117 of language arts lesson viii Figure 4.14. Technology rationale choices in guided practice phase of 118 language arts lesson Figure 4.15. Self-selected technology choices in the independent practice 119 phase of language arts lesson Figure 4.16. Technology rationale choices in independent practice phase 120 of language arts lesson Figure 4.17. Self-selected technology choices in the motivation phase of 122 the mathematics lesson Figure 4.18. Technology rationale choices in motivation phase of the 123 mathematics lesson Figure 4.19. Self-selected technology choices in the introduction of the 124 advanced organizer phase of the mathematics lesson Figure 4.20. Technology rationale choices in introduction of advanced 126 organizer phase of the mathematics lesson Figure 4.21. Self-selected technology choices in the practice with the 127 advanced organizer phase of the mathematics lesson Figure 4.22. Technology rationale choices in practice with advanced 129 organizer phase of the mathematics lesson Figure 4.23. Self-selected technology choices in apply the advanced 131 organizer phase of the mathematics lesson Figure 4.24. Technology rationale choices in apply the advanced organizer 132 phase of the mathematics lesson Figure 4.25. Self-selected technology choices in the share/summarize 133 phase of the mathematics lesson Figure 4.26. Technology rationale choices in the share/summarize phase of 134 the mathematics lesson Figure 4.27. Self-selected technology choices in the integrated 136 reconciliation phase of the mathematics lesson Figure 4.28. Technology rationale choices in the integrated reconciliation 137 phase of the mathematics lesson ix Figure 4.29. Self-selected technology choices in the motivation phase of 138 the social studies lesson Figure 4.30. Technology rationale choices in the motivation phase of the 140 social studies lesson Figure 4.31. Self-selected technology choices in the introduction of the 141 advanced organizer phase of the social studies lesson Figure 4.32. Technology rationale choices in the introduction of the 142 advanced organizer phase of the social studies lesson Figure 4.33. Self-selected technology choices in the practice with the 143 advanced organizer phase of the social studies lesson Figure 4.34. Technology rationale choices in the practice with the advanced 144 organizer phase of the social studies lesson Figure 4.35. Self-selected technology choices in the apply/share/summarize 145 phase of the social studies lesson Figure 4.36. Technology rationale choices in the apply/share/summarize 146 phase of the social studies lesson Figure 4.37. Self-selected technology choices in the integrated 147 reconciliation phase of the social studies lesson Figure 4.38. Technology rationale choices in the integrated reconciliation 148 phase of the social studies lesson Figure 4.39. Self-selected technology choices in the motivation phase of 150 the science lesson Figure 4.40. Technology rationale choices in the motivation phase of the 151 social studies lesson Figure 4.41. Self-selected technology choices in the solicit questions phase 152 of the science lesson Figure 4.42. Technology rationale choices in the solicit questions phase 153 of the social studies lesson Figure 4.43. Self-selected technology choices in the research phase of 154 the science lesson x Figure 4.44. Technology rationale choices in the research phase of 155 the science lesson Figure 4.45. Self-selected technology choices in the share/summarize 156 phase of the science lesson Figure 4.46. Technology rationale choices in the share/summarize phase 157 of the science lesson Figure 4.47. Self-selected technology choices in the recycle phase of the 158 science lesson Figure 4.48. Technology rationale choices in the recycle phase of the 159 science lesson Figure 4.49. Most frequent technology selections distinguished by 161 content area Figure 4.50. Most frequent technology selections distinguished by model 164 of teaching Figure 5.1. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) 177 framework Figure 5.2. Most frequent overall technology selections in the 184 differentiated lesson set xi ABSTRACT This study was conducted to understand how teachers of gifted and talented students perceive their own knowledge of pedagogy, content, and technology based on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework (TPACK). The study also asked teachers what technologies they would use in a differentiated curriculum and instructional lesson set and were accompanied by a set of rationale choices for teacher selection uncovering a relationship between teachers’ self- perceptions of technology knowledge in content and pedagogy and technology selections within the differentiated lesson set. A mixed methods approach was used to gather data through a quantitative and qualitative survey. Teachers reported moderate to high self-perceptions within the seven knowledge domains of the TPACK framework. Teachers rated themselves highest in pedagogy and content, yet the addition of technology to these domains lowered teachers’ self-perceptions. Overall teachers favored five technology selections in the Differentiated Lesson Set: document camera, Internet, computer, interactive whiteboard, and PowerPoint. The most frequent rationale given for technology choices was the clarification of student understanding. The results of the study indicate a pronounced teacher-directed use of technology in contrast to self- perceptions of knowledge. The study implies that although teachers of gifted learners are aware of many technologies, they select from a limited scope of choices. Lack of available technology in schools could have been a determinant in teacher decision-making. This reveals the need for teachers to understand how technology skills and standards xii are connected to principles of differentiation of curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. It is suggested that professional development for teachers of gifted learners include theory-based technology integration that is aligned with the needs of gifted learners and their technological strengths. 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Our goal must be to develop the talents of all to their fullest. Attaining that goal requires that we expect and assist all students to work to the limits of their capabilities. — A Nation At Risk, 1983 Decades after President Regan’s National Commission on Excellence in Education published the report A Nation at Risk, educational leaders continue to seek reform movements to improve teaching and learning in our nation’s public school system. Trends in educational reform have moved from cultivating the development of students talents, to test-based accountability, one of the cornerstone pieces of 2001’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) enacted during the Bush administration (Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzales, 2003). The recent blueprint for the next reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) aims to rework policies in NCLB to create accountability systems comprised of higher expectations and rigorous standards designed to prepare students for college and the workplace (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). An underlying goal promoted by this new blueprint for reform states that by the year 2020, the United States will lead the world in college completion rates and students will acquire a much deserved “world class” education by addressing the following priorities: (1) college and career ready students; (2) teacher leaders in every school; (3) equity and opportunity for all students; (4) raising the bar and 2 rewarding excellence; and (5) promoting innovation and continuous improvement (DOE, 2010). College and career readiness is the fundamental priority of this reform and is supported primarily by the raising standards for all, better assessments, and providing a “complete” education. The reform (DOE, 2010) describes the concept of a “complete” education as the idea that students should receive a well-rounded education inclusive of all subjects to foster the ability for student to contribute as citizens within our democracy and have the ability to thrive in a global economy. One method to achieve this goal is through the support and funding of technology in the acquisition of a “complete” education (DOE, 2010). Under the proposed reform, grants will be provided for: strengthening technology instruction via STEM programs (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics); technology-based strategies to improve STEM education; the use of technology to address student learning challenges; the creation of high-quality educational digital content; the ability of states to develop and improve their capacity to use technology to improve instruction; and overall innovation in technology (DOE, 2010). The reform also lists technology as a cross cutting priority in educational reform, explaining that, technology, when effectively and thoughtfully deployed, can improve how schools work, how teachers teach, and how students learn. Priority may be given to programs, projects, or strategies that leverage digital information or communications technology to accomplish the stated goals of the grant. (DOE, 2010, p. 41) 3 The current National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) also builds upon the blueprint’s goal of college and career ready students and the “complete” education. A five-year plan developed by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (2010), seeks to transform education in America through the creation of a model of 21 st century learning powered by technology throughout the five essential areas of learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. This model of 21 st century learning is characterized by a student- centered learning experience that is positioned on standards-based core concepts giving students the flexibility, through the use of technology, to engage in a variety of learning dimensions based on grouping, goals, needs, and interests (US DOE Office of Educational Technology, 2010). These types of learning dimensions, occurring through standards-based instruction, are expected to provide students with preparation for both college and career. This preparation assumes that students interact and use technology in the same fashion in and out of the classroom, as well as during and beyond the school day. The technology and learning experiences within school settings should also be authentic to the professional. The NETP (2010) notes that college and career preparation comes from the inclusion of 21 st century competencies, also referred to as 21 st century skills, within the use of technology in learning. The Partnership for 21 st Century Skills (P21), an organization dedicated to the advocacy of 21 st century readiness for all students, has created a framework for teaching and learning that is composed of a four part structure including core academic subjects and 21 st century themes (global awareness and financial, civic, health, and environmental literacy); learning and innovation 4 skills; information, media, and technology skills; and life and career skills (P21, 2010). The subset of learning and innovations skills can be further delineated as critical thinking and problem solving, communication, collaboration, and lastly creativity and innovation, which are the NETP (2010) determines as essential competencies needed by students to leverage learning experiences with the use of technology and adapt to rapidly changing world. This includes the ability and opportunity for students to use technology in ways that are commensurate with professionals in various disciplines. While these competencies are viewed as paramount to college and career readiness by allowing students to use real-world tools to grapple with real-world problems in preparation for becoming members of a globally competitive workforce (NETP, 2010). In response to the importance of 21 st century skills to teaching and learning today, P21 has responded to the blueprint for reform by issuing recommendations to promote fusion between the teaching and learning of core academic subject areas and their 21 st century competencies/skills. P21 anticipates that the inclusion of these skills within the reauthorization of ESEA will redefine educational experiences and prepare teachers to meet the demands of teaching a 21 st century ready child, noting that these skills are not new to education in the 21 st century, rather essential to living in the 21 st century (P21, 2010). This is akin to the social efficiency ideology of education, which posits that the aim of education is to perpetuate the functioning of society and prepare individuals to lead a meaningful adult life in society (Schiro, 2008). 5 A connection can be made between the priorities set forth in the current blueprint for reauthorization of the ESEA, the NETP, and gifted education through differentiation strategies and methods. The National Association for Gifted Children articulates principles to guide the description of differentiation for gifted learners within their Pre-K – Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards. These principles outline among other things, the need for curriculum and instruction to be modified to fit the unique needs of gifted learners, the flexibility of instructional pacing, provision of acceleration opportunities, and a variety of curricular options, instructional approaches, and resource materials (NAGC, 2010). For gifted learners to be provided a “complete” education under the proposed blueprint for reauthorization, teachers need to provide objectives, content, and resources to challenge gifted learners in the regular classroom as well as provide a differentiated curriculum that assists the development of ethical standards, positive self-concepts, sensitivity and responsibility to others, and the contribution gifted learners can make within society (California State Board of Education, 2005). Differentiation of curriculum for gifted learners has a fundamental role in augmenting college and career readiness. While the NETP (2010) clearly articulates the need to utilize technology in order to make connections between specific content areas and the professionals that work in these disciplines, it is the use of 21 st century competencies that can afford gifted learners the opportunity to make such connections. These competencies match Tomlinson’s (2001) explanation of differentiation for gifted learners as: information and understandings that are most valued by an expert in a particular discipline; lessons, activities, and products 6 designed to develop gifted learner’s understandings of these essentials, and materials and tasks that fosters interest and sustains relevance to students. Technology’s growing presence in education reform and the standards for gifted programming can begin to forge a symbiotic relationship in teaching and learning. Background of the Problem Technology Standards An initial offering of technology standards was presented in 1983, as A Nation At Risk identified five “new basics,” as the core for modern curriculum. English, mathematics, science, and social studies were joined by computer science, which was thought to equip students to: (a) understand the computer as an information, computation, and communication device; (b) use the computer in the study of other subjects and for personal and work-related purposes; and (c) understand the world of computers, electronics, and related technologies (Gardner, 1983). Since then, technology standards have been expanded by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) to include National Education Technology Standards for students, teachers, administrators, and coaches. Table 1.1 provides an overview of student and teacher standards. These technology standards surpass the initial recommendations of A Nation At Risk in multiple ways, with the inclusion of creativity, promotion of digital citizenship, and the inclusion of students, but teachers and administrators. These standards are also an integral part of both the NETP and the P21 framework for 21 st century learning. A closer look at these technology standards reveals a relationship to standards for gifted learners. NAGC (2010) promotes the use of instructional 7 strategies including critical, creative, and problem-solving strategies; while California State Standards for gifted and talented students also promotes the use of these specific skills through differentiation of curriculum and instruction (California State Board of Education, 2005). Table 1.1 National Education Technology Standards for Students (ISTE, 2007) and Teachers (ISTE, 2008) NETS-S (students) NETS-T (teachers) 1. Creativity and Innovation 1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity 2. Communication and Collaboration 2. Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessment 3. Research and Information Fluency 3. Modern Digital-Age Work and Learning 4. Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making 4. Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility 5. Digital Citizenship 5. Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership 6. Technology Operations and Concepts 8 Technology and Differentiation The use of technology in schools can play a key role in differentiation for gifted learners and the ability to promote career and college readiness by providing learning experiences that are authentic to academic disciplines and that are also authentic to their digital lives. Prensky (2001) describes the nation’s students as “digital natives,” individuals who have been surrounded their entire lives by and using computers, video games, digital music players, cell phones, and various other toys and tools of the digital age. Just as ethnic and organizational cultures can influence the teaching and learning of gifted students, this digital culture must also be recognized in local classrooms and schools as college and professional cultures are not the only entities with access to the toys and tools that technology proliferates. The link between technology and differentiation for gifted learners can be made through the connection between educational policies and the means that determine the utilization of standards. In the NEPT (DOE, 2010), the model of 21 st century learning is based on the teaching of a standards-based core curriculum that gives students the option to tailor their work to specific needs, goals, and interests while also employing flexibility in grouping strategies. This parallels program standards for curriculum and instruction in gifted programming that call for gifted learners to receive access to flexible instructional arrangements along with a match to student’s interests, readiness, and learning styles (NACG, 2010). This can be achieved when technology is used as a tool to provide students with access to information and knowledge, as a tool for communication, and as a productivity tool to design and share creative products to showcase learning (Tyler-Wood, Cereijo, & 9 Holcomb, 2001). As the realm of technology expands from basic hardware (computers) and software (programs and applications) to cloud computing (networks and resources on a collaborative platform), technology will continue to grow and amplify society’s contributions and access to teaching and learning, especially in meeting curriculum and instructional needs for populations of gifted students. Differentiation for Gifted Learners Gifted and talented education programs have both purpose and responsibilities. They exist to guide schools, administrators, teachers, and parents through the educating and nurturing of gifted learners according to their specific needs through formal and informal services (NAGC, 2010). There are many conceptions of giftedness that have been created to explain the variety of attributes that encompass the gifted learner. No matter what these concepts or characteristics say regarding the type, traits, or categories of giftedness a student may be identified as, students are required to be provided a differentiated curriculum that respects learner differences and responds positively to their needs (Cooper, 2009). Tomlinson (2004) states that differentiation is ensuring that what a student learns, how they learn it, and how the learning demonstrates what the student has learned is a match for their readiness level, interests, and preferred mode of learning. Within the construct of the multiple conceptions and characteristics of gifted learners comes the need for differentiation within curriculum and instruction as gifted learners access information, communicate and interact with others, and produce, create, or share their learning. Content, process, product, and the learning environment are all elements of differentiation of instruction for gifted learners and 10 are defined in the following ways: (1) content – what students need to learn, or how they will get access to information; (2) process – activities students engage in to make sense of or master content; (3) products – culminating projects that ask the student to rehearse, apply, and extend what he or she has learned in a unit; and (4) learning environments – the way the classroom works and feels (Tomlinson, 2001). All of these elements, either singularly or in a set, can be found in the work of many of the differentiation models of curriculum and instruction presented in the work Systems and Models For Developing Programs For the Gifted and Talented (Renzulli, Gubbins, McMillen, Eckert, & Little, 2009), including: The Autonomous Learner Model (Betts and Kercher), Total School Cluster Grouping (Gentry and MacDougall), The Grid (Kaplan), The Purdue Three-Stage Model (Moon, Kolloff, Robinson, Dixon, and Feldhusen), The Multiple Menu Model (Renzulli), The Parallel Curriculum (Tomlison), the Integrated Curriculum Model California standards for differentiation in gifted and talented programs follow the theories, models, and practices such as those previously listed. In addition, curriculum differentiation purports to include depth and complexity, acceleration or advanced pacing of content, and novelty or original expressions of student understanding (California State Board of Education, 2005). Not only is differentiation expected to be achieved through various instructional methods and materials, it should also be supported through teachers use of technology (California BOE, 2005; NAGC, 2010). 11 Statement of the Problem As technological advances in society have continually streamlined the field of education, both teachers and students must develop a sense of meaning and literacy related to the technological world that surrounds them. Burkhardt, et al. (2003) define technology literacy as the knowledge about what technology is, how it works, what purposes it serves, and the manner in which it is used to achieve specific goals in an efficient and effective way. Currently as the educational landscape merges with the ideals of the 21 st century skills movement, technological understandings are now described as ICT literacy, or the ability to use technology in order to perform learning skills that are enabled by the use of technology (P21, 2009). ICT refers to “information and communication technologies” and include the use of: Internet, Web logs (blogs), word processors, video editors, web editors, spreadsheets, presentation software, instant messaging, avatars, virtual worlds, and much more (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004). The ability to use these types of technologies in a critical and comprehensive way throughout teaching and learning represents a paradigm shift from standard literacies such as reading and writing, to a conception of new literacy, a necessity for individuals to thrive in the 21 st century including both ITC and media literacy (Schrum & Levin, 2009). In keeping abreast with current trends and developments in technology, public school districts provide teachers with technological resources as an organizational tool for productivity, and to help aid instruction. What teachers may not be provided with is the understanding of the idea that technology is rooted in knowledge, and when applied to the field of education, constitutes a more than the 12 skills of using hardware and software applications. According to Reiser (2001), instructional technology is comprised of two parts: media that is used as technology hardware or software, and the process of designing student learning experiences. The use of instructional media is dependent upon the instructional design of learning experiences. These experiences can provide learners with the potential ability to utilize technology by means of instructional media to access information; communicate and interact with others; and create, share, or produce what is learned and connect this to their daily lives. Both aspects of instructional technology are an implicit part of differentiating curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. California state standards require gifted learners to have access to a curriculum that provides for the balanced development of critical, creative, problem solving and research skills, along with advanced content and authentic and appropriate products (California State Board of Education, 2005). Not only do these elements of differentiated curriculum for gifted learners parallel National Educational Technology Standards for students, they also intersect with the P21 framework of 21 st century learning as summarized in Table 1.2 below. 13 Table 1.2 Examples of the Relationship between Differentiation, Technology, and 21 st Century Skills Frameworks GATE Standards (CDE, 2005) Examples of the Relationship to Technology (NETS-S, 2007) Examples of the Relationship to 21 st Century Skills Framework 3:1.b. Development of Skills • Critical Thinking • Creative Thinking • Problem-Solving • Research Skills • Independent Study 1.a. Apply existing knowledge to generate new ideas, products, or processes. 4.d. Use multiple processes and diverse perspectives to explore alternative solutions. Learning and Innovation Skills • Critical Thinking • Communication • Collaboration • Creativity Information, Media, and Technology Skills • Literacy - Information - Media - ITC (Information, Communication, & Technology 3:1.b. Advanced Content • Depth - Language of the Discipline - Details - Patterns - Rules - Trends - Ethics - Unanswered Questions • Complexity - Over Time - Multiple Perspectives - Across the Disciplines • Acceleration/Pacing • Think Like a Disciplinarian • Universal Concepts • Big Ideas 1.c. Use models and simulations to explore complex systems and issues. 1.d. Identify trends and forecast possibilities. 2.c. Develop cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with learners of other cultures. 4.a. Identify and define authentic problems and significant questions for investigation. Core Subjects and 21 st Century Themes: • Language Arts • World languages • Arts • Mathematics • Economics • Science • Geography • History • Government and Civics • Global Awareness • Literacy - Financial/Economic - Business/Entrupreneurial - Civic - Health - Environmental 14 Table 1.2, continued GATE Standards (CDE, 2005) Examples of the Relationship to Technology (NETS-S, 2007) Examples of the Relationship to 21 st Century Skills Framework 3:1.b. Authentic and Appropriate Products • Novelty • Independent Study 1.b. Create original works as a means of personal or group expression. 2.d. Contribute to project teams to produce original works or solve problems. Life and Career Skills • Flexibility and Adaptability • Initiate and Self-Direction • Social and Cross-Cultural Skills • Productivity and Accountability • Leadership and Responsibility Information, Media, and Technology Skills • Literacy - Information - Media - ITC (Information, Communication, & Technology In order to create optimal learning experiences for gifted learners aimed to meet program and state standards, integrate technology standards, and incorporate elements of 21 st century learning, teachers must not only have a sound understanding of the elements that comprise a differentiated curriculum, but also how to differentiate their instruction to augment the curriculum. When approaching instructional design that includes instructional media based on current technological advances and trends, it is necessary to look judiciously at the richness of alternatives and choices, although personal experience may be one of the most powerful influences that affect teachers’ beliefs and decision-making about technology (Shaunnesy, 2007). The technological ends of instructional media may not always justify their use within instruction design, especially if they are not supporting the needs of gifted learners. A fixation on new technologies and their capabilities may 15 overshadow the relationships and interactions that they should be designed to support in the classroom (Brunner & Tally, 1999). On the other hand, the exclusion of media and technologies that are relevant to the study of specific disciplines within instructional design for gifted learners fails to meet their respective ability and interest needs and connect to the digital world around them. Purpose of the Study The basis for looking at how teachers of the gifted understand instructional technology as differentiation in curriculum design, and the technology and media that may be used within instructional delivery, is Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) conceptual framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Figure 1.1. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (graphic from http://tpack.org/) 16 Based on the work of Shulman (1986) TPACK builds upon the idea that teachers not only need to have an understanding of the content (divided into subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge), but also teacher knowledge (propositional knowledge, case knowledge, and strategic knowledge). Mishra and Kohler (2006) add a third dimension of technology to Shulman’s conceptual framework, and its intersections can be described as follows (see Figure 1.1): • Technology Knowledge – knowledge of, and the skills required to operate particular technologies, basic and advanced. • Technological Content Knowledge – knowledge about the manner in which technology and content are reciprocally related, and the manner in which the subject matter can be changed by the application of technology knowledge. • Technological Pedagogical Knowledge – knowledge of the existence, component, and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings, and how teaching may change as a result using particular technologies. • Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge – understanding the representation of concepts using technologies, the pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content, knowledge of how technologies make concepts difficult or easy to learn, and understanding of students’ prior knowledge and epistemology, and how 17 technologies can build on this knowledge to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones. The decisions of teachers of the gifted to use technology within differentiated curriculum and instruction has a great impact on gifted learners. Not only do gifted learners need differentiated learning experiences that have authenticity to the discipline, but they should also have access to the technologies that are inherent in the work of a disciplinarian, specifically ones that are connected to technological innovations of a discipline (Gardner, 2008). Through profiles of National Education Technology Standards for Students (ISTE, 2007), gifted learners should be afforded the educational opportunities to communicate about technology, debate the effect of existing and emerging technologies, and employ data-collection technology to report results for content-related problems. Understanding teacher and students perspectives regarding the use of technology in the teaching and learning in gifted programs can begin to build the fundamental underpinnings of how to improve the relationship between technology and the gifted. Research Questions Due to the aforementioned factors, the following questions were studied: 1. What are teachers’ self-perceptions regarding their knowledge of general content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge? 2. What instructional technology choices do teachers select to include within differentiated curriculum and instructional lessons, and what is the rationale for these lessons? 18 3. How do teacher’s perceptions of technology knowledge relate to their instructional technology choices within a differentiated curriculum and instructional lesson set? Importance of the Study Understanding the instructional technology choices that teachers of gifted learners make and their rationale for these decisions impacts gifted education on many levels. The field of gifted education has long been a proponent of the critical elements for creating 21 st century learning, including the skills, subject matter, contexts, and tools to develop the new literacy that is needed in today’s society (Siegle, 2004). The National Education Technology (DOE, 2010) plan puts forth the charge for educators to leverage learning in sciences and modern technology to create engaging, relevant, and personalized learning experiences for all learner that mirror student’s daily lives and the realities of their future. Before teachers are able to harness these new technologies and bridge them into instructional design for effective learning, they must understand technological skills and literacy needed by students to engage in such learning. An understanding of effective curricular and instructional differentiation for gifted learners not only aligns to the new protocols of 21 st century learning and working, but may also help teachers integrate technology as a means to provide complex learning for students including the ability to organize, analyze, synthesize, and communicate large amounts of information (Siegle, 2004). Understanding the needs of gifted learners in relation to what types of instructional technology they would choose as a part of their differentiated curriculum illustrates an impact on gifted education in three ways. First, Tyler (1966) 19 states that in development of curriculum, it is important to note that the learner is an active, purposeful human being. Inquiring about gifted learners preferences in regards to the types of technology that are used in the differentiation of curriculum and instruction promotes the individual development of the learner. In the Betts and Kersher (2009) Autonomous Learner Model for the gifted and talented, the individual learner not only develops learning, organizational, and productivity skills, they also have opportunities to develop skills and understandings related to technology as well as college and career involvement. Second, understanding student’s technological proclivities also supports the encouragement of creative productivity (Renzulli, 1992). Technology may be a contributing factor to this sense of creative productivity, especially through the latest generation of technology tools and Internet applications that allow users to collaborate and generate their own content (Oliver, 2010). These technologies cannot only facilitate student’s creativity and interests, but also brings the community and discipline areas closer to the learning environment, supporting gifted learners sense of inquiry, self-directed learning, and independent study options (California State Board of Education, 2005). Lastly, understanding the choices and rationale of gifted learner’s technology preferences may help recognize specific gifts and talents in areas related to technology. Just as society requires the skills that technologically gifted students possess, gifted educators are obligated to identify technologically gifted students and help to develop these skills to their fullest potential (Siegle, 2007). 20 Methodological Design This presented a mixed methods approach towards collecting data on the instructional technology choices and rationales that teachers of gifted and talented learners choose to make as a part of differentiated curriculum and instruction. Thirty-three teacher participants voluntarily participated in the quantitative portion of the study, while 35 teachers participated in the qualitative part of the research study (Appendices A and C). This stratified sample of teachers from public school districts throughout the state of California were participants in professional development conferences focused on the development of curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. Participants in the study were asked to complete two surveys, lasting approximately 40 minutes. The first survey for teacher participants, the Survey of Knowledge of Teaching and Technology, was a four-point quantitative Likert scale self-assessment of knowledge of teaching and technology based on a TPACK framework assessment instrument for preservice teachers developed by Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler, and Shin (2009). This survey included 46 questions in the following knowledge domains: technology knowledge, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, technological content knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge, and technological pedagogical content knowledge. The second survey presented to participants was a qualitative survey of instructional technology choices in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. This survey consisted of a field tested differentiated lesson set in the areas of Literacy, Mathematics, Science, and Social 21 Studies. The lessons chosen for the research study were indicative of a differentiated curriculum developed by Dr. Sandra Kaplan at the University of Southern California as part of a five-year grant awarded by the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of the U.S. Department of Education (PR # S206A040072). Participants in this open-ended part of the research study were asked to self-select technology integration choices they would want to use in any or all parts of each lesson phase and were also asked to select one or more rationale choices based on performance indicators for teachers from National Educational Technology Standards (ISTE, 2008). Assumption, Limitations, and Delimitations It is assumed that teacher participants in this research study are trained and proficient in the development of a differentiated curriculum and possess the pedagogical skill necessary to meet the needs of gifted and talented learners. Along with these skills, it is also assumed that participating teachers use and understand the particular elements of differentiation (depth and complexity) that are presented in the lesson set. Limitations of this study include a prospectively small sample size due to the teacher population related to gifted education. Another limiting factor of the study relates to the differential in technology knowledge, use, and access among and teachers that may affect the validity of study results. As a consequence of the small sample size and technology variance of teachers, results of the study may not be generalizable to the larger population of teachers of gifted learners. 22 Definition of Key Terms Gifted Learners Pursuant to California State legislature, “students that are enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school of the state and are identified as possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high performance capability as defined pursuant to Section 52202.” (California State Board of Education, 2000) Differentiation The modification of curriculum to meet the unique needs of learners. It may include modifications in complexity, depth, pacing, and selecting among, rather than covering all, of the curriculum areas. The modification is dependent on the individual needs of the students (California Association for the Gifted, n.d.). Differentiated Curriculum Facilitates gifted students in their ability to: • Meet or exceed state core curriculum standards • Provides for the balance of critical, creative, problem solving and research skills, advanced content • Focuses on depth and complexity of content, advanced or accelerated pacing of content and novelty • Facilitates development of ethical standards, positive self-concepts, sensitivity and responsibility to others, and contributions to society (California State Board of Education, 2005). 23 Differentiated Instruction Facilitates the differentiated curriculum for gifted students by using: • Using appropriate instructional models • Using appropriate materials and technology • Using a variety of teaching and learning patterns • Using an extensive range of resources • Planning for groups of and individual gifted learners (California State Board of Education, 2005). Technology Any systematized practical knowledge, based on experimentation and/or scientific theory, which enhances the capacity of society to product goods and services, and which is embodied in productive skills, organization, or machinery (Saettler, 1990). Educational Technology A complex, integrated process involving people, procedures, ideas, devices, and organization for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating, and managing solutions to those problems, involved in all aspects of human learning (Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1977). Instructional Technology The two practices of (a) the use of media for instructional purposes, and (b) the use of systematic instructional design procedures (Reiser, 2001). 24 Instructional Media The physical means by which an instructional message is communicated (Reiser & Gagne, 1983). Instructional Design The application of our scientific knowledge about human learning to the practical tasks of teaching and learning (Heinrich, 1984). 25 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction There are various topics that are relevant to the study of technology and gifted education that will be presented throughout this review of literature. The first portion of the chapter will examine gifted education as related to the following categories of technology standards for students: creativity and innovation, and critical thinking, problem solving, and decision-making. General connections to gifted education will be made, along with a discussion of differentiation of curriculum and instruction and teacher considerations. A general review of technology and its relationship to gifted learners will be presented next, culminating with an elaboration on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework to support the relationship of technology and gifted education due to the paucity of research studies that involve technology use in curricular and instructional differentiation for gifted learners. Creativity and Innovation Creativity and Innovation are the first subset of technology standards presented by the ISTE (2007) and refer to ways of thinking, the construction of knowledge, and the creation of products and processes utilizing innovative technological means. Creativity and innovation have roots in much of the literature related to gifted education, models of differentiation of curriculum and instruction, and are now replete in the recent 21 st Century Learning movement. These concepts 26 are also present in emerging discussions related to the understanding and development of technological talent and giftedness. Relationship to Gifted Education Creativity has long been a part of research on gifted education. Guildford (1950), one of the early contributors to theories of creativity, established its connection to giftedness by making positive correlations between IQ (measured by intelligence tests) and certain creative talents. Guilford also helped build a foundation for the understanding of creative abilities and talent through factors such as: (1) fluency (the capability of producing a large number of ideas per unit of time); (2) novelty (uncommon, yet acceptable responses to items); (3) flexibility (branching out readily into new channels of thought); (4) synthesizing ability (organizing ideas into larger patterns); (5) analyzing ability (breaking down structures before new ones can be built); (6) reorganization (the transformation of existing objects); (7) complexity (various intricate conceptual structures that the individual can manipulate without confusion); and (8) evaluation (the selection of surviving ideas). Guilford matched these factors to specific individuals and their disciplines (scientists, technologists, and inventors) and expected them to be supported and measured through some type of data collection. Many definitions of creativity include one or more of these foundational factors, and form a substantial foundation for creativity through the lens of gifted education. Torrance, a seminal scholar in the study of creativity, sought to open up the concept in ways that embody aspects of existing in everyday life by comparing the act of creativity to the processes used in problem solving: finding the missing or 27 disharmonious elements; searching for solutions; formulating, testing, and modifying hypotheses; and communicating the results (Hébert, Cramond, Millar, & Silvian, 2002). Csikszentmihalyi (1997) defines creativity as “any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or that transforms an existing domain into a new one (pg. 28).” Creativity, in these terms, includes processes related to cognition, intellect, personality traits, a disposition towards openness, and novel production (Coleman, 1985). Clark (1983) posits that creativity is the highest expression of giftedness and exists in four interrelated parts: a state of thinking, a state of feeling, a state of sensing or talent, and a state of intuitiveness or higher consciousness. Though definitions, tests, and measures of creativity have been developed over time to make a static connection between creativity and giftedness, various conceptions of creativity have been produced by scholars of gifted education. In his work on the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness, Renzulli (1999) presents creativity productivity; described as the development of original ideas, products, artistic expressions, and areas of knowledge that impact one or more target audiences; as one of two conceptions of giftedness. This theory of creative productivity also lists various types of creativity that range from situational to real- product, which arise from presented or self-selected problems, and utilize authentic methodologies and yield unique products (Renzulli, 1992). Similarly, in an analysis of patterns of giftedness, Sternberg (2000) includes creativity, the ability to generate one or more major ideas that are of novel and high quality, as one of three attributes of gifted individuals. Gagne (2003) also uses creativity as a subset of giftedness, but 28 notes that the development of giftedness can be facilitated, or even hindered, by intrapersonal catalysts, environmental factors, or chance. When looking at gifted learners on an individual basis, various traits and behaviors are used to characterize creativity. Coleman (1985) includes curiosity, asking questions, risk-taking, intellectual playfulness, and the ability to adapt, improve, and modify institutions, objects, and systems as some of the prominent behavioral traits that indicate creativity. Gallagher (1985) brings a discussion of Maslow to the table by indicating that a special type of creativity, or inventiveness allows individuals to self-actualize and use all of their talents and gifts. This may not always be the case according to a profile of gifted and talented learners by Betts and Neihart (1988). Their description of a Type II profile (Challenging) asserts that high degrees of creativity are associated with individuals who may lack appropriate social and behavioral skills, and experience frustration because school systems have not been able to recognize and/or meet their talents and abilities (Betts & Neihart, 1988). Creativity and talent at times are interrelated constructs within gifted education. Taylor’s Multiple Talent Approach details productive thinking as one particular element of talent. This productive thinking is characterized by Guilford’s (1950) factors of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration (Maker & Neilson, 1995). This type of productive thinking is also related to talent in Schlichter’s Talents Unlimited model of thinking instruction for all students (Renzulli, Gubbins, McMillen, Eckert, & Little, 2009). Creativity can also be expressed as the tangible product of talent including the product, or art form that arises as a result of the talented creator (Clark, 1983). 29 Creativity involves multiples processes to create a product or an output. One such process is problem solving. Feldhusen and Treffinger (1980) state that creativity, as a process, can be described as a change of thinking and action. Researchers such as Osborn and Parnes have developed steps to creative problem solving that include: (1) mess finding; (2) data finding; (3) problem finding; (4) idea finding; (5) solution finding; (6) and acceptance finding, which are said to be needed more so by gifted learners due to the increased amounts of information that they need to organize, manipulate, and evaluate (Maker & Nielson, 1995). Another description of the creative process by Csikszentmihalyi (1997) includes (1) immersion in an issue or problem; (2) incubation of ideas; (3) insight regarding the pieces of the puzzle “falling” together; (4) evaluation of insight and whether or not it should be pursued; and lastly (5) elaboration, or putting the final pieces together. These processes, similar in nature, yet different in design, are indicative of the skills and processes of gifted learners. Relationship to Differentiation of Curriculum and Instruction Creativity is not only a characteristic found in gifted and talented learners, it also plays an essential role within the differentiation of curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. Programs for gifted and talented learners are required to provide students with learning environments where they can acquire various skills and understandings at creative levels that are commensurate with their potentials (California DOE, 2005). California state standards for curriculum and instruction within programming for gifted students includes the balanced development of numerous skill sets, including creativity, as well as novelty, described as unique and 30 original expressions of student understanding (California DOE, 2005). There are various models of curriculum and instruction for gifted learners that support the inclusion of creativity and innovation. Enrichment is one form of differentiation that is inclusive of creativity and innovation and can be described as the development of student’s thinking and feeling processes, the expansion of their interests, and the individual and small group investigation of real problems (Renzulli, 1977). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model is an example of curriculum enrichment whose origins stem from Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model (1977). This model is comprised of Type I, II, and III activities designed to expose gifted learners to a wide variety of disciplines (general exploratory activities); the materials and methods that promote the development of thinking and feeling processes in those disciplines (group training activities); and self-selection of an area of advance content acquisition and process training (investigations of real problems) (Renzulli & Reis, 2008). The Purdue Three Stage Model also works in three distinct stages with the purpose of going against the grain of prescriptive course design facilitated by lecture and examination and promotes transfer of learning in three steps. This model introduces information input activities (Stage One), have students participate in small-group projects, simulations, or that involve more complex problem-solving activities (Stage Two); and lastly an individualized application of learning based on the prior two stages intended to design a product or solve a problem (Feldhusen, 1980). These models encompass many of the characteristics delineated by the P21 framework for 21 st century learning. The creativity and innovation dimension of the 31 framework states that students should be able to utilize creative techniques such as brainstorming and maximize their creative efforts through the elaboration, refinement, analyzation, and evaluation of their own ideas (P21, 2009). Renzulli (1977) describes these efforts as the “thinking” and “feeling” processes that learners use in Type II enrichment activities (group training) in the Enrichment Triad, or SEM model, which gifted education has long promoted due to their applicability and transferability to new learning situations. In his work on why right-brained individuals will rule the world, titled A Whole New Mind, author Daniel Pink approaches these “thinking” and “feeling” processes by describing them as high concept and high touch. Pink (2005) suggests that high concept (the capacity to detect pattern and opportunities, create artistic and emotional beauty, and combine seemingly unrelated ideas into something new) and high touch (the ability to empathize with others, understand human interactions, and push beyond commonplace pursuits of purpose and meaning) are necessary commodities for success moving away from the Information Age and towards the Conceptual Age (globalization). Another example of enrichment for gifted learners is the Interdisciplinary Concept Model. Jacobs and Borland (1986) present this model as a means to differentiation curriculum for gifted learners rooted in the goal of modifying the curriculum to provide enrichment opportunities while still remaining faithful to the regular curriculum. The goal of this model of differentiation aims for students to explore disciplinary fields and the method and approaches used by professionals within the field to examine and solve problems. This model is comprised of students 32 selecting a topic, brainstorming associations, formulating guiding questions, and designing and implementing activities (Jacobs & Borland, 1986). The methodology of differentiation in this model begins to burgeon opportunities for independent study, as well as enhance the presence of authentic disciplinary study (Jacobs & Borland, 1986). Curriculum and instruction that is authentic to a discipline is comprised of more than just the facts or concepts it is composed of. Bruner (1966) expresses that curriculum should reflect the nature of knowledge within a discipline, as well as the nature of the knower and the knowledge-getting process. The 21 st century learning framework highlights the need for students to master both core standards-based subjects along with interdisciplinary themes including global awareness and the following forms of literacy: financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial; civic; health; and environmental literacy (P21, 2009). In general education, a growing area of interdisciplinary study is the focus on science, technology, engineering, and math, otherwise known as STEM. In support of the advancement of STEM education, the federal government not only plans to earmark $300 million dollars for competitive STEM grants, they assert that mastery of these areas is essential for all students, not only future scientists and engineers (US DOE, 2010). Technology plays a critical role in the augmentation of STEM education, as well as studies of other disciplines. Gardner (2008) explains that science cannot viably exist with out technology and that in order to understand and participate in the modern world and challenge, synthesize, or use knowledge productively, young people should be able to think scientifically to and have some mastery of computers. 33 The work of the National Research Counsel (2005) in How Students Learn argues that effective science education is inclusive of three parts: (1) familiarity with a discipline’s concepts, theories, and models; (2) an understand of how knowledge is generated and justified; and (3) the ability to use these understandings to engage in new inquiry. The synthesis of this these three parts and the importance of technology is identified in the 21 st Century Skills Map for science. According to P21 (2009), science is defined, by nature, as a creative human endeavor within modern society requires creative scientific and technical approaches. Furthermore, it is suggested that students be able to use ITC (information and communications technology) innovations as tools for “doing” science including observing, gathering and analyzing data, and communicating results. Coleman (1985) discusses creativity, problem solving, research and independent study skills as major program goals for gifted education, linking it to the nature and authentic practice of scientific inquiry and the use of technology within such practices. Independent study is another vehicle for creativity and innovation in gifted curriculum and instruction, supported by gifted education program standards (California DOE, 2005). It is a recommended component for many models of gifted programming (Moon, Feldhusen, & Dillon, 1994) and allows learners to engage in creative processes and products much like models of enrichment, but focusing on individual areas of interest. In his work titled Schools of Tomorrow, Dewey (1915) suggests that when children are given the freedom and liberty to interact with their curiosities through learning, they will exhibit greater productivity. Providing gifted students with opportunities to participate in learning experiences that are 34 commensurate with their interests serves as a motivating factor resulting in greater value of learning (Mayer, 2008) and enhanced cognitive behaviors related to higher levels of creative productivity (Renzulli, 1992). There are various examples of the utilization of Independent Study within curricular models of gifted education. One such example is Treffinger’s Self- Directed Learning model. Although not created specifically for gifted learners, it addresses a fallacy related to the implementation of Independent Study specifically with gifted learners. Although the use of Independent Study can motivate students through satiating their curiosities and interests, it cannot be assumed that all gifted learners come equipped with the prerequisite skills and methodologies needed to investigate real world problems (Clark, 1982). This particular model of Independent Study is comprised of four sequential parts (goals and objectives, assessment of entry behaviors, instructional procedures, and assessment of performance) that provide three varying levels of teacher direction based upon the independent learning characteristics of each student (Maker & Neilson, 1995). The last dimension of Betts and Kersher’s Autonomous Learner Model uses the idea of students empowering themselves to participate in long-term study dedicated to their areas of interest. These in-depth studies do allow for the option of working collaboratively in groups, but maintain the use of mentors, the submission of a final product and its presentation, a long with an assessment of all aspects of the study (Betts & Kersher, 2009). Betts (2004) posits that this form of Independent Study is the highest level of learning and can exist as the gateway to life-long learning and scholarliness. 35 The outcomes, or products resulting from independent study can evidence many forms of creativity and innovation. Differentiation of products for gifted learners should include allowing students various options of how to express their learning (Tomlinson, 2001), based upon readiness, interests, and learning profiles (Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009). Evidence of creativity in student products can manifest in several ways. Stemming from the work of Amabile, Bessmer, Reis, and Renzulli, Balchin (2009) created a series of criteria for assessing the creativity of student products referred to as The Creative Product Grid. The following is a list of the seven elements that are used to understand the creative efforts that have gone into the production of student artifacts: (1) uniqueness, (2) association of ideas, (3) risk- taking, (4) potential, (5) effectiveness, (6) well-craftedness, and (7) pleasure (Balchin, 2009). Effectiveness is also a component of the creation of media products listed as a part of information, media, and technology skills in the 21 st Century Learning Framework (P21, 2009). More specifically, and in terms of student products and artifacts, the national technology standards for students define creativity and innovation through technology as the creation of original works as a means of personal expression and the use of models and simulations to explore complex systems and issues (ISTE, 2007). Teacher Considerations Creativity and innovation are an integral part of gifted learner’s exposure and participation in enrichment and Independent Study through both process and product. Creativity, as defined by Torrance (1962) neatly aligns with the goals, outcomes, and processes of learner-centered investigations: 36 We have defined creativity quite simply as ‘the process of forming ideas or hypothesis, testing hypotheses, and communication the results.’ Implied in this definition is the creation of something new, something which one has never seen, or something which has never existed. (p. 32) Guildford (1950) also cites inventing, designing, contriving, composing, and planning as key behavioral patterns that are manifested by creative personalities. These types of behaviors, along with individual traits and characteristics of gifted learners need to be understood and facilitated by classroom teachers just as other, more concrete skills are taught in the classroom. It is postulated that teachers who are creative themselves are more effective in providing learning experiences and a learning environment that stimulates gifted learner’s creativity (Clark, 1983). Even with an innate sense of creativity, teachers may often times find themselves straddling the line between taking the role of “sage on the stage,” or stepping back as the “guide on the side.” Formal instruction may be used to provide students with the research and thinking skills needed to afford them the opportunity to construct their own meanings (Renzulli & Reis, 2008), counteracting the confinement and frustration creative types may have as a result of not understanding how to express their talents and abilities (Betts & Neihart, 1988). Treffinger illustrates the movement of teachers across this continuum in his model of creative learning. As teachers move though Level I (teaching and learning of basic thinking tools), Level II (applying thinking tools to more complex structures through creativity and problem solving), and Level III (extending thinking tools, creativity, and problem-solving to real problems) of this model, their role shifts from “dispenser 37 of knowledge” to “facilitator, or “guide” (Treffinger, 1986). These modifications of teaching behaviors require teachers not only be flexible, but to also, according to the work of Parnes, develop a classroom atmosphere that is safe for the free expression of ideas, encourages playfulness, gives ample time for the incubation of ideas, and seek quantity as well as quality of ideas (Maker & Neison, 1995). Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making Another subset of the National Technology Standards for Students is critical thinking, problems solving, and decision making. These standards involve the use of critical thinking skills to plan and conduct research, manage projects, solve problems, and make informed decisions using appropriate digital tools and resources (ISTE, 2007). Just like creativity and innovation, these three elements are vital to the curriculum and instruction of gifted education and fundamental to the framework of 21 st Century Learning. Relationship to Gifted Education Critical thinking, problem solving, and decision-making are interrelated structures. Robert Ennis (1991), a scholar of critical thinking, emphasizes that this type of “reasonable reflection” is an important part of the problem solving process also involving decision-making. Generally, decisions are made in the context of a problem involving inductive, deductive, and value judging processes (Ennis, 1991). Another widely recognized conception of critical thinking, Bloom’s Taxonomy, is housed in a cognitive hierarchical model, ascending with complexity as it moves through the continuum of lower to higher thinking skills. In a revision of this structure, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) address the absence of problem solving 38 and critical thinking within their restructured taxonomy tables noting that their use would involve multiple cognitive processes (thinking skills) within various knowledge domains (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive). Although these taxonomies were not created for the sole purpose of educating the gifted, it is generally assumed that gifted learners need involvement at higher levels within the taxonomy based on their capabilities of higher-level thinking and the challenge incurred at these levels (Maker & Nielson, 1995). Clark (1983) warns against such assumptions noting that if gifted learners do not understand information or knowledge that is presented during instruction, they will not automatically be able to function at advanced levels of thinking. Within the literature, gifted education commonly refers to critical thinking as divergent, or higher-order thinking skills. These skills, according to Tannenbaum (1983) have been widely used to as a guide in developing higher-level thinking exercises for gifted learners. It is crucial for gifted learners to participate in learning that allows them to organize the information they encounter and draw their own conclusions in order for them to evolve their already advanced thinking and reasoning skills (Maker, 1986). In addition to his contributions to creative thinking, Guilford also created a model of complex intellectual processes, in a similar fashion to Bloom’s Taxonomy, recognized and used in gifted education. This model is constructed of three intellectual domains: content (how thinking will take place); product (results of thinking processes); and operation (the means by which the product is reached)(Gallagher, 1985). The latter of these domains is defined by a subset of components (evaluation, divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and 39 cognitive memory), rendering it the most closely linked to contemporary critical thinking skills. Guildford’s structure of intellect model can also be tied to the process of problem solving. If the goal of problem solving is to draw conclusions or understand the implications of a body of knowledge surrounding a given question, thinking processes such as those enumerated the operational dimension of Guildford’s model must be utilized to come to such conclusions (Gallagher, 1985). In their work on creative thinking and problem solving, Fedlhusen and Treffinger (1980) express the intersection of problem solving, critical thinking, and creative thinking by stating: Critical thinking involves creative thinking because it requires the thinker to assimilate information and hypothesize solutions to problems… Critical thinking is the productive thinking ability that enables us to solve problems, plan and implement ideas and activities, and handle life without a floor plan or set of directions. (pp. 37-38) Many of the characteristics and proclivities of gifted learners presented by Renzulli, Hartnam, and Callahan (cited in Coleman, 1985) support the connection of critical thinking and problem solving to gifted education such as their involvement and absorption of certain topic or problems; the possession of a large reserve of information regarding a variety of topics; the ability to quickly make valid generalizations about events, people, or things; and the creative dexterity to generate many ideas about a problem and respond with clever and unusual responses. 40 Relationship to Differentiation of Curriculum and Instruction Critical thinking, problem solving, and decision-making are integrated components of various models of curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. Borland (1989) cites the processes of thinking critically, creatively, and problem solving as features of a true and defensible curriculum for gifted learners. California State Standards for curriculum and instruction in gifted programming seek provision for the balanced development of critical thinking and problem solving skills including the reinforcement of abstract thinking and big ideas of content areas (California DOE, 2005). The Creative Problem Solving Method, referenced in the previous section on creativity, applies all three elements. While the end goal of this process is for students to arrive at many and varied solutions, gifted learners must first “dig deeper into ideas” and engage in creative productive thinking (higher-level thinking abilities) allowing for the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of ideas related to the problem at hand (Treffinger, Youn, Selby, & Shepardson, 2002). Decision-making is also implicit in the Parnes and Osborn model of creative problem solving when students are called upon to use convergent thinking tools in order to come to a consensus on a proposed solution (Maker &Neilson, 1995). Although the original creation of the Creative Problem Solving Method was not intended specifically for use with gifted learners, it has been modified throughout the years by individuals with intimate knowledge of the needs of gifted learners such as Treffinger (1986), Torrance (as cited in Gallagher, 1985) and Renzulli (1977) who champions the use of enrichment to solve “real problems” as a benefit to all students. 41 Problem solving, as a construct of 21 st Century learning, calls for students to solve problems in both conventional and innovative ways (P21, 2009). This type of problem solving involves creativity, self-directedness, and the ability to collaborate and approach a problem from multiple perspectives (Putnam, 2001). In the context of technology, ISTE (2007) calls for students to be able to use appropriate digital tools and resources in order to identify and define authentic problems and significant questions for investigation. Engaging in authentic problems requires approaching problems solving from the culture of practice, or the application of content knowledge to tasks in related content domains, which can be established through Internet use for research and communication (Grabe & Grabe, 2007). Curriculum modifications to the content, process, and products are one of the primary forms of differentiation for gifted learners. The Parallel Curriculum Model (Tomlinson, Kaplan, Renzulli, Purcell, Leppien, & Burns, 2002) promotes the use of critical thinking, problem solving, and decision-making through the intersections of its four dimensions: (1) core, or foundational curriculum; (2) connections, or concepts, principles, and skills across settings, times, or circumstances; (3) practice, or the ways that practitioners function in a discipline; and (4) identity, or the relationship of the learner to a discipline (Kaplan, Guzman, & Tomlinson, 2009). These dimensions work together to enhance the core, or standards-based curriculum that is required for daily instruction. The heart of this model depends on the insight of teachers as curriculum developer in all four dimensions to provide a high quality curriculum to gifted learners that enables them to, among other things, work at higher levels of complexity and abstractness (Core Curriculum), develop an 42 awareness and appreciation for multiple perspectives regarding issues and problems in various disciplines (Curriculum of Connections), develop strategies for addressing problems within a field and monitoring those strategies effectively (Curriculum of Practice), and examine their interests, ways of thinking, and ways of working as reflected in their understanding of a discipline (Tomlinson, et al, 2002). The teaching strategies developed as a continuation of the distinguished work by curriculum theorist Hilda Taba were designed to encourage the growth and development of student’s thinking skills. Concept development, inferring and generalizing, and the application of generalizations are the main strategies used in this approach notably developed through purposeful questioning (Tannenbaum, 1983, Lemlech, 2002). According to these strategies, the act of helping students “think” is to enable them to formulate data into conceptual patterns, verbalize relationships between discrete segments of data, make inferences from data, create and test generalizations regarding data, and finally develop a sensitivity to corollary relationships such as cause and effect (Trezise, 1972). Though these strategies are mainly contextualized for use in social studies instruction, they are general enough to implement in all content areas because they are predicated on teacher questioning. Asking the right questions and posing the right problems build the complexity of student thinking processes (Gallagher, 1985). These strategies and questioning also allow for cognitive growth of gifted learners through peer interactions with other gifted learners, supported by Piaget’s theoretical construct of developing higher levels of reasoning through “learning from others” (Maker & Nielson, 1995). 43 Both the Parallel Curriculum and Taba’s teaching strategies support the use of critical thinking for gifted learners. Unlike models of curriculum and instruction that are more student-centered, the learning experiences derived from these models and methods require careful teacher input and design. Curriculum design is also a part of 21 st century learning and is suggested, by Trilling and Fadel (2009), to be a blend of inquiry, collaborative projects, design, and direct forms of instruction. Student’s ability to think critically, according to the 21 st century framework, includes the ability to use various methods of reasoning (inductive vs. deductive) and make judgments and decisions (P21, 2009). The development and use of these skills are not only fundamental to the knowledge and practice of a discipline; they now must also be cultivated for the discriminating use of technology. According to standards five and six of the national technology standards (ISTE, 2007), students should be able to apply digital tools to gather, evaluate, and use information (Research and Information Fluency), and have a sound understanding of technology concepts, systems, and operations including the effective selection and use of applications along with the ability to transfer current knowledge to the learning of new technologies (Technology Operations and Concepts). Technological literacy is dependent on student’s abilities to utilize higher order thinking skills and sound reasoning to clarify, inform, refine, and solve problems (NCREL, 2002). Curriculum models developed for use in and out of gifted education also employ critical thinking, problem solving, and decision-making skills. Originally created for use in the field of medicine, problem-based learning (PBL) is an ordered approach to instruction that systematically uses the context of real-life problems for 44 student acquisition of critical thinking and problem solving, and self-directed learning skills (Putnam, 2001). Greenwald (2000) suggests that part of the effectiveness of PBL is that it caters to an array of student abilities according to their interest and levels of development. The problem solving processes of PBL and its intent to capitalize on the natural curiosity and daily lives of students make it a fitting match for gifted learners, similar to the processes and goals of enrichment, specifically Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model, or its current manifestation as SEM. The type I, II, and III activities of this model are based on student interest, creativity, and their acquisition of the thinking skills and processes of particular disciplines that apply to authentic problems of a discipline or topic of study. Trilling and Fadel (2009) note that within the framework of 21 st century learning, the processes used in PBL are better suited towards student development of flexible problem solving and critical thinking skills. Advocates of PBL state the importance of using this approach in science education to prepare students to be scientifically literate citizens with the ability to make decisions regarding the challenging science-related issues of the future (Gallagher, Stepien, Sher, & Workman, 1995). As our current educational system prepares students today for the unknown world of tomorrow they will need the ability to fuse critical thinking and problem solving with decision-making to survive this new world. The use of PBL can help gifted learners understand the scientific ways of thinking that work in tandem with technological progress, enabling them to this knowledge productively, or challenge it creatively (Gardner, 2008). 45 Teacher Considerations The inclusion of critical thinking, problem solving, and decision-making in curriculum and instruction are not fledgling prospects of gifted education. The labeling of these skills under the banner of “21 st century learning” is challenged by some who contend that these skills were not newly anointed to teaching and learning at the turn of the 21 st century, rather, they have been deemed as newly important in response to the rapid changes to the nature of work and the economy (Silva, 2009). Teachers of gifted learners have been, and are still challenged and to provide learning experiences that promote these skills. There are a number of considerations to be made when incorporating critical thinking in differentiated curriculum and instruction of gifted learners. Teachers of the gifted need to create situations and opportunities for students to think at all times, not focusing on how to think, but that thinking is not a process to be taken lightly (Dixon, Prater, Vine, Wark, Williams, Hanchon, & Shobe, 2004). Learning experiences should facilitate the development of complex thought processes and include both higher-level thinking skills and the necessary fundamental skills that enable gifted learners to construct those thought processes (Clark, 1983). Questioning is also a method that can be used by teachers to stimulate critical, or higher level thinking skills. Effective teachers use both convergent and divergent questions that, for gifted learners, can facilitate movement through taxonomies of knowledge and increase their ability to use abstract thinking and create generalizations (Lemlech, 2002). Van Tassel Baska (1994) supports the selection and use of higher level questioning as an instructional approach that helps teachers build 46 strong differentiated curriculum focuses on relevant content, process, and product. Teachers should be aware of the purpose of asking questions and be skilled in the use of taxonomies such as Bloom’s and Anderson and Krawthwohl (2001) to pose various levels of questioning (Saphier, Haley-Speca, & Gower, 2008). Maker and Neison (1995) contend that in the use of Taba’s teaching strategies, teachers must note the sequence and patterns of questions and ask them allowing for open-ended answers to stimulate deeper levels of abstraction and sophistication from students. Teachers have multiple roles when implementing critical thinking, problem solving, and decision-making in the curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. One of these roles is a shift from a dominant, directed teaching role to that of guide. In the use and implementation of problem solving, the crux of curriculum planning is in posing the problem. Once this is accomplished, the student should take ownership of the problem while the function of the teacher is to guide, or facilitate the student’s ability to traverse through the problem solving process (Putnam, 2001). In the use of PBL, Greenwald (2000) explains that the shift in responsibility for what is learned and how it is learned descends through the problem solving process from teacher to student. Teachers need to design instruction and learning experiences in purposeful and organized way so that they provide the necessary prerequisite content so that students may manipulate the information to discover their own conclusions (Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1980). Jacobs and Borland (1986) note that curriculum and instruction for gifted learners should not only include the development of higher- order thinking processes, but also provide corresponding high-level content to 47 contextualize the cognitive processes. Although not all teachers may have the content expertise or specialized knowledge in all of the disciplines or domains requiring differentiation, they should be knowledgeable in the methodologies and management of advanced level work so that student progress is not limited by teacher expertise (Renzulli, 1982). Technology and Gifted Students The relationship between technology and gifted education has been steadily building over time, but does not have a pronounced presence within the literature base of gifted education. Although there is paucity of research studies that limit our knowledge regarding the progress and effect of technology and gifted education, much has been said about the advantages that technology would bring to gifted and talented learners, the benefits it would provide for teachers of the gifted, and the untapped potential of technologically gifted and talented students. A seminal study in 1983 comparing technology use between gifted and non- gifted learners involved the use of a computer software program titled The Factory. This software was designed for students to employ skills such as problem-solving, creativity, flexibility, and spatial reasoning, and researchers found that unlike average-ability students, the program allowed high ability students to these skills in a way that complimented their cognitive and intellectual characteristics such as monitoring performance and implementing specific strategies rather than trial and error (Bowen, Shore, & Cartwright, 1992). In spite of favorable results speaking to the positive link between the characteristics of high ability learners and their interactions with technology, Bowen, Shore, & Cartwright (1992) pose two critical 48 questions about the use of The Factory, or any other commercially available software programs: (1) Is there a difference in the fundamental design of a software program that is good for high ability students, or software programs that have good fundamental design?; and (2) As a result of successful participation in these software programs, are students then able to transfer their learning to new tasks? The Factory focused mainly on students and technology, mitigating the role of the teacher in making active pedagogical and curricular differentiation choices. Student participants were chosen from a sample of above-average students their school’s Enrichment program, in which the role of the teacher characteristically shifts from instructor to facilitator (Renzulli & Reis, 2008). Enrichment has seen longevity in gifted programming and can be conceptually defined by four principles: (1) the learner is a unique individual with varying interests, abilities, and learning styles; (2) learning is effective when enjoyable; (3) learning is meaningful when content and process are contextually presented as a real problem; and (4) teaching and learning should focus on the processes and skills needed to acquire knowledge which should be supplemental to formal instruction (Renzulli & Purcell, 1995). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM), based on precepts of Renzulli’s Three Ring Conception of Giftedness and the Enrichment Triad Model, not only subscribes to the aforementioned principles, but has also developed a supplemental technology component to service gifted and talented learners with differentiated learning experiences. Ekstein (2009) describes how the Internet and its budding collaborative and productivity tools could be used as a buttress for “Enrichment 2.0,” the use of blogs, 49 podcasts, social bookmarking, collaborative documents, and wikis for interest-based inquiry learning. “Enrichment 2.0” follows the same steps traditional enrichment models, however is housed completely online, relying on the power of a wiki, a collection of easily modifiable Web pages used to create collaborative web sites (Shrum & Levin, 2009) that act as a virtual “home room” connecting learners across the country (Ekstein, 2009). The use of these new technology tools cultivates the skills and literacy relevant to 21 st century learning and gifted education by encouraging gifted students to identify important questions, navigate complex information networks to locate appropriate information, critically evaluate and synthesize that information, and communicate those answers to others (Leu, Leu, & Coiro, 2004). In a contemporary explanation of how technology and globalization are “flattening” the world around us, Friedman (2005) summarizes the significance of enrichment and technology use in schools in the following statements: …to learn how to learn, you have to love learning – or you have to at least enjoy it – because so much of learning is about being motivated to teach yourself…Teaching them (students) how to navigate the virtual world, and how to sift through it and separate the nose, the filth, and the lies from the facts, the wisdom, and the real sources of knowledge becomes more important than ever. (p. 310) Online technologies for gifted students can include the use of distance learning. While a bulk of the literature and research studies relates to the use of distance learning for colleges, universities, and secondary students, the flexibility, independence, and social nature of distance learning can be an excellent match for 50 gifted learners. Ng and Nicholas (2007) posit that constructivist learning theories such as those of Bruner, Piaget, and Vygotsky support gifted learner’s construction of knowledge, and that online learning environments such as those provided by distance learning create a social presence connecting them with other like-minded peers they may not encounter in regular school environments. In a program analysis of distance education at the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University designed to augment core curricular programs through acceleration and enrichment, Wallace (2005) found steadily increasing enrollment trends from program’s inception in 1985, as well as a high amount of satisfaction (90% of students) and challenge (75% of students) reported by students. A study on the same program in 2007 found that distance learning for gifted students was effective in increasing learning outcomes, and suggested that gifted students that are home schooled, reside in rural areas, or who are provided with little access to acceleration or enrichment opportunities would greatly benefit from this environment (Wallace, 2009). Technology can be used to aid differentiation in mathematics and science for gifted and talented learners. Hersberger and Wheatly (1989) observed that computer programming in an advanced elementary mathematics class lead to more complex approaches to problem solving. Steele, Battista, and Krockover (1982) found that the use of mathematical drill and practice programs for highly intellectual students lead to higher academic gains along with higher levels of computer literacy. Brody and Benbow (1987) assert that general that acceleration (special classes/tutoring, grade skipping, or AP coursework/part-time college courses) for mathematically gifted high school students generally resulted in higher academic achievement evidenced 51 through SAT scores. Another example of acceleration delivered through technology is Stanford University’s Education Program for Gifted Youth that used computer- based instruction to present advanced calculus and physics coursework to middle and high school gifted students. Ravaglia, Suppes, Stilinger, and Alper (1995) note that the majority of students in this program scored exceptionally well across all grade levels as measured by Advance Placement scores, but interestingly present the argument that students of this caliber would have learned the material regardless of how it was presented to them instructionally, but that the structure and flexibility of computer-based instruction was the key to student’s success. In these cases, technology supports self-directed learning and may be a motivating factor that contributes to task commitment that are an inherent trait of gifted and talented learners. Technology does not only reside in curriculum and instructional differentiation, but has also been discussed as a measurable talent construct. Currently technological talent is not a formal area of identification of gifted and talented learners, however, the momentum for taking serious note of technologically talented students continues to grow. In 1983, Tannenbaum presented the notion that the appreciation of talent must be expressed in a social context. The growing advances of the Internet and Web 2.0 technologies make this idea a reality whereby technology as a talent is expressed on a daily basis. O’Brien, Friedman-Nimz, Lacey, and Denson (2005) sought to identify patterns between the experiences, cognitive abilities, and personality characteristics that could be contributing factors of “computer technology talent.” In a pilot study of 52 nine members of a high school computer programming club, the researchers found that “programmers,” those who enjoy creating new programs and working with computer language, were more inclined to be independent learners with high spatial thinking, problem solvers; whereas “interfacers,” those who enjoy working with computers and technology in social ways, had similar skill levels, but were also more socially and musically inclined, and enjoyed helping others solve technology problems (O’Brian, et al., 2005). Siegle (2007) also describes “interfacers” as students who apply technology in effective and creative ways, and discusses a third category of technological giftedness, “fixers,” previously suggested by Friedman- Nimz. “Fixers” are those students who enjoy maintaining and creating technology, such as computers, calculators, and radios. Students who fall under these categories exhibit skills and characteristics of traditionally gifted and talented learners such as creativity (Renzulli, 1977; Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1980; Clark, 1983); task commitment and above-average ability (Renzulli, 1977); self-directed learning (Betts & Kercher, 2009); and creative, productive, and analytic thinking (Sternberg, 2000). Giftedness and technological talent has a substantial impact on teachers. Although technological talent is not a formal identification category, teachers need recognize these talent forms to help students develop, not ignore, there potential (Siegle, 2004). Expertise using technology, interest and initiative in using technology, mentoring others in technology, and creative integration of technology are the four student characteristics that Siegle (2004) used in the creation of a scale to rate the technology characteristics of superior students. Gifted students should not just know how to use technology and apply it in creative and novel ways, but also 53 must be taught digital, or technological literacy. Ekstein (2009) discusses the importance of teaching Internet safety and responsibility to give students long-term protection. Due to the collaborative and open nature of Web 2.0 tools (e.g. blogs, wikis, social networking) teachers need to consider the potential personal and legal ramifications of disclosing student educational information on a public medium (Oliver, 2010). Student technology standards for students (ISTE, 2007) call for the development of digital citizenship by demonstrating personal responsibility; digital citizenship, and practice safe, legal and responsible use of information and technology. Teachers are responsible to model the aforementioned practices as well as promote digital etiquette and responsible social interactions (ISTE, 2008). Teachers need to integrate technology within curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of gifted learners, especially if those or other students have dispositions toward technological talent. There are boundless ways to incorporate technology within teaching and learning, but among all the determining factors, teacher beliefs and attitudes towards technology are the strongest to indicate technology use by teachers (Vannatta & Fordham, 2004). Shaunessy (2005) explains that teacher’s attitudes and beliefs toward technology integration for gifted learners may be influenced by grade-level assignment or content area, access to technology, available resources, training, and personal experience and use of technology. The role of constructivist learning also plays a role in attitudes towards technology integration. Teachers that engage in constructivist, learner-centered philosophies of teaching tend to be more supportive of student technology use, and find more value in the use of technology as an integration tool (Ertmer, 2005). Although assessing the 54 attitudes and beliefs of teachers brings an awareness of why teachers of the gifted may or may not integrate technology in teaching and learning, Shaunessy (2005) explains that further investigation of pedagogical practice is needed to understand fully how teachers of the gifted integrate technology into their students’ learning processes. A single self-assessment of technology may give some indication of how teachers of the gifted infuse technology into the curriculum, but data from multiple sources will give a more accurate picture. (p. 49) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge In response to the growth and promise of technology’s place in teaching and learning, researchers Mishra and Koehler (2006) developed the TPACK framework as a means for teachers and teacher educators to go beyond thinking about technology integration, and begin to conceptualize the complex relationship between teaching and technology. This framework rests on the supposition that knowledge of teaching is an ill-structured domain, meaning that it exhibits the following two characteristics: (a) applications of knowledge typically involve the simultaneous interactive involvement of multiple, wide-application conceptual structures (such as multiple schemas, perspectives, and organizational principles), each of which is individually complex in case and concept; and (b) the pattern of conceptual incidence and interaction differs considerably among cases nominally of the same type (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991). Due to the ill-structured arrangement of the knowledge domain of teaching, those who take part in the 55 dissemination of this knowledge should possess flexible cognitions that are: situated in nature, including activities that are authentic to the classroom; social in nature, including discourse communities that provide the cognitive tools to make sense of experiences within a discipline; and distributed in nature, including the use of tools and socially shared cognitive activities that allow for the transfer of learning that moves beyond the classroom (Putnam & Borko, 2000). The addition of technology to the ill-structured knowledge domain of teaching imposes a new dimension of complexities for teachers and researchers to consider when integrating technology into curriculum and instruction. Content Knowledge The TPACK framework expands the knowledge domains of teaching to include various combinations of pedagogy, content, and technology. Lee Shulman’s work detailing the distinctive, yet complimentary knowledge domains in teaching related to both subject matter (content) and pedagogical practices provided the foundation for the TPACK framework. According to Shulman (1986), the knowledge of a teacher is distinguished among knowing about the organization of the subject matter to be taught, the pedagogical practices that represent and formulate subject matter making it comprehensible, and a combination of the two illustrating an understanding of what makes specific topics easy or difficult to learn. Schwab (1978) presents a seminal perspective of specific subject matter by defining it as the knowledge of a discipline including the structural organization of knowledge related to a discipline, the skills used by practitioners within the discipline, and the uncertainties and issues of principle that it is characterized by. According to Shulman 56 (1987), this knowledge base is content knowledge; the knowledge, understanding, skills, and dispositions that are to be learned by school children. Gardner (2008) gives a more contemporary understanding of the difference between subject matter and discipline by describing subject matter as the basic facts, formulas or figures that individuals must study, as opposed to a discipline being the phenomenon of thinking distinctively about the world in a specific way related to certain disciplines. This is not to be confused the act of being disciplined, which Gardner (2008) characterizes as the state of mind allowing an individual to make steady progress towards the mastery of a skill, craft, or body of knowledge. In order to further elucidate the constructs of the TPACK framework, a conceptual analysis by Cox and Graham (2009) describes content knowledge as representations, topic specific in their given subject area, and independent of the pedagogical activities that are used to teach such topics. Pedagogical Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Mishra and Koehler (2008) describe pedagogical knowledge as “deep knowledge regarding the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning that includes recognizing the cognitive, social, and developmental theories of learning, and their application to students in a classroom setting.” (p. 14) Furthermore, Cox and Graham (2009) define pedagogical knowledge as activities, general in nature that can be applied across many different content areas. Specific mention is made of discovery learning, cooperative learning, and problem-based learning as examples of activities that can be implemented across disciplines. Although content and pedagogical knowledge are separate entities, they are also 57 inextricably linked as the content taught in classrooms may directly influence the types of pedagogies that are selected and vise versa. Dewey (1929), an early practitioner of educational pedagogy, made the distinction between education as a science – the systematic selection of materials for curriculum, methods of instruction and discipline, and the organization and administration of school; and education as an art – the integration of scientific educational methods in new ways which were previously unfamiliar and the development of unforeseen uses of these methods. These two perspectives and the notion that educational practices are highly complex endeavors containing numerous conditions and factors, provide a basis for Shulman’s conception of pedagogical content knowledge. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) present a similar framework to connect pedagogy and content by addressing the knowledge that teachers have –for practice and –in practice in a discussion pertaining to the relationship of knowledge and practice within teachers learning communities. Knowledge–for–practice is the subject matter, educational theories, conceptual frameworks, and effective strategies and practices that may be used in the teaching of a variety of content areas; whereas Knowledge–in–practice is the experiential and reflective nature of teaching that takes into account the artistry of practice under the situated conditions in which they are embedded (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). The “knowledge sets” that are used in this framework are based on Shulman’s (1987) sources for the teaching knowledge base, specifically, “wisdom of the practice” which aims to document the rationale for specific pedagogical practices and support the assertion of pedagogical content knowledge as “the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how 58 particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction (p. 8).” Cox and Graham (2009) discuss the knowledge aspect of pedagogical content knowledge as understanding the relationship between activities (pedagogy) and representations (content) in order to facilitate student learning. Activities can be categorized as general, subject specific, or topic specific, while representations are noted to be topic specific. Their analysis also references Shulman’s conception of pedagogical content knowledge, however, expresses that there are various explanations of the knowledge construct, making it difficult to research. Technology Knowledge Early explanations of technology knowledge by Mishra and Koehler (2006) deal with the particular skills needed for individuals to operate specific types of technologies including operating systems, hardware, and software. Technology itself was presented as both standard (books, chalk, blackboard) and advanced (internet and digital video). As technology continually operates in a state of flux, what was considered advanced only years ago has become a classroom standard, as now 93% of public school classroom teachers have access to the internet and 94% of these classroom teachers reported using the internet for instructional or administrative purposes (NCES, 2009). In order to lessen the likelihood of static or outdated definitions of technology, Mishra and Koehler (2008) revised their explanation of technology knowledge to reflect a fluency of information technology, being open- ended, generative, and continually developing. Technology knowledge in this framework, therefore, is less about the specific functions that technology programs 59 provide and more about understanding the possibilities and opportunities that specific technologies can provide if teachers exhibit the willingness to learn about new technologies. These new technologies include the recent shift of internet technology tools from simple to complex, moving from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, characterized by open, collaborative, and shared sources of information (Shrum & Levin, 2009). These new tools create a focus towards the creativity and innovation of using these tools that can stimulate high levels of technology knowledge. In the definition of technology knowledge by Cox and Graham (2009), the central focus of this construct rests upon the use of new and emerging technologies as a distinguishing factor between pedagogical content knowledge and technological pedagogical content knowledge. Technological Content Knowledge The ways that technology and content influence and constrain each other is essential to the understanding of technology content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2009) Content areas and disciplines both utilize numerous software and hardware technologies to enhance the ways they function. An elementary notion of technology content knowledge can be found in the areas of math and science, where student use of tools such as graphing calculators and microscopes are fundamental to the acquisition of certain knowledge constructs in that discipline. More advanced examples of the how technology content knowledge may be utilized in teaching are virtual manipulatives that can be used for teaching algebra (Grandgenett, 2009) or using websites such as the American Meteorological Society webpage in order to generate representations of weather maps (McCrory, 2009). These examples 60 illustrate the relationship of newer technologies to content areas, but using books, pencils, and whiteboards are also akin to technology content knowledge. The use of simple technologies, however, is in contrast to the use of emergent technologies propagated by Cox and Graham (2009) that delineate the difference between pedagogical content knowledge and technological content knowledge. As technologies become more ubiquitous and transparent in teaching and learning, knowledge of their use shifts from an understanding of technology to an understanding of pedagogy. This particular construct in the TPACK framework has the least amount of elaboration within various literature sources (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; 2009; Mishra, Koehler, & Kereluik, 2009; Harris, Koehler, & Mishra, 2009) but, what distinguishes this usually overlooked aspect of the TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2009) from basic technology knowledge is the awareness of how technology affects the constructs and representations of knowledge within a content area or discipline. Cognition is influenced by the technologies that are used to present content specific knowledge ranging from the advent of printed text to the use of nonlinear Web-based texts that encourage a collaborative spirit in learning and sharing information (Mishra, Koehler, & Kereluik, 2009). Cox and Broom (2009) closely align with this view, and extend this knowledge construct adding that it should include knowing the ways in which emerging technologies are able to represent content related to various disciplines irrespective of the pedagogical context. 61 Technological Pedagogical Knowledge This portion of the TPACK framework centers around the ability to understand not only how technology tools can be used, but also the power they have to change the teaching and learning that occurs in classrooms (Mishra & Koehler, 2009). Initial explanations of technological pedagogical knowledge focused on understanding how technology could be used for a particular task, along with the pedagogical strategies needed to appropriately apply these tools towards uses in teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), while a more up-to-date version clarifies the importance of pedagogy in relation to the use of popular software and technologies whose original purposes lie outside of educational. Examples of this include understanding how to harness the business functionality of the Microsoft Office Suite (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Entourage, and MSM Messenger) and the entertainment/social networking functionality of blogs and podcasts to advance teaching and learning for educational purposes (Mishra & Koehler, 2009). Cox and Broom (2009) present clear examples of technological pedagogical knowledge that are applicable to multiple disciplines which include the use of technology to motivate students within a lesson, or to facilitate student engagement and participation in cooperative learning. It is also important to recognize the impact of teacher’s beliefs while discussing teacher’s knowledge of technology and pedagogy. Ertmer (2005) notes that in studies relating to teacher beliefs and their influence on pedagogical practice, both new and seasoned teachers filter instructional choices through their belief systems, which may include the ways they approach thinking about instructional uses of technology. 62 Technological Pedagogical Knowledge also has an impact on the digital divide, the technology gap between the “information haves” and the “information have-nots” (Attewll, 2001). This particular divide describes the function of technology as a delivery mechanism for low-level computer activities doing little to facilitate the growing intellectual capital of our schools (Brunner & Tally, 1999). Technological Pedagogical Knowledge has the ability to operate as a bridge to close the digital divide between the disparities of how technology tools are used in teaching and learning for students from different minority and socioeconomic backgrounds (Kelly, 2009). This mainly deals with technology tools used for the purpose of drill and practice activities rather than open inquiry and problem solving (Grabe & Grabe, 2007). This differs from the first digital divide discussed by Oppenheimer (2003) chronicling the disproportionately low number of students within cultural and ethnic minorities or low socioeconomic status having access to technology, primarily computers in the early 1980’s then moving towards internet connectivity in preceding years. Smith and Broom (2003) argue that this “first” digital divide will not exist in a world that is developed, however, the digital divide based on levels of technology use will likely remain. It is suggested that for technological pedagogical knowledge to work effectively to advance student learning, teachers need to be open-minded and have the ability to repurpose, or “reconfigure” current technologies to suite their pedagogical needs (Mishra & Koehler, 2008). 63 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge The amalgamation of all components of the TPACK framework strives to provide a model of technology integration that requires a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy, and the use of this understanding to develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and representations in teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This knowledge base moves beyond the use of technology within curriculum and instruction through separate approaches, and advances towards an integrated and holistic approach, which Hew and Brush (2006) expressed as a knowledge gap in a review of empirical studies regarding the barriers to technology integration for K-12 teaching and learning. In their elaborated framework, Cox and Graham (2009) make two points regarding the culmination of knowledge constructs that encompass TPACK. Their first point is the framework is a sliding scale that oscillates between TPACK and pedagogical content knowledge, and secondly, the fluctuation will occur only when newer emergent technologies become more common place and transparent in teaching and learning. Mishra and Koehler (2008) state that understanding the interrelatedness of technology, content, and pedagogy is essential integrating newer digital technologies in spite of complicated factors including: being protean in nature (having many different uses); being unstable (rapidly changing); and being functionally opaque (the inner-workings are hidden from users). Computers, for instance, have a number of different uses depending on the software and application functions that a user engages in such as word processing applications; use of spreadsheet software; organizing and brainstorming; data collection; multimedia; web resources; and 64 communication software and applications (Pitler, Hubbel, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). Along with the numerous uses of digital technology, the language and skill needed by individuals to immerse themselves in the use of technology can become a barrier to use (Hew & Brush, 2006). Prensky (2001) describes the language portion of this barrier as the state of being a digital immigrant, a person who has not been socialized into the current digital age and finds himself or herself in the process of learning a new language when dealing with digital technologies. These factors, along with the rapidly changing nature of technology, contribute to the complexity of integrating technology within teaching and learning, and doing so while being mindful of the complexities brought about by the ill-structured knowledge domain of teaching. Applications of TPACK in Education Since its inception, TPACK has been used as a conceptual framework to highlight the intricate relationship between technology and teaching, as well as in various research studies. Much of the work by the original authors focuses on use with preservice teachers to develop the capacity of technology integration on the basis of the individual along with the institution. Other applications of the TPACK framework include its use with professional development and as a conceptual framework to study technology integration within core content areas. A forerunner to the TPACK framework can be found in a qualitative study by Pierson (2001) that describes teacher technology integration practices as a function of pedagogical expertise. This study proposed to understand how teachers at varying levels of teaching and technology ability used technology in their daily practices, and 65 how technology use related to general teaching practice. After observation and interviews, participants were classified in one of four categories (1-4) dependent on the combination of their teaching and technology ability determined to be adequate or exemplary, based on Berliner’s levels of teaching expertise and stages of technology integration developed by Dwyer, et al (Pierson, 2001). Data patterns in the study’s findings asserted that varying levels of teacher expertise influenced teacher’s definitions of technology and technology integration, the ways in which they planned and implemented for technology integration, and finally their management and assessment of student’s use of technology. Like Mishra and Koehler, Pierson (2001) refers to Shulman’s notion of pedagogical content knowledge as an integral element contributing to expertise in teaching, but also stresses the importance of a common understanding of the definition of technology integration, which should be the blending of technology within the curriculum as opposed to distinctively separate activities with defined sets of rules. A broad and flexible understanding of technology integration in the learning process can provide both adequate and exemplary teachers with stronger intersection between knowledge of pedagogy, content, and technology, giving them the power to create learning environments conducive to growth in pedagogy and technology use (Pierson, 2001). Although this earlier work is less distinctive than its TPACK predecessor regarding specific definitions and types of technology, it similarly highlights the importance of various knowledge sets in the specific context of teaching (procedural, pedagogical, domain-specific,), which are key components to technology integration. 66 Conclusion A small subset of the body of literature relating to gifted education includes student use or teacher perception of technology, however, the foundations of curriculum and instruction for gifted learners is a common thread that binds national standards for technology use with gifted education, as well as the research study’s conceptual framework. A fundamental understanding of the relationship of student technology standards (NETS-S) and their implicit connection to curricular and instructional methods of differentiation for gifted learners provides the backdrop for studying teacher technology choices. Similarly, the relationship of the TPACK conceptual framework to seminal understandings of curriculum and instruction for gifted learners further underscores the relevance of technology and gifted education. 67 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Technology is now making the future of instruction capricious and hazardous. But in doing so it has presented us with more opportunity and more choices than ever before. If the future is an adventure, it is an adventure because of technology. (Finn, 1960) Introduction The goals of gifted education, and characteristics of gifted learners compliment the use of technology tools and new conceptions of literacy. Feldhusen (1986) articulates three philosophical rationales for gifted education that include: (1) student’s right to an education appropriate to their individual characteristics and needs; (2) student’s right to an education that can develop their potential abilities to the fullest; and (3) the development of gifted and talented youth to serve the emerging talents needs of the nation’s work force. Technology should be a key consideration among these goals and rationale as trends in general education indicate a growth in technology use and access, types of hardware and software applications, and the prerequisite skills needed to utilize expanding technologies (Smith & Broom, 2003). For teachers of gifted learners, using instructional technology in ways that are responsive to the needs of gifted learners while maintaining effective differentiation in curriculum and instructional design may be considered challenging. Not only should teachers keep in mind the power of technology as it relates to differentiation of content, process, and products (Tomlinson, 2001), but they should also be aware 68 of gifted student’s needs and interests related to the place technology holds within differentiation. The technological needs and interests of gifted learners are critical for teachers to understand in order to make sound instructional choices when differentiating with technology. This study sought to understand the types of technology choices teachers of the gifted choose to integrate in the classroom, and the rationale behind these choices as a guide for instruction. Research Questions The following research questions addressed the study of instructional technology and differentiated curriculum and instruction in gifted education: 1. What are teachers’ self-perceptions regarding their knowledge of general content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge? 2. What instructional technology choices do teachers select to include within differentiated curriculum and instructional lessons, and what it the rationale for these lessons? 3. How do teacher’s perceptions of technology knowledge relate to their instructional technology choices within a differentiated curriculum and instructional lesson set? Research Design As use of instructional technology with gifted learners develops in tandem with the acceleration of current societal advances in technology, the purpose of this study is categorized as a means of applied research, contributing knowledge to “allow human beings to more effectively control their environment” (Patton, 2002, p. 69 217). Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to investigate the research questions, creating a mixed methods approach to the study. The inclusion of qualitative and quantitative approaches in the research design provided the study with a triangulation of methods for teacher data sources. Patton (2002) asserts that the use of triangulation methods can be a complementary process that may provide a single, well-integrated picture of a research situation, as well as offering multiple opportunities to gain deeper insights between the selected methodological approach and the area of study. Quantitative methods were used to collect demographic data and survey teachers regarding their self-perceptions in knowledge domains related to technology, content, and pedagogy. Qualitative data was collected from teachers of gifted students through a set of field-tested differentiated lessons from a grant awarded to the University of Southern California by the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program (PR# S206A040072). These lessons included will the core subject areas of Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. Teachers were asked to review the syntax, or arrangement of each lesson, and self-select the types of technology they would use or prefer to use in each phase of every lesson. Participants also selected one or more rationale choices to support their technology choices made in the differentiated lesson set. A list of options was given to participants based on the National Educational Technology Standards and performance indicators for teachers (ISTE, 2008). Sample and Population The population for teacher participants in the study was taken from public school districts throughout the state of California. In order to satisfy the parameters 70 delineated by the research questions, a stratified purposeful sample of gifted teachers were recruited. Teacher participants attended conferences sponsored by the California Association for the Gifted, and the Los Angeles Unified School District designed to provide professional development for teachers in both curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. These teachers ranged in years of teaching experience and grade level teaching assignments, and were assigned to teach gifted learners for the 2011-2012 school year. The sample size of teachers for this study was 33 participants for the Survey of Knowledge of Teaching and Technology (Appendix A) and 35 participants for the Differentiated Lesson Set (Appendix B, C, and D). A smaller sample size in this research study allowed for greater depth in the exploration of the possible instructional uses of technology by teachers of the gifted and supported the use of qualitative methods to provide detailed data and information using a smaller number of people and cases (Patton, 2002). The sample size also allowed for statistical significance of quantitative data analysis, provided that the results of data collection and analysis were due to systematic influence as opposed to chance (Salkind, 2008). Instrumentation Teacher participants in the study completed two paper-based surveys. The first of two surveys teachers completed was the Survey of Knowledge of Teaching and Technology (Appendix A) as a self-assessment to determine the extent of teachers’ self-perceptions of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. This survey was adapted from the work of Schmidt et al., (2009) initially developed in order to measure preservice teacher’s self-assessment of Technological Pedagogical 71 Content Knowledge. This instrument measured seven knowledge domains inclusive of four content areas. The knowledge domains presented in the survey and their content are outlined in Table 3.1. Reliability and validity of this survey instrument was established by Schmidt et al. (2009) through the use of Cronbach’s alpha reliability technique and a factor analysis of each knowledge domain. The researcher contacted the authors of the survey, for the use of the survey. Minor modifications were made to adapt the survey to the current study following guidelines provided by Schmidt et al. (2009). Teachers were presented with 46 indicator statements throughout the seven knowledge domains and asked respond to the degree which they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with each statement. A four-point scale was used instead of the original five–point scale in order to eliminate a “neutral” option, leading to a “forced choice” survey scale (Allen & Seaman, 2007). This instrument design was intended to extract a more definitive self- perception by omitting participants’ ability to select an indifferent position towards. indicator statements. The second survey teachers completed was the Differentiated Lesson Set (Appendices B and D) in conjunction with a list of Instructional Technology Rationales (Appendix C). The Differentiated Lesson Set was comprised of lessons in multiple content areas utilizing three specific models of teaching: Direct Instruction, Advanced Organizer, and Group Investigation. These models of teaching are based on the work of Joyce, Weil, Wald, Gullion, Feller, and McKibbin (1972), which call attention to teaching strategies based on theoretical conceptions by the work of seminal educational theorists. Table 3.2 provides a description of each lesson 72 including the content area, model used for teaching each lesson, and its differentiated objective. Table 3.1 Knowledge Domains and Content Areas Measured by the Survey of Knowledge of Teaching and Technology Knowledge Domain Content Area Technology Knowledge (TK) Knowledge, skills, and uses of technologies Content Knowledge (CK) Literacy, Math, Science, Social Studies Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) Teaching, learning, assessment, classroom management, and organization Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Teaching, learning, assessment, classroom management, and organization related to Literacy, Math, Science, Social Studies Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) Knowledge, skills, and uses of technologies related to the teaching of Literacy, Math, Science, Social Studies Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) Knowledge of how different technologies can be used for teaching, and understanding that the use of technology can change the way teaching and learning occurs. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Knowledge, skills, and uses of technologies related to the classroom management and organization of teaching, learning, and assessment in Literacy, Math, Science, and Social Studies 73 Table 3.2 Description of Differentiated Lesson Set Content Area Model of Teaching Differentiated Objective Literacy: Literary Elements Direct Instruction Students will define the details of the plot (problems), characters, and setting in a text- related story and share understanding by participating in a discussion and/or writing a summary of the story. Math: Value Advanced Organizer Students will justify, verify, substantiate or prove with evidence the big idea, “The value of one thing depends on or is determined by another” with selected math standards and complete the charts to share understanding of the big idea. Science: Cycles Group Investigation Students will relate answers to their questions using prompts of rules, patterns, over time and details as guides to conduct research in cooperative group settings. Social Studies: Historical Event (Native Americans, California History, Colonial Life, Explorers) Advanced Organizer Students will distinguish and validate why a specific condition was the cause of a historic event. They will chart their responses. Along with instructional technology choices, participants were also asked to code their technology choices in the Differentiated Lesson Set with one or more rationale choices provided in Table 3.3. These rationale choices were developed from ISTE (2008) National Educational Technology Standard performance indicators for teachers. Performance indicator statements were analyzed and selected 74 that connected to elements of gifted education (creative expression, real world issues and problem solving, students individualization, interest-based learning, and collaboration among peers) and general pedagogy (clarification of student understanding and use as a summative and formative assessment). Table 3.3 Teacher Rationale Options to Support Technology Choices (Adapted from National Educational Technology Standards and Performance Indicators for Teachers; ISTE, 2008) Rationale Choices 1. My technology choice promotes the development of creative expression. 2. My technology choice applies to real world issues and promotes problem solving. 3. My technology choice clarifies student understanding of subject matter. 4. My technology choice promotes collaboration among peers. 5. My technology choice allows for student individualization. 6. My technology choice allows students to develop opportunities for interest- based learning and self-improvement. 7. My technology choice is a means of formative or summative evaluation. 75 Assumptions and Limitations It is assumed that teacher participants in the research study will have a conversant understanding of technology, including knowledge of hardware, software, and the operational skills that are associated with use of various technologies. Another assumption relevant to teacher participants is that they currently use technology within their repertoire of teaching methods. It is also assumed that teacher participants are certificated and qualified to teach gifted learners, thereby possessing an understanding of the curriculum and instructional elements and sequence of the Differentiated Lesson Set, enabling them to apply technology choices to the lessons rather than needing detailed clarification of the lesson objectives and pedagogical syntax. Affective factors regarding participant’s comfort levels with technology may limit teachers’ responses in both surveys. In addition, responses may be also be limited, if not biased, by negative beliefs and attitudes towards technology due to the lack of access or use that may occur in their personal lives or their current school environment. Participants were also asked to self-select technology choices, but may not have given additional information to explain how they would use their choice, limiting a detailed analysis. Limitations in participant responses could also arise due to varying levels of experience and training with technology related to instructional uses within curriculum and instruction. Data Collection and Analysis Data was collected at professional site locations of participating teachers of the gifted learners. Participants were recruited personally by the researcher and given 76 an overview of the research study and an explanation the survey protocol, data collection instruments, and data collection timeline. Teachers were also informed that both surveys would take an estimated 40-minute time frame for completion. Surveys were given to teachers after participating in general and small group professional development sessions and returned at the end of each conference. Table 3.4 contains a summary of survey instrumentation protocol as well as their designated purposes. Table 3.4 Summary of Survey Instrumentation Protocol Survey Protocol Instrumentation Purpose Part One Survey of Teacher Knowledge of Teaching and Technology Collect demographic information and assess self-perceptions of teacher Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Part Two Differentiated Lesson Set Present differentiated lessons in four content areas, solicit instructional technology choices from participants, ask for accompanying rationale choices 77 Analysis of the data took place after the administration of both surveys. The general demographic questions in each survey resulted in the collection of descriptive data (age range, years of teaching gifted learners, and overall years of teaching) requiring the use of frequencies. The remainder of the first survey for teachers was a quantitative Likert scale self-assessment regarding knowledge of teaching and technology. The survey included the seven knowledge domains previously described Table 3.1. Frequencies were also determined for responses to indicator statements in each knowledge domain, which were coded to run Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient to determine if significant relationships arose between teacher demographic data and teachers’ reported self-perceptions of knowledge in technology, content, and pedagogy. In addition to these correlations, the mean values and standard deviations of each knowledge domain were calculated based on the frequencies of indicator statements in order to compare levels of teacher self-perceptions between each knowledge domain. The second survey that was presented to participants was a qualitative survey of instructional technology choices in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. The survey consisted of the Differentiated Lesson Set that utilized three models of teaching (Direct Instruction, Advanced Organizer, and Group Investigation) in the areas of Literacy, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. Participants coded each phase of the four lessons with self-selected technology integration choices. They also selected one or more rationale choices based on indicators from National Educational Technology Standards and performance indicators for teachers (ISTE, 2008). The data from this survey provided frequencies 78 for participant technology choices and rationales. Further analysis of this survey attempted to find emerging themes in technology integration in order to analyze and compare categorical responses across content areas and between models of teaching. Once participant technology selections and rationale choices were recorded and categorized, a content analysis of the data was used featuring an inductive approach in order to construct key patterns that arise from the participant responses. The discovery of these themes and patterns are the core of meaning making from an inductive content analysis standpoint and guide the sense making of qualitative materials (Patton, 2002). Additional analysis partnered the patterns detected among technology choices along side quantitative survey results of in a deductive manner to create a hypothesis, or theory, to explain the relationships found across data sets. These data sets included teachers’ self-perceptions of technological pedagogical knowledge and technological content knowledge and a comparison to their instructional technology choices across content areas and models of teaching. The use of inductive, and then deductive methods in qualitative content analysis is a function of grounded theory, which systematically uses these two methodologies to focus on the process of generating theory in attempt to understand the social world (Patton, 2002). Summary This research sought to better understand the ways in which teachers of the gifted choose to integrate technology in a differentiated curriculum, and both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to respond to the research questions. Teacher participants were surveyed to collect data regarding their self-perceptions of 79 knowledge in technology, content, and pedagogy (TPACK domains). Participants were presented with a Differentiated Lesson Set designed specifically for use with gifted learners, and asked to self-select potential technology choices within the syntax, or arrangement of each lesson. Participants were also asked to provide a rationale for their selections from a predetermined list of options based upon National Educational Technology Standards and performance indicators for teachers (ISTE, 2008). Once data is collected was organized, content and comparative analysis helped to determine the significant themes, patterns, and explanations of what types of technology choices were made in a differentiated curriculum, for what purposes these choices were made, and how they related to the self-perceptions of knowledge domains of technology, content, and pedagogy reported by teachers of gifted learners. 80 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present the analysis of data acquired in the study of instructional technology choices made by 35 teachers of gifted and talented learners. The study focused on the types of technologies teachers integrated within the scope of differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners, as defined by California standards for gifted learners, and the reasons teachers stated justifying their decisions to use the technologies they selected. An understanding of teacher’s perceptions regarding general and differentiated aspects of pedagogy, content, and technology, were also explored to provide a broader context to examine teachers’ instructional technology choices and rationale. Initial findings related to the perceptions of their general and specific pedagogical, content, and technology knowledge will be presented. This is followed by a detailed description of their technological choices related to each syntactical component of the content and pedagogy specific Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies lessons. Finally, a comparative analysis will present the differences in teachers’ technological choices between instructional models that are teacher-directed (Language Arts) versus those that are student-directed (Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies). Research Design The research design for this study employed a mixed methods approach that included the use of both quantitative and qualitative survey methods. Two data collection instruments were used to conduct this research study. Participants were 81 first given a Survey of Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology, adapted from the work of Schmidt, et. al (2009). This survey included basic demographic information followed by seven knowledge domains related to technology, content and pedagogy with accompanying indicator statements for teachers to respond to on a modified four-point Likert scale. This quantitative survey was determined to be both valid and reliable by Schmidt, et.al (2009) through the use of Crohnbach’s alpha reliability technique and a factor analysis. The second, open-ended survey, was the presentation of a Differentiated Lesson Set that included four field-tested lessons designed for the differentiation of curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. These lessons were selected specifically from a study conducted within the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education facilitated by a Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act grant from the U.S. Department of Education (PR #S206A040072). Table 4.1 summarizes the research questions, their related survey instruments, and the analysis and findings each question. 82 Table 4.1 Summary of Research Questions, Survey Instruments, and Findings Research Question Survey Instrument Summary of Findings 1. What are teachers’ self- perceptions regarding their knowledge of general content, pedagogy, and content knowledge? Survey of Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology -Teachers reported moderately high self perceptions in all knowledge domains (mean values ranging from 2.8185 - 3.3919 on a four point Likert-scale) -As the technology knowledge domain is added to content and pedagogy, mean values drop, showing lower self-perceptions in pedagogy and content areas related to technology. 2. What instructional technology choices do teachers select to include within differentiated curriculum and instructional lessons, and what it the rationale for these lessons? Differentiated Lesson Set -Teachers provided 752 total technology choices throughout the four lessons separated in 38 different categories -The most frequent overall technology selections were: Document camera (16.2%), Interactive whiteboard (15.6%), PowerPoint/presentation software (10.9%), Computer (10.9%), and Internet (9.4%) -Teachers provided 1,218 total rationale choices in seven pre-determined categories -Clarification of Understanding was the most frequent rationale choice selected overall (32.0%) -Remaining rationale choices selected within a 5.0% range (14.1% - 9.6%) 3. How do teacher’s perceptions of technology knowledge relate to their instructional technology choices within a differentiated curriculum and instructional lesson set? Survey of Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology Differentiated Lesson Set -Teachers reported high self-perceptions of knowledge related their Technological Content Knowledge related to literacy and science, along with their Technological Pedagogical Knowledge related to literacy, science, and social studies -When teacher technology choices were arranged by most frequent technology choice according to model of teaching and content area, the same five prevailing technologies were chosen, indicating a mismatch between knowledge perceptions relating to technology and actual technology choices selected. 83 Research Questions The following research questions were used to facilitate the collection of data for this study: 1. What are teachers’ self-perceptions regarding their knowledge of general content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge? 2. What instructional technology choices do teachers select to include within differentiated curriculum and instructional lessons, and what is the rationale for these lessons? 3. How do teacher’s perceptions of technology knowledge relate to their instructional technology choices within a differentiated curriculum and instructional lesson set? Stratified purposeful sampling was used to determine the population for the research study. Primary criteria for purposeful sampling required teachers of gifted and talented students for the 2011-2012 school year. This sample was then stratified by respondent’s participation in professional development conferences designed specifically for teachers working with gifted and talented learners, to augment participant’s knowledge and practice of instructional and curricular differentiation. Two different instruments were used as part of the data collection for this research study. The first quantitative portion of a two-part survey given to participants asked teachers to rate the degree to which they agreed with various statements regarding their self-perceptions of knowledge domains in the following areas: pedagogy, content, and technology; individually and in various combinations. Responses were 84 analyzed based on a four-point Likert scale, from which frequencies and valid percentages were determined for all questions. The second, qualitative portion of the survey was comprised of four field-tested lessons differentiated in: Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. Respondents were asked, upon reviewing each lesson, to select open-ended instructional technology they would choose for any, or all portions or syntax of each lesson. Along with open-ended instructional technology choices, participants were also asked to provide justification for each open-ended response from an accompanying rationale list based on National Educational Technology Standards and performance indicators for teachers (ISTE, 2008). These responses were also analyzed for frequencies and percentages. Lessons provided in the second part of the survey were then grouped into teacher-directed (Language Arts, Direct Instruction) vs. student-directed (Mathematics and Social Studies, Advanced Organizer; Science, Group Investigation) models of teaching. Percentages for instructional technology choices and rationales were compared between the models of teaching to determine the differences in instructional technology choices. Results Research Question #1 The first research question in this study asked: What are teacher’s self- perceptions regarding their knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge? 85 General Pedagogical Perceptions Pedagogical Knowledge is inclusive of numerous aspects of teaching and learning. The TPACK framework reasons that dispositions and knowledge in pedagogy incorporate the processes and methodologies related to teaching that include the understanding of learning theories (cognitive, social, and developmental) and their application to the classroom (Kohler & Mishra, 2008). Thirty-three teachers self-assessed their pedagogical knowledge by responding to the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with seven indicators in this domain. Various indicator statements throughout knowledge domains, which are marked with an asterisk, show 32 respondents. This is due to either missing responses, or answers that were marked outside of the four-point scale (e.g. a mark placed in between “Agree” and “Disagree”). A summary of teacher responses is given in Table 4.2, illustrating that most respondents agreed, or strongly agreed with the indicators presented for this knowledge domain. This data indicates differences between adequate and high self- perceptions of pedagogical knowledge for a majority of teachers who participated in the survey. Pedagogical knowledge was defined using pedagogical indicators on the survey instrument. A small percentage of respondents conveyed low self-perceptions towards pedagogical knowledge by disagreeing with the following indicators: ability to adapt teaching to meet student needs (3.0%); use of a wide range of teaching approaches (6.1%); familiarity with student understandings and misconceptions (6.3%), and organizing and maintaining classroom management (6.3%). None of the respondents expressed strong disagreement to any of the pedagogical knowledge indicators. 86 Table 4.2 Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Pedagogical Knowledge Domain Pedagogical Knowledge Indicators Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree f % f % f % f % Assessing student performance in the classroom 0 0% 0 0% 19 57.6% 14 42.4% Adapting teaching to meet student needs 0 0% 1 3.0% 18 54.5% 14 42.4% Adapting teaching study to different learners 0 0% 0 0% 23 69.7% 10 30.3% Assessing learning in multiple ways* 0 0% 0 0% 17 53.1% 15 46.9% Using a wide range of teaching approaches 0 0% 2 6.1% 15 45.5% 16 48.5% Familiarity with student understandings and misconceptions* 0 0% 2 6.3% 17 53.1% 13 40.6% Organizing and maintaining classroom management* 0 0% 2 6.3% 16 50.0% 14 43.8% *32 respondents 87 General Technological Perceptions Technology knowledge relates to the constant evolution of teacher’s understanding and use of hardware and software systems. According to Koehler and Mishra (2008), knowledge in this domain must press beyond computer literacy and embrace constant and generative interactions with information technology literacy, including problem-solving, communication, and information processing. Teachers self-assessed their technology knowledge according to six indicators presented in the Technology Knowledge Domain. Table 4.3 summarizes the teacher’s responses to this knowledge domain according to the four-point Likert scale. The highest self- perception reported by teachers was their ability to learn technology easily, with 81.8% of respondents in agreement, or strong agreement. Likewise, 81.3% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they have the skills needed to use technology, and 75.0% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they frequently “play” with technology. A lack of technology knowledge is indicated by teacher responses to the following indicators: know about many different technologies (60.6% disagree or strongly disagree); and solve technical problems (46.9% disagree or strongly disagree). Although 60.6% of teachers expressed agreement and strong agreement towards keeping up with important new technologies, 39.4% of teachers were in disagreement or strong disagreement. 88 Table 4.3 Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Technology Knowledge Domain Technology Knowledge Indicators Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree f % f % f % f % Solve technical problems* 1 3.1% 14 43.8% 11 34.4% 6 18.8% Learn technology easily 0 0% 6 18.2% 19 57.6% 8 24.2% Keep up with important new technologies 1 3.0% 12 36.4% 14 42.4% 6 18.2% Frequently “play” with technology* 1 3.1% 7 21.9% 17 53.1% 7 21.9% Know about many different technologies 2 6.1% 18 54.5% 7 21.2% 6 18.2% Have skills needed to use technology* 3 9.4% 3 9.4% 18 56.3% 8 25.0% *32 respondents Technological Pedagogical Knowledge not only refers to the ability to use technology in the course of teaching and learning, it is also centered on the notion that technology use can refashion the expected outcomes of teaching and learning (Mishra & Kohler, 2006). A summary of teacher responses is provided in Table 4.4. In this knowledge domain, teachers expressed strong self-perceptions to most all of the indicators, denoted by agreement and strong agreement, towards the following: think critically about technology use in the classroom (87.5%); select technologies to 89 use that enhance what is taught, how it is taught, and what students learn (84.9%); adapt use of technology to different teaching activities (84.8%); choose technologies that enhance a lesson (78.8%); choose technologies that enhance students’ learning for a lesson (75.8%); and use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches learned in coursework in the classroom (72.7%). Indicators that expressed a lower degree of technological pedagogical knowledge through respondent’s disagreement or strong disagreement were related to the ability of teacher education programs to stimulate thought about the influence of technology on classroom teaching approaches (48.5%); and teacher’s abilities to provide leadership at school and district levels in the coordinated use of technology, content, and teaching approaches (39.4%). The responses of the majority of teachers indicated high self-perceptions of their technological pedagogical knowledge to choose technologies to enhance content and student learning within a lesson. It was noted that 30% of teachers disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the Technological Pedagogical Knowledge indicators. 90 Table 4.4 Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Technological Pedagogical Knowledge Domain Technological Pedagogical Knowledge Indicators Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree f % f % f % f % Choose technologies that enhance teaching approaches for a lesson 1 3.0% 6 18.2% 16 48.5% 10 30.3% Choose technologies that enhance students’ learning for a lesson 1 3.0% 7 21.2% 16 48.5% 9 27.3% Teacher education program encouraged thought regarding the influence of technology on teaching approaches in the classroom 3 9.1% 13 39.4% 15 45.5% 2 6.1% Think critically about technology use in the classroom* 0 0% 4 12.5% 16 50.0% 12 37.5% Adapt use of technology to different teaching activities 1 3.0% 4 12.1% 18 54.5% 10 30.3% Select technologies to use in the classroom that enhance what is taught, how it is taught, and what students learn 0 0% 5 15.2% 19 57.6% 9 27.3% Use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches learned in coursework in the classroom 1 3.0% 8 24.2% 18 54.5% 6 18.2% Provide leadership in helping others coordinate the use of content, technologies, and teaching approaches at school/district level 2 6.1% 11 33.3% 13 39.4% 7 21.2% Choose technologies that enhance content for a lesson 1 3.0% 9 27.3% 13 39.4% 10 30.3% *32 respondents 91 Specific Content Knowledge Perceptions Content knowledge embodies the subjects areas that are to be taught and learned and, according to Shulman (1986), involves a distinct understanding of the nuances of a particular discipline including organizational frameworks, concepts, theories, and methods of inquiry related to the specific body of knowledge. In the Content Knowledge domain portion of the survey, indicator statements centered around three characteristics in mathematics, literacy, science, and social studies: sufficient knowledge of each specific content area; using ways of thinking associated with each specific content area; and strategies or means to develop an understanding of each specific content area. Data from each of the four content areas suggest that a large majority of the respondents agree or strongly agree with the all of the indicator statements. Self-perceptions in the content area of literacy garnered the highest results with only 3.0% of respondents stating disagreement with their use of a literary way of thinking. Self-perceptions in mathematics scored similarly, however, some of the respondents disagreed with the three indicator statements (12.1%- sufficient knowledge of each specific content area; 12.1%- using ways of thinking associated with each specific content area, and 9.1%- strategies or means to develop an understanding of each specific content area). None of the teachers responded with strong disagreement to any of the indicator statements. Responses to indicator statements revealed a slight amount of discomfort in the content areas of science and social studies. In science, 18.2% of teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed to having sufficient knowledge of this content area, while 15.1% of teachers disagreed to having sufficient knowledge in the content area 92 of social studies. This compares to 0% in literacy, and 12.1% disagreement in mathematics. The social studies content area also had the largest percentage of teachers disagree with the indicator statement that they use of a historical way of thinking (24.2%). These results are identified in Table 4.5. Table 4.5 Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Content Knowledge Domain Content Knowledge Indicators Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree f % f % f % f % Have sufficient knowledge about mathematics 0 0% 4 12.1% 18 54.5% 11 33.3% Can use a mathematical way of thinking 0 0% 4 12.1% 19 57.6% 10 30.3% Have various strategies of developing understandings about mathematics 0 0% 3 9.1% 18 54.5% 12 36.4% Have sufficient knowledge about social studies* 1 3.0% 4 12.1% 23 69.7% 5 15.2% Can use a historical way of thinking 0 0% 8 24.2% 18 54.5% 7 21.2% Have various strategies of developing understandings about social studies* 1 3.0% 2 6.1% 24 72.7% 6 18.2% Have sufficient knowledge about science 1 3.0% 5 15.2% 18 54.5% 9 27.3% Can use a scientific way of thinking 0 0% 3 9.1% 19 57.6% 11 33.3% Have various strategies of developing understandings about science* 0 0% 4 12.5% 19 59.4% 9 28.1% Have sufficient knowledge about literacy 0 0% 0 0% 20 60.6% 13 39.4% Can use a literary way of thinking 0 0% 1 3.0% 19 57.6% 13 39.4% Have various strategies of developing understandings about literacy 0 0% 0 0% 19 57.6% 14 42.4% *32 respondents 93 Specific Pedagogical Knowledge The Pedagogical Content Knowledge Domain is teacher’s decision-making that merges approaches, theories, and techniques of teaching with content, or disciplines to be taught. This knowledge domain is well known outside of the TPACK framework, and is described by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) as the formalization of what teachers need to know about the subjects they teach and the prerequisite knowledge of how to represent subject matter so that it is teachable to diverse student populations. The four indicator statements presented in the Pedagogical Content Knowledge Domain inquire into teachers’ abilities to select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in mathematics, literacy, science, and social studies. All of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the indicator statements in all content areas with the exception of 3.0% of respondents disagreeing in the area of mathematics. Table 4.6 summarizes the data below. 94 Table 4.6 Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Pedagogical Content Knowledge Domain Pedagogical Content Knowledge Indicators Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree f % f % f % f % Select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in mathematics 0 0% 1 3.0% 22 66.7% 10 30.3% Select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in literacy 0 0% 0 0% 19 57.6% 14 42.4% Select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in science 0 0% 0 0% 19 57.6% 14 42.4% Select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in social studies 0 0% 0 0% 21 63.6% 12 36.4% 95 Specific Technology Knowledge Technological Content Knowledge is characterized by a relationship of influence and constraint (Kohler & Mishra, 2008). Specific content areas may regulate the use of particular types of technology, and the integration of specific technologies in teaching and learning can require application to particular content areas. One indicator statement related to teacher’s knowledge of technologies used for the understanding of, and participation in specific content areas was presented four times in this domain as applied to mathematics, literacy, science, and social studies. The content areas of social studies, science, and literacy yielded high reports of self-perceptions as 81.8%, 84.9%, and 87.8% of respondents respectively agreed or strongly agreed with the indicator statement. Although data indicated that a majority of reported high self-perceptions in mathematics, it is noted that 33.3% of respondents expressed low self-perceptions related to their knowledge about technologies used to understand and perform mathematics. Table 4.7 illustrates teachers’ responses to their knowledge of technologies in the aforementioned content areas. 96 Table 4.7 Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Technological Content Knowledge Domain Technological Content Knowledge Indicators Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree f % f % f % f % Know about technologies that can be used for understanding and doing mathematics 1 3.0% 10 30.3% 16 48.5% 6 18.2% Know about technologies that can be used for understanding and doing literacy 0 0% 4 12.1% 21 63.6% 8 24.2% Know about technologies that can be used for understanding and doing science 0 0% 5 15.2% 22 66.7% 6 18.2% Know about technologies that can be used for understanding and doing social studies 0 0% 6 18.2% 21 63.6% 6 18.2% 97 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge is the basis of good teaching with technology (Mishra & Kohler, 2006) and on a concerted effort to conscientiously integrate the three separate knowledge domains for effective teaching and learning. The indicator statement in this knowledge domain asked teachers to self-assess their ability to teach lessons in mathematics, literacy, science, and social studies that appropriately combined technologies and teaching approaches in each content area. Despite the fact that a majority of teachers reported adequate to high self-perceptions by agreeing or strongly agreeing with the indicator statement in this knowledge domain, a third of respondents in literacy and mathematics (33.4% and 30.3%, respectively), and nearly a quarter of respondents in science and social studies (24.3% and 21.3%, respectively) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the indicator statements. This suggests a low self-perception towards technological pedagogical content knowledge expressed by the teachers. Table 4.8 provides a summary of results. 98 Table 4.8 Teacher Self-Perceptions within the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Domain Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Indicators Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree f % f % f % f % Teach lessons that appropriately combine mathematics, technologies, and teaching approaches 3 9.1% 7 21.2% 18 54.5% 5 15.1% Teach lessons that appropriately combine literacy, technologies, and teaching approaches 2 6.1% 9 27.3% 14 42.4% 8 24.2% Teach lessons that appropriately combine science, technologies, and teaching approaches 2 6.1% 6 18.25 19 57.6% 6 18.2% Teach lessons that appropriately combine social studies, technologies, and teaching approaches 2 6.1% 5 15.2% 22 67.7% 4 12.1% 99 Discussion These seven knowledge domains, along with three teacher demographic categories were compared using a Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient in order to determine if age range, grade currently taught and years teaching gifted learners were factors that influenced the level of teacher perceptions in each knowledge domain. No significant correlations were found between variables related to teacher demographics and knowledge domains at a .05 level of significance. There were, however, some findings of statistical significance between various knowledge domains. The possibility of relationships between knowledge domains is likely due to the fact that each domain may share similar characteristics (i.e. Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Technological Content Knowledge.) The frequencies were tabulated for each knowledge domain to determine their mean and standard deviation, ordered from highest to lowest mean values in Table 4.9. 100 Table 4.9 Knowledge Domain Mean and Standard Deviation Knowledge Domain M SD Pedagogical Knowledge 3.3919 .43647 Pedagogical Content Knowledge 3.3712 .40079 Content Knowledge 3.1931 .41761 Technological Content Knowledge 2.9924 .49405 Technological Pedagogical Knowledge 2.9596 .58717 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge 2.8333 .69784 Technological Knowledge 2.8187 .70400 Research Question #2 The second research question asked: What instructional technology choices do teachers select to include within differentiated curriculum and instructional lessons, and what is the rationale for these lesson? A second, open-ended survey was given to participating teachers that asked them to self-select the types of technologies they would use in various phases of differentiated lessons in Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. Teachers selected 38 different types of technology throughout the entirety of the Differentiated Lesson Set, with a total of 752 overall technology choices made. The following five technology choices received the most overall selections within the Differentiated Lesson Set: document camera (16.2%), interactive whiteboard 101 (15.6%), PowerPoint/presentation software (10.9%), computer (10.9%), and Internet (9.4%). The selection of each remaining technology choice significantly tapered off, and each choice comprised less than 5% of total selections. Figure 4.1 illustrates the total percentage of each technology choice in the Differentiated Lesson Set. Figure 4.1. Percentages of all technology choices in Differentiated Lesson Set 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 7 8 8 9 10 15 20 20 26 29 32 37 71 82 82 117 122 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Audio0Recording Graphing0Calculator Interac?ve0Model iTunes Moviemaker Overhead0Projector Telephone Blog Clip0Art DVD Develop0Website Mobile0Device0/0Handheld Photostory Online0Curriculum Online0Survey0/0Survey0Monkey Printer Social0Networking Wiki Curriculum0SoTware Email Video0Recording Google0Docs Educa?onal0SoTware Excel0Spreadsheet iPod0/0Record0Player0/0mp30Player0/0CasseWe0Player iPhone0/0Smart0Phone Image0/0Image0Search Digital0Photography0/0Pictures iPad0/0Nook Word0Processing Projector Laptop Video0Clips0/0Video Internet Computer Powerpoint0/0Presenta?on Interac?ve0Whiteboard Document0Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Choice*Percentage*(%) 102 Along with technology choices, teachers were also asked to select one or more accompanying rationale choices to justify their selections. A list of 7 rationale choices was given to teachers based on ISTE (2008) National Educational Technology Standards and performance indicators for teachers, listed in Appendix C. Teachers made 1,218 total rationale selections within the Differentiated Lesson Set to support their technology choices. The clarification of student understanding of subject matter was the overall highest rational choice, receiving 32.0% of the total selections. The remaining technology selections garnered between 14.1% and 9.6% of total rationale selections. Figure 4.2 provides a summary of the percentages for each rationale choice in the Differentiated Lesson Set. Figure 4.2. Percentages of all technology choice rationale in Differentiated Lesson Set 117 127 128 131 153 172 390 0 100 200 300 400 500 Real.World.Issues.and.Problem.Solving Used.as.Forma@ve.or.Summa@ve.Evalua@on Crea@ve.Expression Provides.Student.Individualiza@on Promotes.Collabora@on Provides.Opportuni@es.for.InterestIBased Learning.&.Self.Improvement Clarifica@on.of.Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Choice(Percentage((%) 103 Models of Teaching Tyler (1949) describes learning experiences as “the interaction between the learner and the external conditions in the environment to which he can react” (p. 63). He also characterizes such learning experiences to include: the development of learner’s thinking skills, aiding the learner in their acquisition of information, and assisting in the development of social attitudes (Tyler, 1949). Models of teaching are reminiscent of these learning experiences, and are described by Saphier, Haley- Speca, and Gower (2008) as a “pattern of instruction that is recognizable and consistent. It has particular values, goals, a rationale, and an orientation to how learning shall take place…that is developed into a specific set of phases teachers and student go through, in order, with specific kinds of events in each phase. Each model of teaching is a particular entity with specific components, well worked out, and with markedly different appearances and effects” (p. 240) Models of teaching originated as study by Joyce et al. (1972) at Columbia University in an effort to develop a model of teacher education that matched teaching strategies, or instructional methods, based on theoretical conceptions of teaching including theorists, counselors, developmental psychologists, and philosophers. The intended outcome for the implementation of models of teaching is to give teachers a repetiore of teaching models designed for specific learning purposes, with no clear overriding model, rather a collection of models (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2008). Table 4.10 describes the models of teaching used in the research study’s Differentiated Lesson Set, and the corresponding content area for each model of teaching. 104 Table 4.10 Differentiated Lesson Set: Models of Teaching Description and Content Areas Model Direct Instruction Advanced Organizer Group Investigation Purpose (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2008) Oriented towards academic mastery of learning utilizing a high degree of teacher direction and control. Goals include maximizing student learning time, and student development of independence in attaining educational goals. Presentation method of teaching designed to help teachers meaningfully convey information while strengthening students’ cognitive structures: the types, quantity, and organization of knowledge in particular fields. Seeks to capitalize on the curiosity of learners and help them develop the intellectual discipline and skills needed to ask questions and obtain answers to those questions. Content Area Literacy Math Social Studies Science The following section will report findings for both technology and rationale choices for each lesson according to its syntax. Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun (2009) define syntax as the structure of a model, or how the phases of a model are put together. First, the syntax of each lesson model will be generally defined and described as it relates to the content area of the lesson. Data related to technology and rationale choices will then be presented. 105 Lesson: Language Arts Direct Instruction (Teacher Directed) Objective Students read and respond to a wide variety of significant works of children's literature. They distinguish between the structural features of the text and the literary terms or elements (e.g., theme, plot, setting, characters). Motivation The motivation phase of the lesson calls for teachers to build a scene for students to introduce the concept of character, setting, and/or problem. Teachers are asked to draw a set of trees to relate to the setting, add a person or animal to relate to the character, and then define the problems in a plot that the characters could have in the setting. In the motivation portion of the language arts lesson, self-selected technology choices were provided by 32 of the 35 participating teachers. A total of 53 technology selections were made for this initial phase of the differentiated lesson plan and are listed in Figure 4.3. The most frequent choices given by teachers included: interactive whiteboard, computer, document camera (18.9%), and presentation software such as PowerPoint or Prezi (13.2%). One teacher stated that they would use a document camera “to show real pictures” while another similarly expressed that they would “show pictures of the trees on the computer.” Another teacher said that they would use PowerPoint to “have the bits come in step by step.” 106 Figure 4.3. Self-selected technology choices for integration in motivational phase of language arts lesson All 32 respondents that self-selected technology choices also selected one or more rationale choices to accompany their selections. Over half of the technology choices were made in order to clarify student understanding (55%). Creative expression and opportunities for interest-based learning and self-improvement were the next highest rationale choices (13.3% each). The remaining rationale choices were selected less than 10% of the time with formative and summative evaluation receiving zero selections. Figure 4.4 summarizes the rationale choices for this initial phase of the lesson. 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 7 10 10 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Laptop Video2Clips2/2Video iPod2/2Record2Player2/2mp32Player2/2Casse=e2Player Digital2Photography2/2Pictures iPad2/2Nook EducaEonal2SoHware Internet Image2/2Image2Search Projector Powerpoint2/2PresentaEon InteracEve2Whiteboard Computer Document2Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Choice*Percentage*(%) 107 0 3 3 5 8 8 33 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Used,as,Forma2ve,or,Summa2ve,Evalua2on Real,World,Issues,and,Problem,Solving Promotes,Collabora2on Provides,Student,Individualiza2on Crea2ve,Expression Provides,Opportuni2es,for,InterestGBased,Learning,&,Self Improvement Clarifica2on,of,Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.4. Rationale choices selected for motivational phase of language arts lesson State the Objective This phase of the Direct Instruction lesson serves as an orientation to lesson that establishes the framework for learning. Teachers should provide learners with the lesson objective and describe the content and procedures of the lesson (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2008). In the differentiated lesson plan, this phase presented teachers with the objective, stating that they will “focus on the details of the plot (problems), setting, and characters that are literary elements found in all types (genres) of stories.” Figure 4.5 summarizes all responses to technology selections. 108 Figure 4.5. Self-selected technology choices for integration in state the objective phase of language arts lesson A total of 19 technology integration choices were selected in this phase of the language arts lesson. Out of 35 participants, 22 provided technology integration choices, and of these choices, PowerPoint/presentation software was the most frequent selection (36.8%). Two teachers explained that they would use this type of technology to present “genres” to the students and as a “visual” for students. One invalid response was given in this phase of the lesson with the selection of “quiz”. 72.2 percent of the teachers stated that the reason for their technological choices was for the purpose of clarification of understanding of the objective. Promotes collaboration, real world issues and problem solving, and provides opportunities for interest-based learning and self-improvement did not receive any selections. All rationale choices are listed in Figure 4.6. 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Word.Processing Invalid.Response Interac=ve.Whiteboard Computer Document.Camera Projector Educa=onal.SoGware Powerpoint./.Presenta=on Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Choice*Percentage*(%) 109 0 0 0 1 2 2 13 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Real,World,Issues,and,Problem,Solving Promotes,Collabora>on Provides,Opportuni>es,for,InterestBBased,Learning,&,Self Improvement Used,as,Forma>ve,or,Summa>ve,Evalua>on Crea>ve,Expression Provides,Student,Individualiza>on Clarifica>on,of,Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.6. Technology rationale choices in state the objective phase of language arts lesson Demonstration The part of Direct Instruction that provides the presentation and explanation of new concepts or skills both orally and visually is the Demonstration phase (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2008). In this phase, teachers were presented with a short passage to read aloud and directed to show students how to identify the details of the selected literary elements within the passage. Twenty-five teachers produced a total of 33 technology selections for this phase of the lesson. All technology choices for this phase of the lesson are listed in Figure 4.7. The most frequently selected technologies were document camera (39.4%), interactive whiteboard (24.2%), and PowerPoint/presentation software (15.2%). A small number of respondents added clarifying comments to their technology choices, indicating that the interactive whiteboard would be used in conjunction with word processing to create a “document pre-made to highlight.” Other comments included using a Smartboard 110 (interactive whiteboard) to “highlight and underline important items on the paragraph”, or to “pull out details of the sentence and put it detail column.” One respondent stated that they would use the document camera so that the “teacher models finding literary elements”, while another respondent that chose an Elmo (document camera) qualified its use only if they “could get it to work.” Figure 4.7. Self-selected technology choices in the demonstration phase of language arts lesson Similar to the previous two lesson phases, clarification of understanding was the most prominent rationale chosen by participants (64.9%), while promotes collaboration had the second highest frequency with 13.5%. This suggests that while different types of technology were chosen in this phase of the lesson, they are all targeted the concept of enabling the teacher to project or present the demonstration step of the lesson in a whole group setting in a way to model the process of identifying details of literary elements. Figure 4.8 defines rationale choices. 1 1 1 2 2 5 8 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Curriculum2So5ware Video2Clips2/2Video Educa?onal2So5ware Word2Processing Projector Powerpoint2/2Presenta?on Interac?ve2Whiteboard Document2Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Choice*Percentage*(%) 111 Figure 4.8. Technology rationale choices in demonstration phase of language arts lesson Check For Understanding Prior to student application of information in subsequent phases of the lesson, teachers must proceed to the check for understanding phase for multiple reasons. It is necessary to see if students can recognize, or recall the information they have just heard by asking questions about to the attributes or processes related to material that is presented in the demonstration (Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun, 2008). Teachers were presented with three questions in the check for understanding phase that prompts students to identify the plot, characters, and setting in a story; explain the importance of the identified literary elements; and why details are important to each of the literary elements. Teacher’s technology choices are listed in Figure 4.9. 1 1 1 2 3 5 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Real+World+Issues+and+Problem+Solving Provides+Student+Individualiza=on Used+as+Forma=ve+or+Summa=ve+Evalua=on Crea=ve+Expression Provides+Opportuni=es+for+InterestFBased+Learning+&+Self Improvement Promotes+Collabora=on Clarifica=on+of+Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% Choice(Percentage((%) 112 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Computer Powerpoint5/5Presenta9on iPod5/5Record5Player5/5mp35Player5/5Casse?e5Player Excel5Spreadsheet Internet Word5Processing Interac9ve5Whiteboard Document5Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 10% 20% 30% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.9. Self-selected technology choices in check for understanding phase of language arts lesson Seventeen teachers made 19 self-selected technology choices to integrate within the Check for Understanding phase of the lesson. Document camera and interactive whiteboard comprised over half of total teacher selections with 31.6%, and 26.3% of the total choices. The most frequent rationales provided in this phase were clarification of understanding (40.9%), and use of formative or summative assessment (22.7%). Many of these technology choices and rationale selections coincided, and some teachers provided additional comments to support their choices. One teacher responded that an Elmo could be used to facilitate “questions, and table talk,” while another stated that a document reader could be used to “display student response.” Other responses included use of an interactive whiteboard “to allow students to manipulate sentences”, using a document camera to “show student work”. A variety of technology selections that seemed unrelated to the questions presented in the syntax of the lesson were also provided. One teacher selected a video iPod for 113 “story skits with literary elements”, and another chose “internet news story with Promethean board (interactive whiteboard).” These two choices, along with the use of a computer to “let kids type”, were made for the purpose of creative expression (13.6%). Rationale for technology choices are listed in Figure 4.10. 0 1 2 2 3 5 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 Provides2Opportuni8es2for2Interest;Based2Learning2&2Self Improvement Promotes2Collabora8on Real2World2Issues2and2Problem2Solving Provides2Student2Individualiza8on Crea8ve2Expression Used2as2Forma8ve2or2Summa8ve2Evalua8on Clarifica8on2of2Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.10. Technology rationale choices in check for understanding phase of language arts lesson 114 Structured Practice After teachers provide corrective feedback and check students understanding of material presented in the demonstration, the first of three practice phases takes place. In the structured practice phase of the lesson teachers should lead students through practice examples while working the examples with students. Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun (2009) specifically suggest the use of technology such as an overhead projector in order for all students to see the generation of each step by the teacher as well as received accurate feedback toward student responses. The structured practice phase of the literacy lesson directed teachers to have students identify the detail related to the plot, characters and setting in a teacher-selected story(ies) that were ability or grade-level appropriate. Figure 4.11 identifies all technological choices for this phase of the lesson. 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 Word*Processing Computer Video*Clips*/*Video Powerpoint*/*Presenta<on Invalid*Response Interac<ve*Whiteboard Document*Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.11. Self-selected technology choices in the structured practice phase of language arts lesson 115 Ten teachers provided a total of 10 technology choices for the Structured Practice phase of the lesson. Document camera (30%) and interactive whiteboard (20%) accounted for half of the choices. The remaining technology choices were evenly distributed (10% each) between the following selections: word processing, video clips, PowerPoint/presentation software, and computer. One teacher choose “discussion”, which is not a technology choice, resulting in an as an invalid response due to the nature of this study. Clarification of understanding accounted for half of technology choices (45.5%) Teachers who chose Microsoft Word and Vimeo, an internet video sharing site, selected creative expression as their rationale, with Microsoft Word also being associated with student individualization. In the case of computer use as a technology choice, rationale choices made by its sole respondent attributed its use to student individualization along with providing opportunities for interest-based learning and self-improvement. A limited amount of description was provided for technology selections in this phase of the lesson, however, one teacher did express that they would use the Smartboard “to have students come to the board to highlight and underline”, which gives credence to clarification of understanding. Other technology selections, due to lack of supporting details, were ambiguous in their relationship to their corresponding rationale choices. All rationale choices are presented in Figure 4.12. 116 0 0 1 1 2 2 5 0 2 4 6 Real+World+Issues+and+Problem+Solving Promotes+Collabora=on Provides+Opportuni=es+for+InterestABased+Learning+&+Self Improvement Used+as+Forma=ve+or+Summa=ve+Evalua=on Crea=ve+Expression Provides+Student+Individualiza=on Clarifica=on+of+Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.12. Technology rationale choices in structured practice phase of language arts lesson Guided Practice The next practice phase in the direct instruction model of teaching is guided practice. The role of the teacher in this phase of the lesson is to allow students to practice on their own, while monitoring and assessing student progress and giving corrective feedback (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2008). In this phase of the lesson teachers were presented with the task of having students compare and contrast the details of plot, character, and setting in different genres using a Venn diagram. Figure 4.13 lists all technology choices for this phase of the lesson. Twenty-two teachers provided 30 total technology selections for the guided practice phase in eleven distinct choice categories. Interactive whiteboard and PowerPoint/presentation software were the most frequent technology selections (26.6% and 20%). Clarification of understanding was the most frequent rationale choice selected by teachers, but with far less frequency (27.7%) than in previous 117 phases of the lesson. The creative expression rationale had the second most selections with a frequency of 21.3% and was associated with PowerPoint, computers, document camera, Microsoft Photostory, Microsoft Word, digital photography, and clip art. There was limited information given by teachers about technology choices paired with creative expression except for the suggestion of students working in “partners to create a PowerPoint” to “present to the class”, and using an Elmo to “share their work”. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 6 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Word/Processing Laptop Digital/Photography///Pictures Clip/Art Photostory EducaDonal/SoFware Invalid/Response Computer Document/Camera Powerpoint///PresentaDon InteracDve/Whiteboard Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 10% 20% 30% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.13. Self-selected technology choices in the guided practice phase of language arts lesson Three respondents also gave additional information to explain their technology choices. One teacher selected a document camera in order to “call on the teacher station students to display their response, add my own” for the purpose of 118 clarifying information and relating to real world issues or problem solving. Another respondent indicated they would use a laptop “to design a Venn diagram for students to use”. This was also for clarification of understanding as well as a form of formative or summative evaluation. The last respondent to give additional support to their technology choice stated they would software in order to “generate graphic organizers” and chose the rationale connecting to this idea as a real world issue involving problem solving. Two invalid responses were given in this phase of the lesson. One teacher chose “poster” for their technology choice, explaining that students would “complete organizers with partners or groups” while another teacher selected “assessment”. Neither teacher gave a rationale for either of these choices. All rationale choices are listed in Figure 4.14. 2 2 6 6 8 10 13 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Real,World,Issues,and,Problem,Solving Provides,Student,Individualiza>on Provides,Opportuni>es,for,InterestBBased,Learning,&,Self Improvement Used,as,Forma>ve,or,Summa>ve,Evalua>on Promotes,Collabora>on Crea>ve,Expression Clarifica>on,of,Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.14. Technology rationale choices in guided practice phase of language arts lesson 119 Independent Practice The last phase in the direct instruction model of teaching is independent practice, designed to develop retention and fluency of student learning, characterized by students working without assistance and receiving delayed feedback (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2008). The independent practice phase of the direct instruction lesson given to teachers directed teachers to have student use literary elements with previously selected materials to prove with evidence the big idea, or generalization, “All structures provide a function that is purposeful.” Figure 4.15 presents all technology choices for this phase of the lesson. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Interac1ve3Whiteboard Internet Video3Clips3/3Video Document3Camera Wiki Blog Digital3Photography3/3Pictures Clip3Art Photostory Powerpoint3/3Presenta1on Laptop Word3Processing Computer Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 10% 20% 30% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.15. Self-selected technology choices in the independent practice phase of language arts lesson 120 Eighteen teachers provided a total of 25 technology selections in 13 different categories. Computer use (28.0%) was the most prevalent selection, followed by Word Processing (16.0%), Laptop use (12.0%) and PowerPoint/presentation software (8.0%). The remaining technology categories all had the same amount of selections, measured at 4.0%. Provides student individualization (23.7%) was the rationale choice selected most frequently for this phase of the lesson, followed by creative expression (20.3%), summative and formative assessment (16.9%) and opportunities for interest-based learning (16.9%). All rationale choices are listed in Figure 4.16. 2 4 7 10 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Real,World,Issues,and,Problem,Solving Promotes,Collabora>on Clarifica>on,of,Understanding Provides,Opportuni>es,for,InterestEBased,Learning,&,Self Improvement Used,as,Forma>ve,or,Summa>ve,Evalua>on Crea>ve,Expression Provides,Student,Individualiza>on Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.16. Technology rationale choices in independent practice phase of language arts lesson Little elaboration was given to explain the technology selections in this phase of the lesson. Computer use was selected to “display choices” for clarification of understanding. It was also presented as a means for assessment as one teacher stated 121 students could “create” their findings “at home or in a school computer lab”. Other forms of assessment included “creating a digital photostory with text” and “producing a worksheet on Word.” Lesson: Mathematics (Advanced Organizer, Student Centered/Inquiry) Objective Students will justify, verify, substantiate or prove with evidence the big idea, “The value of one thing depends on or is determined by another.” with selected math standard and complete the charts to share understanding of the big idea. Motivation The motivation phase of the mathematics lesson asked teachers to present students with two sets of pictures; one depicting an iPhone and an iPod, and the other showing an mp3 player and a record player. Teachers are then directed to discuss how one item in a set assumes a different value depending on its counterpart within the set, steering class discussion towards the meaning of the word “value”, including the presentation of relevant synonyms. Next, teachers are asked to introduce and discuss the concept of “relative value” and the factors that influence the value of something according to real and perceived factors such as advertising. Technology selections for this portion of the lesson are listed in Figure 4.17. 122 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Laptop Email Image5/5Image5Search Projector Mobile5Device5/5Handheld iPad5/5Nook DVD Video5Clips5/5Video Digital5Photography5/5Pictures Computer Powerpoint5/5PresentaLon iPod5/5Record5Player5/5mp35Player5/5CasseNe5Player iPhone5/5Smart5Phone InteracLve5Whiteboard Internet Document5Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.17. Self-selected technology choices in the motivation phase of the mathematics lesson Technology choice selections for the motivation phase of the mathematics lesson were given by twenty-nine respondents, who provided 47 total technology choices. The most common selections included Interactive whiteboard (12.8%), Internet (12.8%), and document camera (12.8%). Teacher responses afforded little clarifying information, although one response described the use of a document reader to “display cut up ads,” and another discussed the use of “online newspaper and other sties reviewing ads of favorite stores we shop at, possibly grocery store, BestBuy, or Target.” One teacher listed dictionary.com and thesaurs.com as webstites to be on the Internet. The second most common selections presided in the category of iPod/record player/MP3/cassette player (10.6%) and iPhone/Smartphone (10.6%). Many respondents that made these technology choices did so not with the 123 intent of using the objects in a technological capacity, rather, for display purposes. Two teachers stated that they would “bring in the actual items” or “objects”, while another said that they would bring in the items and “pass them around class and let kids look at them.” Figure 4.18 illustrates that Real World Issues and Problem Solving (35.5%) were the rationales selected most frequently by teachers, followed by Clarification of Understanding (32.3%). 0 2 4 5 9 20 22 0 5 10 15 20 25 Provides/Student/Individualiza8on Used/as/Forma8ve/or/Summa8ve/Evalua8on Crea8ve/Expression Promotes/Collabora8on Provides/Opportuni8es/for/InterestCBased/Learning/&/Self Improvement Clarifica8on/of/Understanding Real/World/Issues/and/Problem/Solving Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.18. Technology rationale choices in motivation phase of the mathematics lesson 124 Introduce the Advanced Organizer In a lesson, the introduction of the Advanced Organizer entails more than introductory comments or reviewing of the content of prior lessons. It involves an intellectual exploration of the organizer, which necessitates the teacher’s ability to cite essential features and provide examples related to the concepts or propositions presented in the organizer (Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun, 2008). In this phase of the mathematics lesson, teachers were asked to introduce the following big idea, “The value of one thing depends on or is determined by another.” and have students restate this big idea in their own words. Figure 4.19 lists all technology selections for this phase of the lesson. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Laptop Computer Online6Curriculum Projector Wiki Internet Invalid6Response Document6Camera Powerpoint6/6PresentaDon InteracDve6Whiteboard Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.19. Self-selected technology choices in the introduction of the advanced organizer phase of the mathematics lesson 125 Fifty percent of respondents selected technology choices for this phase of the lesson. Interactive whiteboard (23.8%) and PowerPoint/Presentation Software (19%) had the greatest amount of selections. No clarifying information was furnished for these particular choices. In this phase of the lesson, teachers did begin to provide alternative technology choices not seen in the prior Language Arts Direct Instruction lesson: the use of online curriculum (4.8%) and a Wiki (4.8%). The respondent that chose online curriculum described the use of a video clip from their curriculum program, titled Envisions, to show place value. The use of a Wiki was intended for “flip teaching homework,” a method of teaching where the students are presented with online lectures to view at night, and then work through the assigned “homework” during instructional time with assistance from the teacher. Two invalid responses (9.5%) were provided in this lesson phase. These types of responses may be relevant in the teaching of the lesson; however, they were not inclusive of the technologies described in the instructions for the Differentiated Lesson Set. One such response involved “discussing a technology piece” brought in by the teacher. The ambiguity of this choice rendered it invalid. The second response listed chart paper as the preferred technology use. Using chart paper can be thought of as a quasi-technology for teaching, however, it does not augment this research topic of study. The most widely selected rationale to accompany the technology choices described above was clarification of understanding (57.1%). The remaining rationale choices did not evidence the preferences of the majority of teachers. Formative or 126 summative evaluation were not selected by any teachers. Figure 4.20 lists rational choices for this portion of the lesson. 0 1 2 2 2 5 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Used,as,Forma2ve,or,Summa2ve,Evalua2on Provides,Opportuni2es,for,Interest@Based,Learning,&,Self Improvement Crea2ve,Expression Real,World,Issues,and,Problem,Solving Promotes,Collabora2on Provides,Student,Individualiza2on Clarifica2on,of,Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.20. Technology rationale choices in introduction of advanced organizer phase of the mathematics lesson Practice with the Advanced Organizer After the introduction of the Advanced Organizer, the next phase of the lesson requires teachers to tap into student’s prior knowledge and experiences in order to ensure that they are able to interact with the organizer’s idea or concept (Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun, 2008). Teachers were presented with numerous examples to facilitate discussion as students “practiced” with the advanced organizer (“The value of one thing depends on or is determined by another.”). These examples included: place value (The value of the digit is determined by its placement within the number); geometry (The value of the area and perimeter of an object is dependent on or determined by the lengths of the sides of that object); probability (The 127 probability of choosing one object over another is determined by the number and kind of objects from which it is chosen); and fractions (The value of the numerator is dependent on its relationship to the value of the denominator). The last part of this phase directed teachers to have students take a “book walk” through their textbook to find additional evidence of the big idea. Figure 4.21 summarizes all technology choices selected for this phase of the lesson. 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 10 13 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Image./.Image.Search Wiki Excel.Spreadsheet iTunes Laptop Curriculum.SoDware Online.Curriculum Projector iPad./.Nook Invalid.Response Video.Clips./.Video Computer Powerpoint./.PresentaMon Internet Document.Camera InteracMve.Whiteboard Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.21. Self-selected technology choices in the practice with the advanced organizer phase of the mathematics lesson 128 A total of 55 technology selections were made by 26 teachers. The most prevalent selections made by participants were Interactive whiteboard (23.6%) and document camera (18.2%). One teacher stated that they would use a document camera for “ whole group share out…students can come up to write in boxes or tell answer for teacher to record.” Another teacher stated that they would post the chart provided in the lesson plan on the Smartboard for students to complete. Other supporting statements in relation to the use of a Smartboard include having students “move numbers around to change value,” and the use of a T-chart to “pose questions on one side, students write answer on the other side.” Teachers provided a wide variety of technology choices that accounted for the remainder of the field of technology choices, along with two invalid responses. These two responses were book on fractions and hands-on activity, both of which do not meet the criteria for technology according to this research study. The remaining technology choices include a number of contemporary selections such as iPad/Nook (3.6%), Wiki (1.8%), and iTunes (1.8%), along with online curriculum (3.6%) and software (3.6%). No explanation was given for the use of a Wiki. Teachers who selected iPad listed the Internet, games, and apps as possible uses with this technology. The selection of iTunes was intended for use as an example pertaining to music genres, asking students to look at the “number of songs to specific genre, to total number of songs.” Online curriculum was characterized as the use of an “Internet textbook,” along with another program specific reference to Envisions, and its online resources. Curriculum software was specified as use of an “art software program” intended to “design the big idea” and follow with a “group project.” 129 Clarification of understanding (33.7%) remained the top technology rationale selection in this phase of the lesson. The remaining rationale choices are distributed fairly evenly (14.6% - 9%) with the exception of use as formative or summative evaluation (5.6%), although its percentage correlates with five selections. The technologies that correspond with this rationale include: Smartboard, (two selections), art program software, spreadsheet, and computer (used for “apps, software program, and art”). Figure 4.22 lists all frequencies and percentages of rationale choices stated by teachers. 5 8 9 11 13 13 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Used,as,Forma2ve,or,Summa2ve,Evalua2on Crea2ve,Expression Promotes,Collabora2on Provides,Student,Individualiza2on Real,World,Issues,and,Problem,Solving Provides,Opportuni2es,for,InterestGBased,Learning,&,Self Improvement Clarifica2on,of,Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.22. Technology rationale choices in practice with advanced organizer phase of the mathematics lesson 130 Apply the Advanced Organizer Presentation of the learning material takes place in the application phase of the Advanced Organizer model of teaching. Delivery of such material may arrive via lecture, film clips, readings, experiments, or discussions and must be organizer in a manner that allows the learner to relate, or apply the material to the advanced organizer (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2008). In this phase of the lesson, teachers were asked to apply the advanced organizer (“The value of one thing depends on or is determined by another.”) to appropriate grade level mathematics standards currently being studied. Furthermore, they were instructed to apply the big idea presented as the advanced organizer to exemplars in other discipline areas such as social studies (e.g. The value of a cultural tradition related to geography), science (e.g. The value of the sun in relationship to the planets), and literature (e.g. The value of the problem related to the setting.). Figure 4.23 lists all technology choices in this portion of the lesson. Twenty-five teachers responded in this part of the lesson and provided 50 technology choices designed to present the learning material and one invalid response. The following selections were the most frequently choices: Internet (15.7%), document camera (13.7%), PowerPoint/Presentation software (13.7%), and interactive whiteboard (11.8%). Teachers expressed that they would use the Internet to look at “websites” and conduct “computer research”. No additional information was given by participants who selected document camera with the exception of one individual promoting its use for “thinking maps”. Some information was given regarding the selection and use of PowerPoint for this phase of the lesson. One 131 teacher stated that in small groups they would have students “create PowerPoint applying big idea to one area of unit currently being studied.” Two other teachers explained they would use PowerPoint in a visual capacity to show students the chart of alternate disciplines provided in the lesson template. One teacher noted they would use PowerPoint for a “science slideshow,” while another mentioned the use of Prezi, another type of visual presentation software available online. Two teachers asserted the use of an interactive whiteboard in order to look at “independent values compared to whole concepts” presented in math standards, and to post the chart of alternate disciplines provided in the lesson plan template on a Smartboard to have students complete. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 6 7 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Curriculum2So5ware Projector iPad2/2Nook Printer Excel2Spreadsheet iPhone2/2Smart2Phone Develop2Website Graphing2Calculator Invalid2Response Laptop Video2Clips2/2Video Digital2Photography2/2Pictures Computer Image2/2Image2Search InteracQve2Whiteboard Document2Camera Powerpoint2/2PresentaQon Internet Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.23. Self-selected technology choices in apply the advanced organizer phase of the mathematics lesson 132 The inclusion of Google Images (7.8%), Google Sites (2%), and iPad (2%) were noted less frequently by the respondents. No information was given to provide a more in depth understanding of how Google Sites would be used in this part of the lesson. Google Images was described a tool to help “create visual representations” while iPad would be targeted for use as a research tool. Figure 4.24 gives all rationale choices provided in conjunction with this part of the lesson. Clarification of Understanding received the most frequent selections with 32.3% of the total choices. The next most common rationale choice with 20.4% of total choices was Provides Opportunities for Interest-Based Learning & Self Improvement. The remaining rationale choices taper off, with Promotes Collaboration and Used as Formative or Summative Evaluation chosen the least amount of times. 7 7 8 11 11 19 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Promotes0Collabora5on Used0as0Forma5ve0or0Summa5ve0Evalua5on Real0World0Issues0and0Problem0Solving Crea5ve0Expression Provides0Student0Individualiza5on Provides0Opportuni5es0for0InterestHBased0Learning0&0Self Improvement Clarifica5on0of0Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.24. Technology rationale choices in apply the advanced organizer phase of the mathematics lesson 133 Share/Summarize An essential component to the reconciliation of learning material within student’s cognitive structures is through facilitating opportunities for them to share and summarize their understandings. This can occur when teachers may ask their students to describe and support the relationship between the advanced organizer to the learning material, or ask them to summarize the attributes of the learning material after its application to the advanced organizer (Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun, 2008). No specific prompts or directions were given in this phase of the lesson plan, therefore providing an open-ended platform. Figure 4.25 shows the technology choices selected in this part of the lesson. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 2 3 Interac,ve.Whiteboard Word.Processing Video.Clips./.Video Document.Camera Projector iPad./.Nook Social.Networking iPhone./.Smart.Phone Develop.Website Google.Docs Laptop Powerpoint./.Presenta,on Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.25. Self-selected technology choices in the share/summarize phase of the mathematics lesson 134 Only six teachers provided a total of 14 technology choices in the Share/Summarize phase of the lesson. Laptop (14.3%), and PowerPoint/Presentation Software (14.3%) received the highest percentages, however, of the fourteen total choices, twelve variations were provided. Some distinctions were revealed by teachers regarding a handful of the technology choices. Social Networking would be used for the creation of a “Facebook page,” while an “animated cartoon” could be made on an iPad. One of the two teachers that chose Laptop stated that this technology could be used “to create”, although they did not specify what type of product could be made. Rationale choices for these technology selections appear in Figure 4.26. 0 1 2 4 4 5 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Real,World,Issues,and,Problem,Solving Provides,Opportuni?es,for,InterestABased,Learning,&,Self Improvement Clarifica?on,of,Understanding Crea?ve,Expression Used,as,Forma?ve,or,Summa?ve,Evalua?on Promotes,Collabora?on Provides,Student,Individualiza?on Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.26. Technology rationale choices in the share/summarize phase of the mathematics lesson 135 The choices of Promotes Collaboration and Provides Student Individualization garnered the highest number of selections with 23.8% each. These choices are closely followed by Creative Expression, and Use as Formative or Summative Evaluation, which received 19% each. The only rationale choice to not receive any selections was Real World Issues and Problem Solving. Integrated Reconciliation The last phase within the syntax of an Advanced Organizer Model of Teaching moves a step beyond having students share and summarize their learning by searching for a way to secure the new material within student’s cognitive structures. Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun (2008) state that teachers can oversee this process by examining the learning material from alternative points of view, looking for differences between aspects of the material, and asking for additional examples of the concepts presented in the learning material. In this phase of the lesson teachers were instructed to have students take a survey of their peers or family members to provide additional examples of the big idea and were provided with a data collection chart that to include the person interviewed, the area of their expertise, and their example of the big idea. Figure 4.27 lists all technology choices given for this last phase of the lesson. 136 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Internet Video3Recording Audio3Recording Projector Telephone Mobile3Device3/3Handheld Printer Develop3Website Word3Processing Laptop Video3Clips3/3Video Document3Camera Email Powerpoint3/3PresentaMon iPhone3/3Smart3Phone iPad3/3Nook Online3Survey3/3Survey3Monkey Excel3Spreadsheet Computer InteracMve3Whiteboard Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.27. Self-selected technology choices in the integrated reconciliation phase of the mathematics lesson Forty-five total technology choices were provided by twenty-five of the respondents. Of these choices, Interactive Whiteboard (15.6%) and Computer (13.3%) received the highest percentages. The only comments regarding the use of these technologies included one teacher stating they would use the a computer to “develop the table/chart,” while another teacher explained that the Smartboard would “be done by” them, and they would “ask questions and give handout to check for understanding.” The use of word processing was also presented for use to “create and fill in charts.” Various other technologies were listed to help students with the interview process such as creating an “online survey for ease of participant use” 137 delivered through “email.” The selection of Google Documents is a compliment to the prior technology choice. The use of Excel, a spreadsheet/database software program, was selected to help students “record and analyze data.” Audio recordings and video recordings were paired together for use by students that are “slower in writing” to aid in the interview process. The prevailing technology rationale for this phase of the lesson was Provides Student Individualization (24.4%), followed by Used as Formative or Summative Evaluation (17.4%), and Promotes Collaboration (16.3%). All rationale choices were selected, with Creative Expression (3.5%) receiving the smallest overall percentage. A complete list of technology rationale choices is illustrated in Figure 4.28. 3 9 12 12 14 15 21 0 5 10 15 20 25 Crea,ve.Expression Real.World.Issues.and.Problem.Solving Clarifica,on.of.Understanding Provides.Opportuni,es.for.InterestGBased.Learning.&.Self Improvement Promotes.Collabora,on Used.as.Forma,ve.or.Summa,ve.Evalua,on Provides.Student.Individualiza,on Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.28. Technology rationale choices in the integrated reconciliation phase of the mathematics lesson 138 Lesson: Social Studies (Advanced Organizer, Student Centered/ Inquiry) Objective Students will distinguish and validate why a specific condition was the cause of a historic event. They will chart their responses. Motivation This initial phase of the Advanced Organizer Model of Teaching asked teachers to discuss cause and effect relationships with students, leading to the use of three specific cause and effect relationships to explore direct and indirect relationships. These relationships are organized and presented to teachers in chart form within the lesson plan template. Figure 4.29 lists all technology choices provided for the Motivation. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 6 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Word.Processing Powerpoint./.Presenta;on Printer Social.Networking Google.Docs Projector iPad./.Nook Laptop Interac;ve.Whiteboard Computer Video.Clips./.Video Document.Camera Digital.Photography./.Pictures Internet Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.29. Self-selected technology choices in the motivation phase of the social studies lesson 139 Technology choices were provided by twenty-six teachers, resulting in forty- three overall selections. The most frequent choices were Internet (16.3%), Document Camera (14%), and Digital Photography (14%). Uses of the Internet included “primary sources,” obtaining “images from museum fine art collections”; “provide visuals”; using dictionary and thesaurus websites; and utilizing “wikileaks”, a website that provides information and documents highlighting government malfeasance. Descriptors of digital photography included: “visuals”, “graphics”, “images”, and “pictures”. No additional information was given to explain document camera use. Other notable, but less frequent choices included laptop (7%), social networking (2.3%), PowerPoint/Presentation Software (2.3%), printer (2.3%), and word processing (2.3%). Edmoto was listed as the preferred site for social networking, while the laptop and printer were promoted for use of making “labels for chart.” PowerPoint was described as a tool to “build background and interest” through the use of images. The function of word processing was to “organize thoughts in the graphic organizer.” Clarification of Understanding (38.7%) was the most frequent rationale choice followed by Real World Issues and Problem Solving (19.4%). The only rationale not selected for this phase of the lesson was Provides Student Individualization. The results for all rationale choices are presented in Figure 4.30 140 0 5 5 6 10 12 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Provides0Student0Individualiza9on Crea9ve0Expression Used0as0Forma9ve0or0Summa9ve0Evalua9on Provides0Opportuni9es0for0InterestCBased0Learning0&0Self Improvement Promotes0Collabora9on Real0World0Issues0and0Problem0Solving Clarifica9on0of0Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.30. Technology rationale choices in the motivation phase of the social studies lesson Introduce the Advanced Organizer This phase calls attention to the following big idea: “Change results from one or more causes.” Teachers are directed to present this big idea to students and discuss the multiple meanings of the advanced organizer and that all things may not have the same power to cause or result in change. Sixteen teachers provided a total of twenty- four technology choices listed in Figure 4.31. 141 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 Laptop Video0Clips0/0Video Digital0Photography0/0Pictures iPad0/0Nook Social0Networking InteracCve0Whiteboard Projector Invalid0Response Internet Computer Powerpoint0/0PresentaCon Document0Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.31. Self-selected technology choices in the introduction of the advanced organizer phase of the social studies lesson Technology selections were made by sixteen of the participating teachers. The selection of “t-chart” was the only invalid response within the twenty-four selections provided. Document camera (16.7%) was the most frequently chosen response followed by Internet, computer, and PowerPoint/Presentation software with 12.5% each. A small amount of supporting information was given for all choices overall. Document camera was intended to be used to “record on paper”, while the Internet was intended for use with online dictionary and thesaurus sites along with a “google search.” The use of computers included creating “organizers”, and “visual charts” were connected to the use of PowerPoint/Presentation software. The additional choice video clips, which included “Vimeo”, a video-sharing website, and “animations” provided information from respondents. The most frequent rationale 142 choice was Clarification of Understanding (40%) proceeded by Provides Opportunites for Interest-Based Learning & Self Improvement (20%). All technology rationale choices were selected in varying frequencies in this phase of the lesson and are listed in Figure 4.32. 2 2 2 3 5 7 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Promotes1Collabora6on Provides1Student1Individualiza6on Used1as1Forma6ve1or1Summa6ve1Evalua6on Crea6ve1Expression Real1World1Issues1and1Problem1Solving Provides1Opportuni6es1for1InterestIBased1Learning1&1Self Improvement Clarifica6on1of1Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.32. Technology rationale choices in the introduction of the advanced organizer phase of the social studies lesson Practice with the Advanced Organizer For this phase of the lesson, teachers are instructed to present students with conditions (e.g. technology, religion, foods, resources, disease, objects, etc.) related to well-known historical event. The sample provided in the lesson plan utilized the arrival of explorers in North America. The next part of this phase asks teachers to discuss the impact of such conditions on Native Americans using the open-ended prompt “___________ is related to ________ because…”. Students are asked to prioritize conditions to determine which had the most important impact cause of 143 Explorers on Native Americans which changed their lives enabling them to prove the advanced organizer statement: Change results from one or more causes. Figure 4.33 lists the 60 technology choices given by teachers for this part of the lesson. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 6 7 7 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Laptop Curriculum5So7ware Online5Curriculum Video5Recording Projector Mobile5Device5/5Handheld Printer Excel5Spreadsheet iPhone5/5Smart5Phone Online5Survey5/5Survey5Monkey Google5Docs Powerpoint5/5PresentaOon Image5/5Image5Search iPad5/5Nook Invalid5Response Digital5Photography5/5Pictures Word5Processing Video5Clips5/5Video Document5Camera Internet Computer InteracOve5Whiteboard Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.33. Self-selected technology choices in the practice with the advanced organizer phase of the social studies lesson Twenty-seven teachers provided 60 total technology selections in this phase of the lesson. The most prominent choices were: Interactive Whiteboard (16.7%); computer (11.7%); Internet (11.7%), and document camera (10%). Teachers gave various types of additional information that included using a Smartboard to “let kids move these around,” referring to the conditions related to the historical event 144 presented to students. Selection of the Internet included utilizing “YouTube videos and images”, conducting “pre-lesson research”, and “assigning different groups different organizers” with students “using the internet to research and complete.” Although all rationale choices were selected in this portion of the lesson, Clarification of Understanding was chosen most frequently by 34.6% of teachers. The remaining rationales for technological choices are presented in Figure 4.34. 8 8 10 11 13 18 36 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Crea-ve/Expression Provides/Student/Individualiza-on Provides/Opportuni-es/for/InterestABased/Learning/&/Self Improvement Real/World/Issues/and/Problem/Solving Used/as/Forma-ve/or/Summa-ve/Evalua-on Promotes/Collabora-on Clarifica-on/of/Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.34. Technology rationale choices in the practice with the advanced organizer phase of the social studies lesson Apply the Advanced Organizer/Share and Summarize In this part of the lesson, teachers are directed to follow the same sequence of activities as provided in the previous section of the lesson; however, teachers are instructed to provide students with content that would be considered new information or information that extends their current study. Furthermore, teachers would have students share and summarize their findings based on the retrieval charts provided in 145 the lesson plan. Figure 4.35 illustrates the technology choices of teachers in this part of the lesson. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 6 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Word-Processing Email Powerpoint-/-Presenta=on Video-Recording Wiki Digital-Photography-/-Pictures Google-Docs Invalid-Response Video-Clips-/-Video Projector iPad-/-Nook Internet Laptop Document-Camera Interac=ve-Whiteboard Computer Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.35. Self-selected technology choices in the apply/share/summarize phase of the social studies lesson Twenty teachers provided thirty-six technology choices in this part of the lesson. Computer (16.7%) and Interactive Whiteboard (16.7%) were the most commonly selected choices followed by Document Camera (11.1%). One teacher stated that use of a computer could provide students with access to “videos, pictures, and primary source text” while another teacher stated that they would use an Interwrite Smartboard so that students could “share their findings.” Two teachers provided commentary regarding their technology choices. One teacher explained that “for fun kids can create a PowerPoint as groups” and another teacher responded that 146 students could “share comments on a wiki” and that they would “assign groups to review each other’s presentations.” The inclusion of chart paper as a response was determined to be the only invalid response for this part of the lesson. When looking at the rationale choices related to this part of the lesson, three of the seven rationale choices were selected with similar frequency: Used as Formative or Summative Evaluation (21.8%), Promotes Collaboration (20.5 %), and Clarification of Understanding (19.2%). The remaining rationale data is presented in Figure 4.36. 3 7 7 13 15 16 17 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Real.World.Issues.and.Problem.Solving Crea?ve.Expression Provides.Student.Individualiza?on Provides.Opportuni?es.for.InterestGBased.Learning.&.Self Improvement Clarifica?on.of.Understanding Promotes.Collabora?on Used.as.Forma?ve.or.Summa?ve.Evalua?on Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.36. Technology rationale choices in the apply/share/summarize phase of the social studies lesson 147 Integrated Reconciliation In this final phase of the lesson, teachers were presented with two questions to conclude the lesson with students. These questions asked students to discuss cause and effect relationships and elaborate on why some causes are stronger than others to cause change. Figure 4.37 lists all technology choices for this part of the lesson. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Video.Clips./.Video Video.Recording Social.Networking Google.Docs Invalid.Response Laptop Projector Word.Processing Computer InteracIve.Whiteboard Document.Camera Powerpoint./.PresentaIon Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.37. Self-selected technology choices in the integrated reconciliation phase of the social studies lesson Nineteen participating teachers provided thirty total technology choices in this phase of the lesson. PowerPoint (20%) was the selection most commonly provided followed by Document Camera (16.7%) and Interactive Whiteboard (13.3%). A small amount of clarifying responses was given to elaborate on these choices. One teacher stated that PowerPoint would be “created by students to 148 present.” Another explained that a Smartboard would be used to “complete the organizer as a whole”, although no graphic organizer was presented in this phase of the lesson, only the two closing questions. Less frequent technology choices provided with additional clarification included using a “typing program to generate written answers,” having students “videotape responses and have them watch it,” and using video to facilitate “student choice of technology to show an end product.” One invalid response (discussion) was given in response to this part of the lesson. Technology rationale choices for this portion of the lesson are presented in Figure 4.38. The most predominant rationales given were Provides Opportunities for Interest-Based Learning & Self Improvement (25.4%) and Use as a Formative or Summative or Summative Evaluation (23.7%). Clarification of Understanding and Creative Expression both received the same amount of selections (15.3%), followed by the rest of the rationale choices. 3 4 5 9 9 14 15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Promotes1Collabora6on Real1World1Issues1and1Problem1Solving Provides1Student1Individualiza6on Crea6ve1Expression Clarifica6on1of1Understanding Used1as1Forma6ve1or1Summa6ve1Evalua6on Provides1Opportuni6es1for1InterestKBased1Learning1&1Self Improvement Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.38. Technology rationale choices in the integrated reconciliation phase of the social studies lesson 149 Lesson: Science (Group Investigation, Student Centered/Inquiry) Objective Students will relate answers to their questions using prompts of rules, patterns, over time and details as guides to conduct research in cooperative group settings. Present the Puzzlement This particular model of teaching begins with exposing the learner with a stimulating problem or confrontation in a variety of ways: as an experience, as a natural process, from a teacher, etc. (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2008). The puzzlement presented in this particular lesson of the differentiated lesson set provided teachers with three distinct diagrams/pictures to show students: the water cycle, the rock cycle, and the life cycle. These pictures are designed to engage the learner into the process of inquiry through sparking student curiosity and allowing them to delve into problems that arise from their intellectual confrontations. Figure 4.39 lists the technology choices of teachers in this phase of Group Investigation. All but two teachers provided responses indicating their technology preferences for this portion of the lesson. Out of the fifty-two selections, four predominant technology choices appeared in this initial lesson phase: video clips (17.3%), document camera (17.3%), Internet (13.5%), and PowerPoint/Presentation software (13.5%). Descriptions of video clips included the utilization of the website Brainpop.com “to present ideas visually in motion,” and showing a “short animated video.” None of the teachers that selected document camera provided any additional information regarding this choice. The Internet as a technology preference was 150 selected to provide supplemental information using “images” and “videos”. Little supplemental information was provided for the use of as well, with the only description stating the technology would be “interactive with cycles coming in as needed.” 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 5 7 7 9 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DVD Interac4ve6Model Projector iPad6/6Nook Interac4ve6Whiteboard Laptop Image6/6Image6Search Computer Internet Powerpoint6/6Presenta4on Video6Clips6/6Video Document6Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.39. Self-selected technology choices in the Present the Puzzlement phase of the science lesson The remaining technology selections included choices such as using an iPad (3.8%) and an interactive model (1.9%), however, no other details accompanied those or any other selections. The prevailing rationale choice for this phase of the lesson was Clarification of Understanding (63.8%). This was followed by Creative Expression (11.6%) and Providing Opportunities for Interest-Based Learning and Self Improvement (11.6%). The rationales related to Providing Student 151 Individualization was not chosen be any respondent. Figure 4.40 presents teacher rationale choices. 0 2 3 4 8 8 44 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Provides0Student0Individualiza9on Real0World0Issues0and0Problem0Solving Used0as0Forma9ve0or0Summa9ve0Evalua9on Promotes0Collabora9on Crea9ve0Expression Provides0Opportuni9es0for0InterestGBased0Learning0&0Self Improvement Clarifica9on0of0Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.40. Technology rationale choices in the Present the Puzzlement phase of the science lesson Solicit Questions According to Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun (2008), in addition to being confronted with a problem situation, students must also participate in making sense of this problem through the identification and formulation of the problem. The methodology used by students to engage in this process is through asking questions about the presented puzzlement. In the solicitation of questions from students, this phase of the lesson directed teachers to ask students “What questions do you have about these cycles?”. Figure 4.41 lists the technology choices given by teachers in this part of the lesson. 152 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Internet Video4Clips4/4Video Google4Docs Computer Powerpoint4/4PresentaCon Invalid4Response InteracCve4Whiteboard Document4Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.41. Self-selected technology choices in the solicit questions phase of the science lesson Twenty-four technology selections were given by twenty-one of the participants. Document camera (33.3%) accounted for one third of the total selections followed by interactive whiteboard (16.7%). Two teachers supplied additional comments that explained how they would use a document camera in this phase of the lesson. One teacher replied that they would “jot down unanswered questions to revisit later,” while the other teacher commented that students would “write down their questions to be displayed on the Elmo.” Invalid responses in for this portion of the lesson included the following: student use of sentence strips to record and post questions on the board, chart paper, and research (no specific technology presented to facilitate research). Rationale choices are listed in Figure 4.42. Clarification of Understanding and Promotion of Collaboration were the most common selections, with 27.6% and 24.1% respectively. The Use of Summative and 153 Formative Evaluation was selected the least number of times (3.4%) as a technological rationale. 1 2 2 4 5 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Used/as/Forma5ve/or/Summa5ve/Evalua5on Crea5ve/Expression Real/World/Issues/and/Problem/Solving Provides/Opportuni5es/for/InterestIBased/Learning/&/Self Improvement Provides/Student/Individualiza5on Promotes/Collabora5on Clarifica5on/of/Understanding Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.42. Technology rationale choices in the solicit questions phase of the social studies lesson Research The title of this phase denotes that students will engage in activities or tasks that relate to finding research to answer questions from the previous phase. This part of the lesson plan also provides teachers with a description of five “job postings” to help students determine their roles within their research group (note taker, spokesperson, illustrator, reader, and leader). The twenty-five teachers’ technology choice responses for this phase of the lesson phase are identified in Figure 4.43. 154 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Word-Processing Video-Clips-/-Video Video-Recording Image-/-Image-Search Projector EducaDonal-SoEware Moviemaker Photostory InteracDve-Whiteboard iPod-/-Record-Player-/-mp3-Player-/-CasseLe-Player Digital-Photography-/-Pictures iPad-/-Nook Laptop Document-Camera Powerpoint-/-PresentaDon Computer Internet Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.43. Self-selected technology choices in the research phase of the science lesson Internet (29.7%) was the most common selection of the forty-three total technology choices. Teachers expressed the use of the Internet for research, specifically looking at “news, postings”, “online dictionary, thesaurus, encyclopedia,” and an “online newspaper,” One teacher explained that they would use the digital library associated with the online resources provided by their school district. Some responses related to this section of the lesson did not pertain to research of actual students questions, rather, they were intended for clarification and research of the student roles. This was determined by teachers stating they would use the Internet to “research these items” (student roles), along viewing postings on 155 Craigslist. Teacher responses in this part of the lesson presented a greater variety of technology choices including the use of an iPad, MovieMaker, and Photostory. Teacher selections for rationale choices listed Promotes Collaboration (23.8%) as the most frequently selected rationale. Three other rationale choices followed closely behind garnering 17.5% of teacher selection: Promotes Collaboration, Provides Opportunities for Interest-Based Learning & Self Improvement, and Clarification of Understanding. The remaining rationale selections are presented in Figure 4.44. 0 9 10 14 14 14 19 0 5 10 15 20 Used+as+Forma1ve+or+Summa1ve+Evalua1on Crea1ve+Expression Real+World+Issues+and+Problem+Solving Clarifica1on+of+Understanding Provides+Student+Individualiza1on Provides+Opportuni1es+for+InterestHBased+Learning+&+Self Improvement Promotes+Collabora1on Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.44. Technology rationale choices in the research phase of the science lesson Share/Summarize After conducting research, student groups should have the chance to analyze and reflect upon the progress and process that they have worked through. This includes synthesizing participatory behaviors and experiences with the conclusions 156 formulated through the social process of this model of teaching (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun 2008). In order to share information resulting from student research in the previous phase of the lesson, teachers are presented with a retrieval chart, enabling them to facilitate a whole class discussion regarding answers to the class’ questions. Additionally, a Venn diagram is provided so that students may define the similarities and differences among the different cycles presented in the initial phase of the lesson (Water Cycle, Rock Cycle, and Life Cycle). Figure 4.45 identifies all technology choices selected in this portion of the lesson. 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 6 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Internet Word3Processing Overhead3Projector Google3Docs Projector Computer Powerpoint3/3PresentaGon Invalid3Response Document3Camera InteracGve3Whiteboard Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.45. Self-selected technology choices in the share/summarize phase of the science lesson Twenty-four teachers selected a total of thirty technological choices for this phase of the science lesson. Interactive whiteboard (26.7%) and document camera (20%) were the most prevalent choices provided by teachers. One teacher added that 157 they would use “Interwrite software with pad and responders” to supplement the use of their Interactive whiteboard. Another teacher stated they would use a “Promethean board” to show “teacher/student writing in front of the class.” Invalid responses (13.3%) accounted for the next highest response choice, including the selection of dry erase board, posters, and chart paper. Two teachers provided comments on using PowerPoint/Presentation software as a technological choice. One teacher noted they would “share with Prezi” while the other stated that students would “complete PowerPoint to present similarities and differences among cycles.” Two out of the seven technology rationale choices were selected with close frequency; Use as a Formative or Summative Evaluation (25%), and Promotes Collaboration (21.2%). Clarification of Understanding was the next closest rationale choice selected with a frequency of 17.3%. Figure 4.46 summarizes all technology rational choices. 3 4 6 6 9 11 13 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Real-World-Issues-and-Problem-Solving Crea>ve-Expression Provides-Student-Individualiza>on Provides-Opportuni>es-for-InterestFBased-Learning-&-Self Improvement Clarifica>on-of-Understanding Promotes-Collabora>on Used-as-Forma>ve-or-Summa>ve-Evalua>on Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.46. Technology rationale choices in the share/summarize phase of the science lesson 158 Recycle The last phase of the lesson refers to both the social/democratic nature of the model of teaching, as well as the process of knowledge acquisition. Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun (2008) explain that the last phase in this model of teaching ends with another confrontation or a new problem arising from the original investigation. In this final phase of the lesson, teachers are prompted to ask students to think about the new questions they may have as a result of their research. Figure 4.47 lists all technology choices provided in this phase of the lesson. 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 Word*Processing Laptop Email Projector Blog Invalid*Response Internet Document*Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.47. Self-selected technology choices in the recycle phase of the science lesson Only nine teachers provided responses for this portion of the lesson, with 11 total responses. The most common response was document camera (27.3%), followed by use of the Internet (18.2%). Two teachers provided information that further described their technology choices. One teacher who selected Internet 159 explained that students would use Google search to “find examples of cycles on a website.” The other teacher provided word processing as their technology choices and stated that students would “type questions and print them,” then “find the answer.” Chart paper was listed as a technology choice in this phase of the lesson, accounting for the invalid response. Teachers selected the Provision of Opportunities for Interest-Based Learning & Self-Improvement as the most frequent technology rationale choice (35.5%). Clarification of Understanding and the Provision of Student Individualization both received the same number of selections, with a frequency of 17.6%. None of the respondents chose Promotes Collaboration as a rationale to support their technology selection. Figure 4.48 presents all rationale selections. 0 1 2 2 3 3 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Promotes0Collabora5on Real0World0Issues0and0Problem0Solving Crea5ve0Expression Used0as0Forma5ve0or0Summa5ve0Evalua5on Clarifica5on0of0Understanding Provides0Student0Individualiza5on Provides0Opportuni5es0for0InterestJBased0Learning0&0Self Improvement Ra#onale(Choice Choice(Frequency((#) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Choice(Percentage((%) Figure 4.48. Technology rationale choices in the recycle phase of the science lesson 160 Research Question #3 The third research question asked: How do teacher’s perceptions of technology knowledge relate to their instructional technology choices within a differentiated curriculum and instructional lesson set? Knowledge Domains With Technology Technological Content Knowledge was the knowledge domain inclusive of technology where teachers reported the highest self-perceptions (M = 2.9924; SD = .49405). The sole indicator statement provided in this knowledge domain inquired about teacher’s knowledge of technologies that could be used for both understanding and performing as applied to literacy, mathematics, social studies, and science. Literacy and science were the content areas that teachers expressed the highest self- perceptions of knowledge (87.8% and 84.9% agree or strongly agree, respectively) followed by social studies (81.8% agree or strongly agree), and finally mathematics (66.7% agree or strongly agree). Although teacher’s reported results in this knowledge domain revealed confidence in their understanding of the various technologies used in each content area, their technology choices had little variance across content areas. Figure 4.49 illustrates the commonalities between content areas, as teachers’ most frequent selections included the same five choices: document camera, interactive whiteboard, PowerPoint/presentation software, Internet, and computer. Word processing replaced Internet use in the literacy lesson as one of the most frequent technology selections. 161 Content Area (Model of Teaching) Technology Choices Literacy (Direct Instruction) 4 5 6 7 7 11 24 29 36 39 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Video/Clips///Video Laptop Internet Projector Educa@onal/SoBware Word/Processing Computer Powerpoint///Presenta@on Interac@ve/Whiteboard Document/Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Choice*Percentage*(%) Social Studies (Advanced Organizer) 9 9 10 11 12 13 20 23 25 26 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Word,Processing Projector Laptop Digital,Photography,/,Pictures Video,Clips,/,Video Powerpoint,/,PresentaBon Internet Computer Document,Camera InteracBve,Whiteboard Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.49. Most frequent technology selections distinguished by content area 162 Content Area (Model of Teaching) Technology Choices Math (Advanced Organizer) 7 8 9 10 10 19 22 23 29 38 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Projector iPad4/4Nook iPhone4/4Smart4Phone Laptop Video4Clips4/4Video Computer Internet Powerpoint4/4PresentaEon Document4Camera InteracEve4Whiteboard Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Choice*Percentage*(%) Science (Group Investigation) 4 4 6 7 11 16 17 17 23 29 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Image///Image/Search iPad///Nook Projector Laptop Video/Clips///Video Computer InteracEve/Whiteboard Powerpoint///PresentaEon Internet Document/Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.49, continued 163 In the Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (M = 2.9596; SD = .58717) teachers expressed the most comfort with indicator statements related to their ability to think critically about technology use in the classroom (87.5% agree or strongly agree), their ability to adapt technology to different teaching activities (84.8% agree or strongly agree), and their ability to select technologies to use in the classroom that enhance what is taught, how it is taught, and what students learn (84.9% agree or strongly agree). Teachers felt less knowledgeable towards indicator statements dealing with the influence of their teacher education program on teaching approaches used in the classroom (40.8% disagree or strongly disagree), their ability to provide leadership in the use of content, technologies, and teaching approaches (39.4% disagree or strongly disagree), and their ability to choose technologies that enhance content for a lesson (30.3% disagree or strongly disagree). Similarly to the breakdown of technology choices by content area, teachers showed little variation between models of teaching, choosing the same five technology choices most frequently: document camera, interactive whiteboard, PowerPoint/presentation software, Internet, and computer. Word processing replaced Internet use in the direct instruction lesson as one of the most frequent technology selections. Figure 4.50 identifies the most frequent technology selections in the Differentiated Lesson Set by model of teaching. 164 Model of Teaching Technology Choices Direct Instruction 4 5 6 7 7 11 24 29 36 39 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Video/Clips///Video Laptop Internet Projector Educa@onal/SoBware Word/Processing Computer Powerpoint///Presenta@on Interac@ve/Whiteboard Document/Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Choice*Percentage*(%) Advanced Organizer 15 15 16 20 22 36 42 42 54 64 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Digital/Photography///Pictures iPad///Nook Projector Laptop Video/Clips///Video Powerpoint///PresentaDon Internet Computer Document/Camera InteracDve/Whiteboard Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.50. Most frequent technology selections distinguished by model of teaching 165 Model of Teaching Technology Choices Group Investigation 4 4 6 7 11 16 17 17 23 29 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Image///Image/Search iPad///Nook Projector Laptop Video/Clips///Video Computer InteracEve/Whiteboard Powerpoint///PresentaEon Internet Document/Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 4.50, continued The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Domain (M = 2.8333 SD = .69784) was identified by a single indicator statement based on teaching lessons that appropriately combine technology, and teaching approaches to all four content areas. Social studies was the content area that teachers reported the highest self- perceptions with 78.8% of participants expressing agreement or strong agreement with their ability to combine technology and teaching approaches in this content area. Science was the next highest content area (75.8% agree or strongly agree) followed by mathematics (69.7% agree or strongly agree). Teachers reported the lowest self-perceptions of knowledge related to combining technology, teaching approaches and literacy (66.6% agree or strongly agree). 166 Technology Knowledge was the domain with the lowest rating of self- perceptions (M = 2.8187, SD = .70400) despite the fact that 81.8% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement regarding their ability to learn technology easily. Additionally, 75.0% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement indicating that they frequently “play” with technology. Teachers disagreed most with statements indicating their knowledge of different technologies (60.6% disagree or strongly disagree) and their ability to keep up with important new technologies (39.4% disagree or strongly disagree). Summary of Findings The findings of this mixed methods research study sought to uncover self- perceptions that teachers of gifted and talented students reported related to their pedagogical, content, and technology knowledge domains. Additionally, teachers self-selected technology choices to include in a Differentiated Lesson Set (Appendix B) featuring four different content areas (literacy, mathematics, social studies, and science) presented in three different models of teaching (Direct Instruction, Advanced Organizer, and Group Investigation). Quantitative data was collected to measure teachers’ self-perceptions through a Survey of Knowledge of Teaching and Technology (Appendix A). The mean and standard deviation was calculated for each knowledge domain based upon indicator statement frequencies within each domain (Table 4.9). A Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to determine if any significant relationships existed between teachers’ self-perceptions in each knowledge domain and their age, total number years of teaching, and total number of years teaching gifted learners. No significant correlations were uncovered 167 (Appendix D). Qualitative data was also collected as a part of the research study through the Differentiated Lesson Set. Teachers provided a total of 752 technology choices throughout the four lessons in 38 different technology categories. Along with technology choices, teachers were also asked to provide one or more rationale choices to justify their technology choices. Participants provided 1,218 rationale choices from a list (Appendix C) based upon ISTE National Technology Standards and performance indicators for teachers (ISTE, 2008). The first research question inquired about teachers’ self-perceptions regarding their knowledge of pedagogy, content, and technology. Overall, teachers reported high self-perceptions in all knowledge domains as reported by the mean values of each domain (Table 4.9). Table 4.11 provides the indicator statements which participating teachers expressed 100% agreement or strong agreement. 168 Table 4.11 Highest Rated Knowledge Domain Indicator Statements Indicator Statement Knowledge Domain Percentage of Participants Choosing Agree or Strongly Agree Assessing student performance in the classroom Pedagogical Knowledge 100.0% Assessing learning in multiple ways Pedagogical Knowledge 100.0% Using a wide range of teaching approaches Pedagogical Knowledge 94.0% Have sufficient knowledge about literacy Content Knowledge 100.0% Use various strategies of developing understanding about literacy Content Knowledge 100.0% Select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in literacy Pedagogical Content Knowledge 100.0% Select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in science Pedagogical Content Knowledge 100.0% Select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in social studies Pedagogical Content Knowledge 100.0% 169 When technology was added to both pedagogy and content knowledge domains, or combinations of the two, teachers expressed lower self- perceptions, as mean values were found to drop slightly. Table 4.12 reports the indicator statements that teachers disagreed, or strongly disagreed with most. Table 4.12 Lowest Rated Knowledge Domain Indicator Statements Indicator Statement Knowledge Domain Percentage of Participant Choosing Disagree or Strongly Disagree Know about many different technologies Technology Knowledge 69.9% Solve technical problems Technology Knowledge 47.1% Teacher education program encouraged thought regarding the influence of technology on teaching approaches Technological Pedagogical Knowledge 47.0% Provide leadership in helping others coordinate the use of content, technologies, and teaching approaches at school/district level Technological Pedagogical Knowledge 41.2% Keep up with important new technologies Technology Knowledge 40.0% The second research question looked to find out what types of technology choices teachers would self-select within differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners presented in a Differentiated Lesson Set. Out of the total 170 technology choices, the most frequent selections included: document camera (16.2%), interactive whiteboard (15.6%), PowerPoint/presentation software (10.9%), Computer (10.9%), and Internet (9.4%). Participants also selected rationale choices to accompany their technology selections from a pre-selected rationale list. The overall choice for technology rationale statements was the selection of clarification of student understanding (32.0 %). The remaining rationale choices were selected within a 5% range of one another beginning at 14.2% and ending at 9.6% (Figure 4.2). The last research question sought to uncover the relationship between teachers’ technology choices and their self-perceptions of technology knowledge. Teachers’ self-perceptions of technology knowledge related to pedagogy and content indicated the possibility of a wider variety of technology choices within each lesson. A majority of teachers expressed agreement, or strong agreement regarding their knowledge about technology to be used for understanding and “doing” work (Technological Content Knowledge) in literacy (87.8%), science (84.9%), and social studies (81.8%). The two areas of high reported self-perceptions of Technological Pedagogical Knowledge where most participants agreed or strongly agree were in thinking critically about technology use in the classroom (87.5%), selecting technologies to enhance what is taught, how it is taught, and what students learn (84.9%), and adapting the use of technology to different teaching activities (84.8%). Technology choices were arranged for comparison in two ways, first by content area (Table 4.49), and then by model of teaching (Table 4.50). Little variation was found between the five most common technology choices when listed 171 in both arrangements. Each lesson included a combination of the following technology selections: document camera, Internet, PowerPoint/presentation software, computer, and interactive white board. Little clarifying information was given to support use of the Internet for purposes other than research, and computers were many times cited for creating documents or graphic organizers. Specific uses for the interactive whiteboard were rarely given, leading to the conclusion of its use as a type of projection tool for content. Participants’ reported high self-perceptions in various areas of Technologic Content Knowledge and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge were not reflected in the self-selected technology choices indicated by the basic use of the five most common technology selections. The following chapter will summarize the key findings of the research study and provide a further discussion of the findings related to research in the field of gifted education along with technology in education. Furthermore, the chapter will present implications related to the findings of the study and suggest recommendations for further research related to the use of technology in curriculum and instruction of gifted and talented learners. 172 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Education is experiencing an ongoing paradigm shift, in part characterized by entry into the 21 st century and the role of technology in teaching and learning. Specific skill sets and dispositions, formally promoted as 21 st century skills, have found their way into the educational mainstream and are deemed as the skills, knowledge, expertise, and literacies needed for students to succeed in a growing global society (P21, 2009). Another facet of educational change is the promotion of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education. The President’s Council of Advisors in Science and Technology (2010) state that educational reform needs to include goals that ensure schools are developing a STEM-capable citizenry, a STEM-proficient workforce, cultivate STEM experts, and close both the participation and achievement gap with a close watch on women and minorities that are underrepresented in STEM fields. Finally, as a part of the evolving standards movement, the National Educational Technology Standards published by the ISTE for students and teachers have been updated to include administrators, coaches, and computer science teachers. ISTE explains that these standards do not only promote the ability to use technology, like advocates of 21 st century skills and STEM education, but must also be inclusive of the skills that will enable students to utilize higher-order thinking, communicate with others, conduct research, solve problems, and become productive digital citizens who can make meaningful contributions to society (Neierhauser & Lindstrom, 2007; ISTE, 2007). 173 The role of technology in teaching and learning will continue to expand as the goals of education maintain their movement towards preparing students through content area standards-based instruction; are inclusive of skills advocated by The Partnership for 21 st Century Skills (critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity); and finally geared towards innovation championed through the intersection of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Two critical challenges arise within the integration of technology in schools impacting teachers of gifted and talented learners in different ways. First, the ability to adapt teaching methods and tools to match the experiences and abilities of today’s students will be necessary as we seek to continually engage new generations of learners (The New Media Consortium, 2009). This requires teacher of gifted learners to understand the technologies used by students and to be able to integrate them within curriculum to provide experiences that are appropriately challenging and that enhance curriculum past what may be provided in general education (Shaunnessy, 2007). Second, the expansion of technology in society requires students to be conversant in visual, informational, and technological literacies which enable them to be adept in the use of media and content related to technology as well as use various types of technologies to collaborate with peers (The New Media Consortium, 2009). Teachers of gifted learners must have a working knowledge of these literacies and how they can be developed commensurate to the general characteristics of gifted learners throughout learning experiences (Nugent, 2001). Furthermore, teachers of gifted learners should be cognizant of technology’s power to influence fluid changes in conceptions of giftedness (developing area of technological giftedness) and the 174 continual evolutionary change in various literacies that affect daily decision-making toward their curricular and instructional decisions and goals for their gifted learners (Sigele, 2004). The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, research from the study sought to understand teacher perspectives regarding their self-perceptions of technology, content, and pedagogical knowledge. Secondly, the study explored the types of technology choices teachers would choose to integrate within differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted students, and their rationale for such decisions. Moreover, the differences between choices made in content areas and models of teaching (student-centered versus teacher-directed) were examined. Lastly, the study sought to understand the relationship between teacher self- perceptions of technology knowledge and their technology choices and rationale in differentiated curriculum and instruction. The following research questions guided the current study: 1. What are teachers’ self-perceptions regarding their knowledge of general content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge? 2. What instructional technology choices do teachers select to include within differentiated curriculum and instructional lessons, and what it the rationale for these lessons? 3. How do teacher’s perceptions of technology knowledge relate to their instructional technology choices within a differentiated curriculum and instructional lesson set? 175 Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were used to conduct the study. A sample of thirty-five teachers participated in the research study from schools throughout the Southern California area. Participants were identified to be teachers with classes of gifted and talented learners for the 2011-2012 school year, and were recruited from professional development conferences sponsored by the California Association for the Gifted and the Los Angeles Unified School District in conjunction with the University of Southern California. Two instruments were used to collect data for the research study: a four-point Likert scale measuring teacher self-perceptions of knowledge in various combinations of technology, content, and pedagogy; and an open-ended differentiated lesson set that incorporated various models of teaching (direct instruction, advanced organizer, group investigation) in different content areas (literacy, mathematics, science, and social studies) which asked teachers to provide self-selected technology integration and provide their rationale for such choices from an accompanying list of pre-selected rationale choices based on current National Educational Technology Standards and performance indicators for teachers (ISTE, 2008). Quantitative data was analyzed by running frequency of choice, Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient, and a comparison of means for each knowledge domain. Qualitative data were analyzed by determining frequency percentages for each technology choice and rationale, along with a comparison of these choices across models of teaching (direct instruction, advanced organizer, and group investigation) and content areas (literacy, mathematics, social studies, and science). 176 The following sections of this chapter will summarize the findings related to each research question and discuss their relationship to teaching with technology and the teaching of gifted learners. General implications for the use of teaching with technology will be presented, as well as implications for teacher education, professional development, and the field of gifted education. Recommendations for future research will conclude the chapter. Research Question 1 What are teachers’ self-perceptions regarding their knowledge of general content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge? Findings Several knowledge domains were explored in the first survey given to teachers based on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework developed through the work of Koehler and Mishra (2006). Figure 5.1 illustrates the TPACK framework and Table 5.1 lists all Knowledge Domains, their mean scores, and standard deviations. Overall, teachers reported moderate to mid-level self-perceptions of knowledge in domains related to content and pedagogy (CK, PK, and PCK), indicated by the mean values and standard deviation of each knowledge domain according to a four-point Likert scale. When technology was added to each domain teachers reported lower self-perceptions of knowledge, also indicated by mean value and standard deviation of each knowledge domain. (Appendix E). 177 Figure 5.1. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (graphic from http://tpack.org/) Table 5.1 Knowledge Domain Means and Standard Deviations Knowledge Domain M SD Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) 3.3919 .43647 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) 3.3712 .40079 Content Knowledge (CK) 3.1931 .41761 Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) 2.9924 .49405 Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) 2.9596 .58717 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) 2.8333 .69784 Technology Knowledge (TK) 2.8187 .70400 178 Participating teachers reported their highest self-perceptions in pedagogy knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and content knowledge. Specific indicators that expressed the strength of teacher’s self perceptions in the Pedagogical Knowledge domain included: the ability to assess student performance in the classroom, the ability to adapt teaching to different learners, and the ability to assess learning in multiple ways. The sole indicator statement in the Pedagogical Content Knowledge domain asked teachers to access the degree to which they select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in multiple content areas. Teachers felt most comfortable with literacy and science content areas, followed by social studies, and lastly mathematics. Teachers reported lower self-perceptions in knowledge domains related to technology. Technological Content Knowledge and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge showed relatively close mean values (M=2.9924 and M=2.9596, respectively), while Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Technological Knowledge ranked the lowest according to mean values (M=2.8333 and M=2.8187, respectively). Teachers expressed the most discomfort with their knowledge about technologies to be used for understanding and performing mathematics (TCK); and their ability to provide a leadership role to support other teachers’ use of technology, teaching approaches, and content (TPK). Although teachers expressed their highest self-perceptions of knowledge in the content area of literacy (related to PK, CK, and PCK), the addition of technology to this content area decreased teachers’ self perceptions in their ability to teach lessons that appropriately combine literacy with technology and teaching approaches. This same occurrence 179 also applies to mathematics, science, and social studies, however, to a lesser degree. Lastly, the ability to solve technical problems, know about many different technologies, and keep up with new and important technologies were the specific indicators of teacher’s low self-perceptions of Technology Knowledge (TK). Discussion Many factors contribute to teacher’s attitudes, beliefs, and self-perceptions regarding technology and its use in the classroom. These attitudes and dispositions can be a successful predictor of teachers’ technology integration (Vannata & Fordham, 2004). As a result of the current study, teachers responded with highest self-perceptions in knowledge domains related to pedagogy and content supporting the longstanding work of educational scholars who underscore the substantial connection between knowledge of pedagogy and content within teaching. Shulman (1987) accentuates the unique status of pedagogical content knowledge for the teaching profession denoting that it is inclusive of the way topics, issues, and problems of a discipline or content area are organized, adapted to the needs and interests of learners, and then presented as part of instruction. Teachers may have expressed higher self-perceptions in knowledge domains related to pedagogy and content due to the influence and importance of pedagogical content knowledge within teacher education programs and teacher training. Courses within traditional teacher education programs are generally comprised of the theories, subject areas, and pedagogical methodologies that are essential to the teaching profession. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) refer to content and pedagogical knowledge as knowledge-for-practice, the formal knowledge base of teaching that teachers receive 180 through both preservice and professional development activities. These knowledge domains are enacted on a daily basis, giving teachers ample opportunities to interact within each domain related to teaching and learning, but may not always be inclusive of technology. Greenbow, Dexter, & Hughes (2008) express that teacher use of pedagogical content knowledge can aid in identifying different types of technologies for student learning in various subject areas, however, suggest that more research is needed to explore the connection between teacher knowledge and technology integration across teacher subgroups. The addition of technology to the content (CK), pedagogy (PK), and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) domains resulted in lower reported self-perceptions, indicating that teachers had less comfort with the integration of technology in teaching practices. When combining technology and pedagogy, teachers expressed highest level of disagreement towards the ability of their teacher education program to encourage their thoughts regarding the influence of technology on teaching approaches in the classroom (TPK). Teachers additionally expressed a higher amount of disagreement with their ability to provide leadership in helping others with the use of content, technologies, and teaching approaches, supporting the need for ongoing professional development in technology integration, as evidenced by their responses to the TPK indicator statement regarding comfort with taking technology leadership roles at school sites. Teacher technology leaders may be an effective way to counter balance ineffective professional development that can focus more on using unfamiliar hardware/software instead of strategies for integration and student/teacher needs (Shrum & Levin, 2009), however, developing such leaders may be challenging. According to 181 Brinkerhoff (2006), changes in teachers’ technology integration practices may be a slow moving process taking years to move novice technology users towards being more effective integrators that are adept at supporting student learning experiences. When describing their recommendations for effective professional development related to technology integration, Hew and Brush (2006) provide three areas of primary focus: (1) giving teachers technology-supported pedagogy skills and knowledge; (2) providing teachers with opportunities for active learning; and (3) being situated towards teacher’s needs, specifically geared for “just-in-time” professional development related to emerging technologies and their possible classroom applications. Teachers may need to explore independent professional development opportunities to better equip themselves to engage gifted learners in the use of technology in more advanced and meaningful ways to be able to satiate the curiosity and skill levels of technologically adept students (Besnoy, 2007). Teachers reported the lowest self-perceptions in the Technology Knowledge (TK) domain. A closer look at teacher responses in this knowledge domain reveal that a majority of teachers felt as though they possessed the necessary skills needed to utilize technology and that they were able to learn technology easily, however, they lacked knowledge about many different technologies and the ability to keep up with important new technologies. These findings suggest that teachers may lack the willingness and commitment to explore new technologies beyond the scope of the typical work week, which, according to Vannatta and Fordham (2004), is an essential attitude related to developing technology-using educators. In a study comparing teacher and student views of technology, Li (2007) found that teachers had an overall 182 negative view regarding the use of technology in teaching, revealing perceptions of technology integration as an extra work-load and fearful that they would be replaced by technology. Additionally, teacher’s beliefs and attitudes about technology in their own personal schooling experiences may also reflect respondents’ abated efforts towards understanding and investigating new technologies. Ertmer (2005) suggests that because current teachers have not experienced today’s types of technology integration in their own schooling experience, they have many preconceived ideas about how technology should be used for student learning, becoming the filter through which their attitudes and belief systems about technology are created. If teachers fail to take the time to branch out to discover and “play” with new technologies, Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck’s (2001) paradox of high access and low technology use in classrooms will perpetuate to the detriment of student’s classroom learning experiences. Increasing self-perceptions in technology requires a shift in the attitudes and beliefs of teachers regarding technology. Hughs (2005) states that the power to develop innovative technology-supported pedagogy lies in the teacher’s interpretation of the technology’s value for instruction and learning in the classroom. This relies on the positive attitudes and high self-perceptions of teachers towards technologies that may be utilized in the classroom, specifically technologies currently used in students’ daily lives. Although improving teacher attitudes and belief towards technology cannot eradicate first-order institutional barriers to technology integration that include lack of resources, they can begin to address and retract second order barriers to integration which stem from the educator themselves 183 (Hew & Brush, 2007). For teachers of gifted learners, the challenge lies in the keeping up to date with the rapid technological changes that may take hold of gifted learners that entice their motivation, interests, and expressiveness (Maker & Neilson, 1995, Christensen, 2008). Research Question 2 What instructional technology choices do teachers select to include within differentiated curriculum and instructional lessons, and what is the rationale for these lessons? Findings Participating teachers provided a total of thirty-eight technology choices in the various lessons presented in the differentiated lesson set. Although teachers selected numerous technology choices throughout the lessons, a closer examination of the overall data set reveals teachers’ preference of five particular technology choices: document camera, interactive whiteboard, PowerPoint/Presentation software, computer, and Internet, as shown in Figure 5.2. As a set, these five particular technologies were also the preferred technology choices in three out of four lessons in the differentiated lesson set: science (Group Investigation), mathematics (Advanced Organizer), and social studies (Advanced Organizer). The only variance found with this set of technologies resided in the literacy lesson as word processing replaced Internet as the fifth most common technology selection. Although there are numerous uses of the Internet, most clarifying information given by teachers indicated that they would use the Internet to facilitate research. Other technologies requiring Internet use were listed as separate 184 technology choices by teachers, including: online surveys or Google Docs, website development, blogs, social networking, use of a Wiki, email, online curriculum, and image searches. The combination of these alternate Internet-based choices comprised less than 7% of total selections throughout the differentiated lesson set, while the stand alone selection of the Internet accounted for 9.4% of overall technology choices. 71 82 82 117 122 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Internet Computer Powerpoint5/ Presenta9on Interac9ve Whiteboard Document5Camera Technology*Choice Choice*Frequency*(#) 0% 5% 10% 15% Choice*Percentage*(%) Figure 5.2. Most frequent overall technology selections in the differentiated lesson set Along with providing technology choices in the differentiated lesson set, teachers were also asked to select rationale choices to justify and support their choices. A preset list of seven rationale choices was given to teachers based on ISTE’s National Educational Standards for Technology for students (NETS-S) and 185 Performance Indicators for Teachers including: (1) promoting creative expression, (2) application to real world issues and the promotion of problem solving, (3) clarification of student understanding of subject matter, (4) promotion of collaboration among peers, (5) provide student individualization, (6) student opportunities to develop opportunities for interest-based learning and self- improvement, and (7) use as formative or summative evaluation (ISTE, 2007). Overall, the most frequent rationale selected by teachers was clarification of student understanding, accounting for 32% of technology rationale choices. Further examination of the data reveal that the remaining six rationale choices were each selected within a 9% - 14% frequency range in the overall differentiated lesson set. When disaggregated by individual lesson, clarification of student understanding remained the most frequent rationale selection for technology choices, while creative expression consistently remained one of the least frequent selections. Discussion Putnam and Borko (2000) suggest that the way teachers view technology as a tool can be bifurcated between two points of view: (1) a performance tool that may enhance and transform the work of teachers, and (2) a pedagogical tool to support learning. Both points of view (performance tool and pedagogical tool) are well represented by the variety of widespread technology choices provided by teachers in the research study. A closer inspection of these findings indicate that the five most frequent technology choices lean more towards teacher use as performance tools, defined as enhancing or changing how a task is accomplished, and less as 186 pedagogical tools, having the ability to change a learner’s understanding (Putnam & Borko, 2000). Document camera (16.2%) was chosen as the most frequent type of technology teachers would use to integrate in each of the four lessons. This type of hardware can be a useful tool allowing teachers to project images and text for students to view, replacing the need to make transparencies for overhead projectors, and allow visual access to a greater number of classroom resources. Document cameras may also be instrumental in allowing students to share their original work in a whole group setting both visually and orally. A limited number of teachers described using a document camera to share student work or findings, while a greater number of teachers stated they would use this technology to display the images and charts provided as a part of each lesson plan. As the predominant technology choice provided in the differentiated lesson set, this indicates a very basic use of technology that can initially be thought of as a performance tool serving to enhance the lesson, but lacking the sophistication needed to transform teaching and learning. Document cameras may also be categorized as a tool used for “delivery” (Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Conner, 2003), which, according to Renzulli (2009), is no different pedagogically from earlier forms of technology such as using a standard whiteboard, poster paper, or chalkboard. Furthermore, this type of technology supports knowledge-acquisition pedagogy as opposed to the engagement-oriented pedagogy that is most beneficial to meet the needs of gifted and talented learners (Renzulli, 2009). 187 Interactive whiteboards (15.6%) were the second most frequent technology choice provided by teachers. This technology functions similar to a document camera, but can also be more active and engaging for students and accommodating different learning styles by allowing students to interact with video, audio, and text that may be used or projected on the whiteboard screen (Shrum & Levin, 2009). Beauchamp (2004) provides a five-part continuum to describe how teachers use interactive whiteboards in the classroom, which can be helpful in examining teacher responses regarding use of this technology. The continuum begins by describing the interactive whiteboard as a black/whiteboard substitute. Next, an apprentice user is characterized by limited student use, the introduction of PowerPoint, and limited use of external software/internet functions. The initiate user is one who begins to allow students to select tools to use, employs varied software use, and uses the technology in a growing range of subject areas. Advanced users promote frequent and spontaneous student use, are able to use work saved from previous lessons, and incorporate hyperlinks and hypertext within and between programs. Finally, synergistic users are distinguished by high levels of competency in operations, skills, and use of program software (students and teachers), and use the technology as a fluid part of classroom management and pedagogy. Most teachers did not offer any clarifying information when providing interactive whiteboards as a technology selection making it difficult to ascertain their intent in using this technology. This leads to the supposition that the interactive whiteboard would be used in the same capacity as a document camera, as more sophisticated uses of the interactive whiteboard would have yielded their own specific technology choices including 188 unique software and program applications (i.e. Notebook 10 software). Using interactive whiteboards as a blackboard/whiteboard substitute limits student interactions with the technology. A small number of teachers did indicate that the interactive whiteboard would be intended for student use in order to share their work, or manipulate text. According to the continuum developed by Beachamp (2004), both of these of usage types would be considered as a black/whiteboard substitute, leading to the conclusion that most teachers are in the beginning stages of technology use with an interactive whiteboard. PowerPoint/presentation software (10.9%) was the third most frequent technology choice selected by teachers that participated in the research study. Grabe and Grabe (2007) state presentation tools may help users perform three tasks: (1) organize ideas to be included in the presentation; (2) generate visual materials to be included in the presentation; and (3) deliver of the presentation. In order to transition technology integration from knowledge-acquisition pedagogy to the engagement- oriented pedagogy promoted by Renzulli (2009) while incorporating these three tasks, presentation software should reside in the hands of students. Out of 82 total selections, teachers specifically delineated the use of PowerPoint/presentation software by students eight times. This displays a very pronounced teacher-directed use of the technology, primarily as a method of curriculum delivery. Although this illustrates technology as a performance tool and may enhance the delivery of information, it does not necessarily function in a way that would transform the nature of teaching and learning in the classroom (Putnam & Borko, 2000). 189 The fourth most frequent technology selected by teachers was computer (10.9%). Computers have often been the main source of data collection regarding technology in education, primarily focusing on access and use in the classroom. Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001) assert that knowledge of how computers are used is just as important as knowing how often they are turned on. Many teachers that participated in the research study were ambiguous with this choice and did not clarify how they intended to use the computer as an integration tool within each lesson. Although this restricts a comprehensive understanding of how computers would be used and integrated in the differentiated lesson set, some conclusions may be drawn as a result of how teachers paired computer use with other technology selections, and where these choices were situated within the syntax of each lesson. In their study related to technology integration and national technology standards, Barron, Kemker, Harmes, and Kalaydijian (2003) presented four teaching modes to describe teacher computer use: as a research tool, a problem solving/decision making tool, a productivity tool, and as a communication tool. These teaching modes can be applied to how teachers chose to pair computer use with other technology choices. In the current research study, teacher computer use would be described as a research tool when paired with the Internet and image search. This pairing generally occurred when students needed to access information, particularly in the research phase of Group Investigation (science), during the integrated reconciliation phase of the Advanced Organizers (math and social studies) and for teachers in the motivation phase of the Direct Instruction lesson (language arts). Computers would be considered as a communication tool when paired with 190 social networking and email, although these pairings were very limited. The most common description of computer use would be as a productivity tool, particularly when paired with PowerPoint/presentation software, projector, word processing, Excel, and Google Docs. This label also applies to computer use in the initial stages of lessons when students are presented with the motivational and introductory phases of each lesson, including use of teacher-created materials. Student use of the aforementioned productivity tools would occur near the end of each lesson as a means for students to record or share their learning and findings. The last teaching mode to describe computer use, problem solving and decision making tools, include student use of computers paired with Excel, online surveys, and Google Docs to collect research data. These pairings occurred primarily in the integrated reconciliation phase of the Advanced Organizer lesson in mathematics. Of the 82 times teachers selected computer use as a technology choice, 32 of those selections had neither pairings nor placement within the structure of the lessons that gave any indication or clarification of how they would be used. Because computer use was often linked with other forms of technology and functioned on multiple learning modes, it can be concluded that teachers are able to use this hardware in a variety of ways for numerous purposes. The final predominant technology choice selected by teachers in the research study was use of the Internet (9.6%). Leu, Leu, and Corio (2004) state that the Internet provides information that enables us to improve the quality of our professional, personal, and civic lives, however, it also requires the skills that allow users to research, read, communicate, and think critically about what the Internet has 191 to offer. Internet selections were most frequently paired with computers to view websites for teacher use as curricular resources (32 out of 71 selections). Because these pairings are primarily teacher-directed, students are not afforded opportunities to develop their own skills and literacies related to Internet use. The literacies and skills presented by Leu, Leu, and Corio (2004) are a significant part of ISTE’s National Education Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) and are embedded in the research and information fluency strand (using digital tools to gather, evaluate, and use information), and the critical thinking, decision making, and problem solving strand (skills for planning and conducting research, managing projects, problem- solving, and making informed decisions on use of appropriate digital tools and resources) (ISTE, 2007). These skills and literacies are significant for gifted learners in two ways. First, they are a key component of California GATE standards, intended to guide teachers towards a better understanding of differentiation in gifted programming. Second, they enhance opportunities for gifted learners to be active participants in their own learning, research independently, explore topics at greater depth and breadth, and practice using tools applicable to environments outside the classroom (Nugent, 2001). Teaching with the Internet may provide a multitude of resources for consumption by teachers and students, yet the vast openness of information may lead to higher instances of teacher-directed usage, indicated by many teacher responses in the differentiated lesson set, and endangers this technology tool to be relegated as an extension to the textbook (Wallace, 2009). Teachers self-perceptions of technology knowledge expressed that they were comfortable with their skill levels in learning about technology, however, the five 192 most frequently selected technologies comprising 63% of the overall technology were basic hardware and software options showing that comfort and confidence in personal use of technology may not directly translate into higher, more sophisticated levels of use in classrooms (Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003). Furthermore, teachers may not be using more sophisticated forms of technology as a result of the “slow revolution” explanation, suggested by Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001), in which changes over time between the development of new forms of technology, their adoption by the general public, and integration into teaching and learning occur in a slow motion transformation due to the lag time between each step. The overall technology set represented by the data clearly limits students’ role and interactions with technology. When planning for the use of technology, Stettler (1998) presents four student learning modes (acquirer of information, retriever of information, constructor of information, and presenter of information) and advocates that gifted learners be given more opportunities to construct and retrieve information, while regular students should focus on acquisition and retrieval. This promotes learning environments for gifted students that emphasize interdependence, are learner centered, employ flexible structures, and reflect an open attitude toward new ideas, innovation, and exploration (Maker & Nielson, 1982 as cited in Nugent, 2001). Teachers may be unable to integrate technology to support student-centered practices because they have not personally interacted with models of technology to facilitate this type of learning, and their beliefs may be context bound and tied to factors such as class-size and student ability (Palik & Walls, 2009). 193 Unlike basic technology operations and skills first promoted in A Nation At Risk, National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) are multifaceted, and require that attention be paid to all elements of technology skills and literacies to develop technologically capable students. When examining the technology rationale choices given by teachers in the research study based on NETS- S, clarification of understanding was the most frequent choice selected in the overall differentiated lesson set, as well as in each individual lesson. The prevailing selection of this rationale choice shows the limited scope of teachers’ technology integration for more active student-centered purposes. Rationale choices that supported active-engagement pedagogy were the least frequent selections: using technology to problem solve, using technology for creative expression, using technology to promote individualization, and finally using technology for collaboration. Technology rationale choices should also reflect how technology is used in the various models of teaching presented in the differentiated lesson set, the theoretical backgrounds of each model, and the instructional syntax of such models. Aside from teachers’ established preference in using technology to clarify student understanding, other rationale choices could have had a more pronounced presence in the data to support technology use in each model of teaching. Clarification of understanding comprised 40.9% of rationale selections in the literacy lesson (Direct Instruction). A case could be made for using technology to provide students with opportunities for individualization (11% of total rationale selections) as students take on a larger role of independence while working their way through the model of 194 teaching lesson from structured practice towards independent practice. Interested- based learning (11% of total rationale choices) is another selection that could have a more substantial role in the direct instruction model of teaching when related to technology and the use of reading materials to meet students’ levels and interests. Next, the science lesson was presented in the Group Investigation model of teaching, promoting collaboration among students as they work cooperatively towards researching and finding the answers to self-posed questions. While the research focus of this lesson may necessitate clarification of understanding (31.6% of total rationale choices), the nature of this model of teaching makes a strong case for promoting collaboration (16.6% of total rationale choices). Lastly, both the mathematics and social studies lessons were given in the Advanced Organizer model of teaching. Clarification of understanding was the most frequent technology rationale choice for both lessons (29% each). This particular model of teaching provides students with opportunities to practice the advanced organizer with content that is familiar to them, and then apply the advanced organizer to new areas of study. Use of technology for real world issues and problem solving (14.2% of total rationale choices in math; 10.4% of total rationale choices in social studies) could facilitate student technology use in the application of the advanced organizer to researching new areas of study, as well as towards the integrated reconciliation phase when students anchor their learning by looking for additional examples or alternative perspectives to compliment the advanced organizer (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2008). The pervasiveness of a single technology rationale between the entire differentiated lesson set may indicate that teachers who participated in the research 195 study were not familiar with the pedagogical differences between the three models of teaching, which are essential in the differentiation of instruction for gifted learners. This knowledge is especially pertinent to technology integration as Pierson (2001) posits technology knowledge in education should include both basic technology competencies and an understanding of different types of technology and their unique characteristics that lend themselves to various levels of teaching and learning processes. Research Question 3 How do teacher’s perceptions of technology knowledge relate to their instructional technology choices within a differentiated curriculum and instructional lesson set? Findings To facilitate the analysis of technology choices for this research question, teacher selections were categorized by content area (Literacy, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) and Models of Teaching (Direct Instruction, Advanced Organizer, and Group Investigation). Table 5.2 lists the most frequent technology choices made by teachers delineated by Model of Teaching, while Table 5.3 presents the most frequent technology choices by content area. 196 Table 5.2 Frequency of Technology Choices Distinguished by Model of Teaching Model of Teaching Most Frequent Technology Choices Direct Instruction Document Camera (21.1%) Interactive Whiteboard (19.5%) PowerPoint/presentation software (15.7%) Computer (13.0%) Word Processing (5.9%) Advanced Organizer Interactive Whiteboard (15.4%) Document Camera (13.0%) Computer (10.1%) Internet (10.1%) PowerPoint/presentation software (8.7%) Group Investigation Document camera (19.1%) Internet (15.1%) PowerPoint/presentation software (11.2%) Interactive whiteboard (11.2%) Computer (10.5%) The separation of technology choices by content area and Models of Teaching (student-centered and teacher-directed) yielded little variation among teacher selections. Interactive whiteboard, document camera, Internet, computer, and PowerPoint/presentation software were the most frequent technology selections across content areas and models of teaching. The only exception to this set of technology choices was the inclusion of word processing in the Literacy/Direct Instruction Model of Teaching. 197 Table 5.3 Frequency of Technology Choices Distinguished by Content Area Content Area Most Frequent Technology Choices Literacy Document Camera (21.1%) Interactive Whiteboard (19.5%) PowerPoint/presentation software (15.7%) Computer (13.0%) Word Processing (5.9%) Mathematics Interactive whiteboard (16.7%) Document camera (12.7%) PowerPoint/presentation software (10.1%) Internet (9.6%) Computer (8.3%) Science Document camera (19.1%) Internet (15.1%) PowerPoint/presentation software (11.2%) Interactive whiteboard (11.2%) Computer (10.5%) Social Studies Interactive whiteboard (13.9%) Document camera (13.4%) Computer (12.3%) Internet (10.7%) PowerPoint/presentation software (7.0%) 198 Discussion Teachers expressed high self-perceptions regarding their ability to think critically about how they use technology in the classroom (TPK), however, little variation was observed between the most frequent technology selections throughout the three models of teaching (Direct Instruction, Advanced Organizer, and Group Investigation). Teachers also expressed high self-perceptions towards their ability to select technologies that enhance teaching and learning (TPK), yet many of these selections would be considered “technology as replacement”, defined by Hew and Brush (2007) as the technological means used to accomplish the same instructional goal as more traditional technologies such as posters and whiteboards. Although teacher may have good intentions when making their technology selections, Palik and Walls (2009) explain that positive attitudes toward technology do not necessarily have the same influence on students’ technology use and instructional strategies that support student-centered learning environments such as cooperative and project- based learning. Another reason for the discrepancy between teachers’ self- perceptions and technology choices may be that certain attitudes or beliefs can cause teachers who are adept in teaching student-centered lessons to pull back and teach lessons that may be atypically linear due to their uncertainty with technology integration or unfamiliarity with how technology can new technologies can unfold in learning experiences (Judson, 2010). The mismatch between self-perception in TPK and the selection of basic hardware and software choices selected highlight the dispairity between teacher’ thoughts and actions relating to the critical thought and selection of technology for curriculum and instruction of gifted learners. 199 Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) calls for teachers to understand that the use of technology can create new representations in specific content areas and that use of these technologies have the power to change how learners both practice and understand concepts in specific content areas (Schmidt, et al., 2009). This domain reported the highest self-perception of knowledge and implies that a variety of technologies would be selected for use in the differentiated lesson set commensurate to their purpose and function in each specific content area. A comparison of technology selections across content areas (literacy, mathematics, science, and social studies), illustrated redundancy among the five most frequent technology selections in each content area. Different combinations of document camera, computer, Internet, PowerPoint/presentation software, and Interactive Whiteboard were found to be the most frequent choices in each lesson, with the exception of word processing as a replacement for Internet in the literacy lesson. Although a majority of teachers expressed that they agreed or strongly agreed with their knowledge about technologies to be used for understanding and performing tasks in literacy, mathematics, science, and social studies (TCK), the commonality of their selections across content areas suggests that their perceptions of knowledge regarding content and technology may not transfer to their teaching practices. Certain technologies fit naturally in content areas such as math and science (Shaunnesy, 2005), however, research shows that innovative technologies can be used in all content areas such as the use of web quests and virtual field trips in social studies (Shrum & Levin, 2009) and the use of online tools for organization and peer 200 collaboration in writing (Oliver, 2010), none of which were selected by participants in the research study. When examining data for differences between content areas and models of teaching (student-centered and teacher directed) through frequency of choice, one clear trend emerged as a result of the study. Five main technology selections prevailed across all four content areas and all three models of teaching, revealing that participating teachers of gifted and talented learners have a limited repertoire of technology integrations skills, or limited access to technology that would impede these integration skills. Moreover, teachers felt more or less confident in their abilities to choose technologies for teaching various content areas that may enhance lessons (TPK), but in contrast reported that they do not take the time understand or keep up with new technologies (TK). This supports Palik and Walls (2009) assertion that even in schools with abundant technology resources, teacher technology use may not transform from contexts that are teacher-directed to student-centered due to their continued use of technology in ways supported by their existing teaching approaches. Teachers’ inability to actively seek to understand new technologies can stymie fruitful technology integration for gifted learners and deny them meaningful opportunities to develop the skills and literacies needed for success in our rapidly advancing society. Implications The findings of this research study present several implications that impact teachers of gifted learners, the ways that in-service and professional development programs address and support technology integration for gifted learners, and the field 201 of gifted education as a whole. It should be noted, however, that several limitations impact the ability to generalize the results of the research study. Teachers self- reported technology choices, which may have been limited to what was available to them in the classroom, or what they knew and were comfortable with using personally. Technology choices may also be limited by the barriers teachers may have when integrating technology into learning experiences such as knowledge and skills, attitudes and beliefs, and subject culture (Hew & Brush, 2007). Additionally, many teachers did not provide clarification as to how they would use certain “general” technologies such as computer, Internet, and interactive whiteboard. This restricted a detailed analysis and understanding of how teachers intended to use technologies within various phases of each lesson. When examining why teachers choose certain technology integration choices over others, selections of technology are primarily demanded on the technologies that teachers are most comfortable with and know how to use and operate as opposed to being based upon learning theory and instructional strategies. Teachers may often times be lured by the uniqueness of new technologies, ignoring the best ways that they can capitalize on various learning theories to truly enhance teaching and learning. Besnoy (2007) states that two obstacles can prevent teachers of gifted learners from integrating technology in the curriculum: access to resources and continual professional development. Additionally, he also advocates that teachers create their own Personal Technology Improvement Plan to enable them to implement technology within the classroom, individualize their own technology development, and facilitate their ability to meet the differentiation goals that are held 202 for gifted learners (Besnoy, 2007). Matching learning theory to technology use in a plan such as the one presented by Besnoy is essential to create meaningful learning experiences for gifted students. Through a discussion of learning theory and its relationship to technology and learners, Grabe and Grabe (2007) posit that learning theories associated with active learners and the ways they learn are most relevant to technology integration. Active learners should establish personal goals, monitor their progress, and relate their learning to previous knowledge and their personal lives (Grabe & Grabe, 2007). Allowing technology to function in this manner necessitates teachers’ ability to base their technology choices on learning theories to provide meaningful and authentic learning, as the use of technology in education should be theory-driven to realize its potential (Reigeluth, 2010). While one of the main societal goals of technology is to make tasks easier, teachers should be aware of the differences between using technology as an aide or support within a lesson rather than using it to replace the lesson altogether. Technology should not become the sole focus of a truly integrated lesson for gifted learners, as Hughes (2005) posits that technology as a replacement does not alter or change instructional practices, student learning processes, or content goals in any way. When approaching technology integration, teachers should also be aware of the fact that students may be as, if not more adept, in their technology usage and skill than the teacher which may be regarded in a positive manner, however, teachers need to be aware of the degree to which students are able to use various technologies to enable students to reach their technological potential. In describing the key forces that are driving the technology revolution in education, Bailey, Henry, McBride, and 203 Puckett (2011) express the increase in high-quality content that is readily accessible online, combined with the advances in infrastructure, cloud computing, and increase in mobile devices that make it easier for students to access digital content anytime, anywhere. Students may have the skills to proficiently access information, but teachers need to be aware of their abilities to use technology within the curriculum to compliment their critical and creative thinking and problem-solving skills in order to take advantage of any technological talent students may have. Using technology for the acquisition of knowledge and research is not enough. Gardner (2008) states that a mind rooted in a discipline will no longer be sufficient in the world we live in. Knowledge also lies across and between disciplines and students must “learn how to synthesize knowledge and how to extend it in new and unfamiliar ways (p. 44).” In order to support a meaningful use of technology in curriculum and instruction for gifted learners, especially for those who manifest technological talents and interests, teachers must be cognizant of the technological abilities and talents of these students to use as the overarching guide, rather than depend purely on their own expertise and/or available hardware/software (O’Brian, et al., 2005). Just as teachers’ classroom practices can be impacted by advancements in technology, in-service teacher education and training can also be affected by technological change. Professional development and inservice programs should begin to develop goals and outcomes to help teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about technology use in classrooms evolve in a way that allows them to distinguish between technology as a tool integrated into everyday life and technology as a tool to facilitate learning. Professional development programs can help in-service teachers’ 204 ability to meaningfully integrate technology into the curriculum and instruction of gifted learners. Gusky (2000) describes various models of professional development, three of which should be used jointly to achieve more effective results in improving teacher technology use: training, individually guided activities, and mentoring. Teachers need to be trained to possess the requisite skills to use technology, but need additional time and support to facilitate integration into the learning environment. Mouza (2003) supports this blending of professional development models for use with technology by stating that effective professional development programs on the use of technology need to provide teachers with a variety of activities such as modeling, discussion, brainstorming of ideas, hands-on actions, and just-in time support. A barrier that may prohibit this three-pronged approach to professional development for technology integration stems from the issue of acquisition versus allocation: using a finite set of funds to purchase equipment as opposed to setting aside funds for professional development (Mouza, 2003). Reaching a balance between the need to fund equipment and professional development is a significant task for districts and schools, as Christensen (2002) posits that funding on-going technology integration education for teachers is a crucial component for having technology make a difference in education. The field of gifted education itself has begun to feel the ripple effects of technological advancements, eliciting the need for existing National Educational Technology Standards (ISTE, 2007; 2008) to be juxtaposed to both gifted and newly implemented Common Core Standards. The fledgling idea of identifying technology as an area of talent, or giftedness has been a recent side conversation within gifted 205 scholars (Siegle, 2004, 2007; O’Brian et al., 2005). As long as technology standards exist as a separate entity, they will not be promoted or explored in relation to standards for gifted curriculum and instruction in a similar fashion as the Common Core standards. This may result in an uneven playing field between classes of gifted learners based on the technology interests of teachers rather than of gifted students. These students who may also exhibit technological giftedness (O’Brien, et al., 2005; Siegle, 2007) should be looked at in terms of characteristics of gifted learners so that appropriate matches can be made to facilitate the best learning experiences that integrate technology. In an NAGC presidential address titled “Leadership for the Future in Gifted Education”, VanTassel-Baska (2007) concluded by asking, “How do we mobilize existing resources more effectively and efficiently to serve gifted learners appropriately?” Technology fits within the boarders of this questions and has the power to become an integral part of curriculum and instruction of gifted students by building on accelerated learning tasks and materials that are complex in learning demands, challenging yet stimulating, and employ creativity through open-ended and alternative tasks and projects. Serving gifted learners through existing technology resources may guide them in their ability to become independent autonomous learners, who according to Maker and Nielson (1995) should be involved in: open- ended learning experiences prior to independent study, the investigation of real- world problems and possible solutions, and exploring new ideas while investigation creative production. In order to facilitate autonomous learning enabled by technology, educators must recognize that students need to learn how to apply their 206 skills in a technology-rich setting, preparing them for the world they will be graduating in and reflecting the world which they currently live in (Baily, Henry, McBride, & Puckett, 2011). Recommendations Several recommendations can be made based on the findings of the current research study for teachers of the gifted. One of the primary recommendations for teachers is that they familiarize themselves with the National Educational Technology Standards provided by ISTE (2007; 2008) in order to make more informed standards-based connections between technology, teaching, and gifted learners. Teachers of gifted learners should also take the initiative to develop a Personal Technology Improvement Plan to help strengthen their abilities to use technology through the following steps: (1) conduct a needs assessment; (2) write short-term and long-term goals, (3) identify and access resources; (4) implement learned skills, and (5) evaluate progress (Besnoy, 2007). Goal setting should include teachers’ ability to use technology that is theory-based, and guided by both technology and gifted standards to best meet the needs of gifted learners. Professional development, or in-service programs for current teachers of gifted learners should address the characteristics of technological giftedness (programmers, interfacers, and fixers) and their relationship to longstanding characteristics of gifted learners. Another professional development recommendation is for school sites to provide teachers with time to collaborate in grade levels and colleagues, or establish mentoring for technology planning to differentiate curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. This type of in-service should be 207 ongoing throughout the school year to provide ample time for observation, adjustment, and evaluation, and most importantly, focused on student use of technology tools (Besnoy, 2007). The field of gifted education has been hesitant to champion the relationship between the technology standards created by ISTE and their own standards for curriculum and instruction of gifted learners at a national (NAGC) and state (California) level. The first recommendation in the field of gifted education is to begin the incorporation of ISTE technology standards into the current discussion of curriculum and instruction to begin to close the gap between technology and gifted learners. Additionally, further research studies related to teacher technology use at the elementary level for gifted learners should be conducted to add to the field’s body of literature that lack sound qualitative and quantitative research in this area. Research studies that investigate student perceptions of technology use in schools and their technology preferences are also recommended, as they would assist teachers with the integration of interest-based technologies for students in curriculum and instruction. Conclusion Loughran (2007) states that “despite the thoughtful planning that goes into teaching, the very act of teaching churns up the waters of learning can creates situations that, although perhaps able to be anticipated, are not able to be fully addressed until they arise in practice” (p. 30). Much can also be said about integrating technology within differentiated curriculum and instruction of gifted learners. Meaningful technology integration for any type of learner rests upon 208 teacher’s attitudes towards technology, their proficiency with technology, and lastly, the access and availability of technology within the teaching and learning environment. Teachers must also be cognizant of the new understandings related to technology use in schools such as promoting student technology use that transfers to jobs and industries in a more connected, global society, and the innovative and creative power that technology may promote in students who are able to gain access to these new technologies. Teachers of gifted learners are not only challenged to meet the needs of their students through differentiating the curriculum they use and varying the instructional methods that work best to meet students’ interests, needs, and readiness; it is expected that they incorporate technologies that allow gifted learners to explore and develop their technological prowess while developing technological skills sets that can increase and become integrated future areas of work and study. When discussing the future of computers and gifted education in 1983, Arlene Dover stated that the potential effect of technology use in education could yield an entire new system of independent, home education. While the development of online learning certainly applies towards this conception of revamped education, traditional “brick and mortar” schools are still prevalent in our nation’s education system. Dover’s next statement, though 30 years old, is still applicable to technology use in schools today: Since computers provide access to more extensive information sources than traditional textbooks, and microcomputers are capable of making these vast sources available to individuals at home…the potential for intellectual and 209 creative fulfillment in such an open-ended learning environment has far reaching implications for the gifted. (p. 84) Teachers of gifted and technologically talented learners need to transition from their comfort of the use of technology they have learned to the incorporation of technologies that are standards-based, rooted in theory, and structured in student- centered learning experiences. Transferring the use of technology into learning experiences for gifted and talented learners will be instrumental in developing the creative producers and innovators that society will look towards in the future to come. 210 REFERENCES Allen, I.E. & Seaman, C. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. A Quality Progress. 40(7); 64-65. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1977). The definition of educational technology: A summary. Classic writing on instructional technology. Engelwood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education. 74(3). pp. 252-259. Bailey, A., Henry, T., McBride, L., & Puckett, J. (2011). Unleashing the potential of technology in education (pp. 1-28, Rep.). Boston, MA: Boston Consulting Group. Retrieved from http://www.bcg.com/documents/file82603.pdf Balchin, T. (2009). Recognizing and fostering creative production. The Routledge International Companion to Gifted Education, 203-209. Banister, S., & Vannatta, R. (2006). Beginning with a baseline: Insuring productive technology integration in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 209-235. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning. Routledge. Besnoy, K. (2007). Creating a personal technology improvement plan for teachers of the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 30(4), 44-48. 211 Betts, G. (2004). Fostering autonomous learners through levels of differentiation. Roeper Review, 26(4), 190-191. Betts, G. T., & Kercher, J.J. (2009). The autonomous learner model for the gifted and talented. In Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, J. E., McMillin K. S., Eckert, R. D., & Little, C. A. (Eds.), Systems & models for developing programs for the gifted & talented – second edition. (pp.49-103). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc. Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(2), 248-253. Bloom, B. & Krathwohl, D. (1995). The cognitive and affective taxonomies. Teaching models in education of the gifted; second edition. Austin, Texas. PRO-ED, Inc. Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted (p. 185). New York: Teachers College Press. Bowen, Shore, & Cartwright. (1992). Do gifted children use computers differently? A view from the factory. Gifted Education International. 8(3). pp. 151-154. Brinkerhoff, J. D. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 22. Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(3), 105-110. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction (Vol. 59). Belknap Press. 212 Brunner, C. & Tally, W. (1999). The new media literacy handbook: An educator’s guide to bringing new media into the classroom. New York, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday. Burkhardt, G., Monsour, M., Valdez, G., Gunn, C., Dawson, M., Lemke, C., et al. (2003). 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Naperville, IL. California Association for the Gifted. (n.d.). A Glossary: Common terms related to gifted education. http://www.cagifted.org/associations/7912/files/CAGGlossary.pdf California State Board of Education. (2000). Education Code (EC) sections 52200- 52212. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=52001-53000&file=52200-52212 California State Board of Education. (2005). Recommended standards for programs for gifted and talented students. Retrieved from http://www.cagifted.org/associations/7912/files/gate05standards.pdf Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411-434. Christensen, P. (2008). Helping the technophobic teacher teach the gifted technology geek. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2008, No. 1, pp. 4063-4067). Clark, B. (1983). Growing up gifted, developing the potential of children at home and at school (2 nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Bell & Howell Company. 213 Clark, G. A., & Zimmerman, E. (1992). Issues and practices related to identification of gifted and talented students in the visual arts (RBDM 9202). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24,249- 304. Coleman, L. J. (1985). Schooling the gifted. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Collier, S., Weinburgh, M. H., & Rivera, M. (2004). Infusing technology skills into a teacher education program: Change in students’ knowledge about and use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 447-468. Cooper, Carolyn, R. (2009). Myth 18: Is it fair to teach all children the same way. Gifted Child Quarterly 2009, 53, 283. Cox, S., & Graham, R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends. 53(5). pp.60-69. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper perennial. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834. 214 Davies, I.K. (1978). Educational technology: Archetypes, paradigms, and models. Classic writings on instructional technology. Engelwood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Dewey, J., & Dewey, E. (1915). Schools of tomorrow. Dent. Dixon, F. A., Prater, K. A., Vine, H. M., Wark, M. J., Williams, T., Hanchon, T., & Shobe, C. (2004). Teaching to their thinking: A strategy to meet the critical- thinking needs of gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(4), 56-76. Dover, A. (1983). Computers and the gifted: past, present, and future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(2), 81-85. Dwyer, David. (1994, April). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What we've learned. Educational Leadership, 51(7), 4. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 1625039) Ekstein, M. (2009). Enrichment 2.0; Gifted and talented education in the 21 st century. Gifted Child Today. 32(1). Ennis, R.H. (1991). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14 (1), 5-25. Ertmer, P (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development. 53(4), pp. 25-39. Feldhusen, J. & Treffinger, D. (1980). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 215 Finn, J.D. (1960). Technology and the instructional process. The Phi Delta Kappan, 41(9), 371-378. Freidman, T. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60-74). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gagné, R. (1987). Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Gallagher, J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3 rd ed.). Newton, MA: Ally and Bacon, Inc. Gallagher, J. (2000). Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly 2000; 44, 5. Gallagher, S. A., Sher, B. T., Stepien, W. J., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics. 95(3), 136-146. Gardner, D. P. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, D. C.: The National Commission on Excellence in Education, US Department of Education. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2008). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2007). Integrating technology for meaningful learning (5 th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 216 Grandgenett, N. F. (2008). Perhaps a matter of imagination: TPCK in mathematics education. Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators, 145-165. Greenhow, C., Dexter, S., & Hughes, J. E. (2008). Teacher knowledge about technology integration: An examination of inservice and preservice teachers’ instructional decision making. Science Education International, 19(1), 9-25. Greenwald, N. (2000). Learning from problems. The Science Teache, 67(April): 28- 32. Guildford, J.P., (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist. 5. 444-454. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Harris, J., Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 41(4). pp. 393-416. Heinrich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology. Educational Communication and Technology. 32(2), 67-88. Herber, T.P., Cramond, B., Millar, G., & Silvian, A.F. (2002). E. Paul Torrance: His life, accomplishments, and legacy (RM02152). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Hersberger, J., & Wheatley, G. (1989). Computers and gifted students: An effective mathematics program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(3), 106-109. 217 Hew, K.F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252. Retrieved August 22, 2010, from Education Module. (Document ID: 1282982751) Hofer, M., & Swan, K. (2008). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Action: A Case Study of a Middle School Digital Documentary Project. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 179-200. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 1609084861) Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302. International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). Nets for students 2007. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for- students/nets-student- standards-2007.aspx International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). Nets for teachers. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-t- standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Jacobs, H. H., & Borland, J. H. (1986). The interdisciplinary concept model: Theory and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(4), 159-163. Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2009). The 2009 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. 218 Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2008). Models of teaching (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Joyce, B. R., Weil, M., Wald, R., Gullioin, C., Feller, M., & McKibbin, M. (1972). Models of teaching as a paradigm for teaching education. New York, NY: Teachers College Columbia University. Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597. Kaplan, S. N., Guzman, I., Leppien, J., Tomlinson, C. A., (2009). Using the parallel curriculum model in urban settings, Grade K-8. Corwin Press. Kay, Sandra, I. (2002). An interview with Abraham J. Tannenbaum: Innovative programs for the gifted and talented. Roper Review, 24(4), 186-90. Kelly, M.A. (2008). Bridging digital and cultural divides: TPACK for equity of access to technology. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.) , Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators. New York, NY: Routledge. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. 21(3), 94-102. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing tpck. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, 3-29. 219 Kozma, Robert, B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1-14. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 420326481) Layton, E.T. (1974). Technology as Knowledge. Technology and Culture. 15(1), pp. 31-41. Lee, M.H. & Chin-Chung, T. (2008). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, v(38)1/January 2010 1-21. Lemke, C. (2002). enGauge 21st century skills: Digital literacies for a digital age. Lemlech, J. K. (2002). Curriculum and instructional methods for the elementary and middle school (5 th ed.) Merrill Prentice Hall. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5, 1570-1613 Leu, D. J., Leu, D. D., & Coiro, J. (2004). Teaching with the Internet K-12: New literacies for new times. Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377-397. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 1287263711) Loughran, J. (2006). Developing pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. New York: Routledge. 220 Maker, C. J. (Ed.). (1986). Critical issues in gifted education Vol. I: Defensible programs for the gifted. (Vol. 1). Pro-Ed. Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995). Teaching models in education of the gifted (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Manfra, M., & Hammond, T. (2008). Teachers' instructional choices with student- created digital documentaries: Case studies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 223-245. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 1609084871). Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2 nd .ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. McCrory, R. (2008). Science, technology, and teaching: The topic-specific challenges of TPCK in science. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, 193-206. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48- 53. Mohan, R. (2007). Innovative science teaching for physical science teachers, (3 rd edition). Connaught Circus, New Dehli. Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited. 221 Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447-472. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 1490343891) National Association for Gifted Children. (1990). Giftedness and the gifted: what’s it all about? ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children. ERIC EC Digest #E476 National Association for Gifted Children. (1994). Position Paper: Differentiation of curriculum and instruction. National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Pre-K-Grade 12 Gifted Program Standards. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from http://nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Information_and_Resources/Gifted_Program_S tandards/K-12%20booklet%20for%20convention%20(final).pdf National Research Council, (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Joseph Henry Press. Ng, W., & Nicholas, H. (2007). Conceptualizing the use of online technologies for gifted secondary students. Roeper Review, 29(3), 190-196. Niederhauser, D. S., Lindstrom, D. L., & Strobel, J. (2007). Addressing the NETS* S in K-12 classrooms: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(4), 483-512. Nugent, S. A. (2001). Technology and the gifted: Focus, facets, and the future. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 38-45. 222 Office of Technology and Assessment. (1988). Power On! New tools for teaching and learning (OTA-SET-379). Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/PDFS/ED295677.pdf Oliver, K. (2010). Integrating Web 2.0 across the curriculum. TechTrends, March/April 2010, 54(2): 50-60. Oppenheimer, T. (2004). The flickering mind: Saving education from the false promise of technology. Random House Trade Paperbacks. O’Brian, B., Friedman, Nimz, R., Lacey, J., & Denson, D. (2005, July). From bits and bytes to C++ and web sites: What is computer talent made of? Gifted Child Today, 28(3), 56-64. Retrieved August 16, 2010, from General Interest Module. (Document ID: 872146851) Palak, D., & Walls, R. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed- methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417-41. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 1980440671) Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., Hass, G. (2010). Curriculum planning: A contemporary approach (9th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon. Partnership for 21 st Century Skills. (2005) Learning for the 21 st century. A report and MILE guide for 21 st century skills. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from http://www.p21.org/images/stories/otherdocs/p21up_Report.pdf 223 Partnership for 21 st Century Skills. (2010). 21 st century readiness for every child. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved April 3, 2010 from http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Ite mid=185 Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research design and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Pierson, M. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(4), 413-430. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 80259178) Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. Riverhead Trade (Paperbacks). Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. (9)5. http://www.albertomattiacci.it/docs/did/Digital_Natives_Digital_Immigrants. pdf President’s Council of Advisors in Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (stem) for America’s future. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed- report.pdf 224 Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Ravaglia, R., Suppes, P., Stillinger, C., & Alper, T. M. (1995). Computer-based mathematics and physics for gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(1), 7- 13. Reigeluth, C.M. (2010). Technology and the new paradigm of education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 84-86. Reiser, R. A. (1987). Instructional technology: A history. In Gagne, R. M. (Ed.). Instructional Technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1) 2001, pp 53-64. Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2) 2001, pp 57-67. Reiser, R. A., & Gagne R. M. (1983). Selecting media for instruction. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology. Renzulli, J. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A plan for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly. v(21) pp. 186 - 195. 225 Renzulli, J. (1982). What makes a problem real: Stalking the illusive meaning of qualitative differences in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly. 26(4), 148-156. Renzulli, J (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity through the pursuit of ideal acts of learning. Curriculum for gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Renzulli, J. S. (1999). What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(1), 3-54. Renzulli, J. & Reis, S. (2008). Enriching curriculum for all students (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Purcell, J. H. (1996). Gifted education: A look around and a look ahead. Roeper Review, 18(3), 173-178. Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., McMillan, K. S., Eckert, R. D., & Little, C. A. (Eds.). (2009). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Robers, D.F., Foehr, U.G., & Rideout, V. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-18 year olds. A Kaiser Family Foundation study. January 2010. Retrieved July 30, 2010 from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf Ruark, H.C. (1961). Technology and education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(9), pp. 387-392. 226 Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310. Saettler, L.P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Saphier, J., Haley-Speca, M.A., & Gower, R. (2008). The skillful teacher. Research for better teaching. Acson, MA: Research for Better Teaching. Schiro, M.S. (2008) Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concern. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Koehler, M.J., Shin, T, & Mishra, P. (2009, April). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Paper presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 13-17, San Diego, CA. Schrum, L. & Levin, B. (2009). Leading 21 st century school: Harnessing technology for engagement and achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Schwab, J.J., Westbury, I., & Wilkof, N.J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Self, John. (1985). Microcomputers in education: A critical evaluation of educational software. Brighton, Great Britain: The Harvester Press Limited. 227 Shaunessy, E. (2005). Assessing and addressing teachers' attitudes toward information technology in the gifted classroom. Gifted Child Today, 28(3), 45-53. Shaunessy, E. (2007). Implications for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 119-135. Shulman, L.S., (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-14. Shulman, L.S., (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 51, 1-22. Siegle, D. (2004). The merging of literacy and technology in the 21 st century: A bonus for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 32-35. Siegle, D. (2007). Identifying and developing technological giftedness: Exploring another way to be gifted in the 21 st century. In Gosfield, M. (Ed.), Expert approaches to support gifted learners: Professional perspectives, best practices, and positive solutions. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc. Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 630- 634. Skinner, B.F. (1958). The science of learning and the art of teaching. In Ely, D. & Plomp, T. (Eds.), Classic writing on instructional technology (pp.199-209). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. 228 Smith, M., & Broom, M. (2003). The landscape and future of the use of technology in K-12 education. Technology applications in education: A learning view. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Spires, H., Lee, J., Turner, K., & Johnson, J. (2008). Having our say: Middle grade student perspectives on school, technologies, and academic engagement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 497-515. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 1490343921) Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(1), 24-33. Staples, A., Pugach, M., & Himes, D.J. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 285-311. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 807757021) Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzales, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child left behind. Retrived January 4, 2009 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/white_papers/WP138/WP138.pdf Steele, K. J., Battista, M. T., & Krockover, G. H. (1982). The effect of microcomputer assisted instruction upon the computer literacy of high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(4), 162-164. Sternberg, Robert, J. (2000). Patterns of giftedness: A triarchic analysis. Roeper Review, 22(4), pp. 231. 229 Stettler, L. M. (1998). Matching technology to modes of learning. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 21(2). Sutton, R. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 475-503. Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Inc. Terman, L., Dickson, V., Sutherland, A., Franzen, C., Tupper, C., & Fernald, G. (1922). Intelligence tests and school reorganization. Hudson, NY: World Book Company. Tieso, C.L. (2007). Patterns of overexcitabilites in identified gifted students and their parents: A hierarchical model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(1), 11-22. Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms 2 nd edition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188-189. Tomlinson, C. A., & Jarvis, J. M., (2009). Differentiation: Making curriculum work for all students through responsive planning. In Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, J. E., McMillin K. S., Eckert, R. D., & Little, C. A. (Eds.), Systems & Models For Developing Programs for the Gifted & Talented – second edition. (pp. 49- 103). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc. 230 Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Treffinger, D. J. (1986). Research on creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), 15- 19. Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. Retrieved from University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Trezise, R. L. (1978). What about a reading program for the gifted?. The Reading Teacher, 742-747. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass. Tyler, R. (1966). New dimensions in curriculum development. Phi Delta Kappan, 48, 25-28. Tyler, R., (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tyler-Wood, T., Cereijo, M. V. P., & Holcomb, T. (2001). Technology skills among gifted students: Is there a digital divide? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(2), 57-60. Vankataiah, N. (2008). Educational technology. Darya Ganj, New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation. 231 Vannatta, R. & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253- 271. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 690834961) VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum policy development for gifted programs: Converting issues in the field to coherent practice. In Borland, J. (Ed.), Rethinking Gifted Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2007). Leadership for the future in gifted education: Presidential Address, NAGC 2006. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(1), 5-10. Veen, W & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. Cornwall, Great Britain. MPG Books Ltd. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform, the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved April 12, 2010 from www.ed.gov U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Technology counts: Ed-Tech stats. In EdWeek’s annual report on educational technology. Retrieved on March 24, 2010 from www.edweek.org/ew/tc/index.html U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, (2010). Transforming american education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved on February 15, 2010 from http://www.ed.gov/technology/draft- netp-2010 232 Wallace, P. (2005). Distance education for gifted students: Leveraging technology to expand academic options. High Ability Studies, 16(1), 77-86. Wallace, P. (2009, April). Distance learning for gifted students: Outcomes for elementary, middle, and high school aged students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(3), 295-320, 443. Retrieved August 16, 2010, from Education Module. (Document ID: 1680703711) Wright, C. (2001). Children and technology: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Childhood Education, 78(1), 37-41. Retrieved August 20, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 83486121) Wright, V., & Wilson, E., (2009). Using technology in the social studies classroom: The journey of two teachers. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(2), 133- 154. Retrieved August 17, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1856608811) 233 APPENDIX A SURVEY OF TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF TEACHING AND TECHNOLOGY (adapted from Survey of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology) Denise A. Schmidt, Evrim Baran, and Ann D. Thompson Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching Iowa State University Matthew J. Koehler, Punya Mishra, and Tae Shin Michigan State University Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire. Please answer each question to the best of you knowledge. Your thoughtfulness and candid responses will be greatly appreciated. Your individual name or will not at any time be associated with your responses and will be kept completely confidential. Demographic Information 1. Name: ___________________________________________________________ 2. Gender a. Female b. Male 3. Age Range a. 18-22 b. 23-26 c. 27 – 32 d. 32 + 4. Years of Teaching Experience a. 1-3 years b. 4-7 years c. 8-10 years d. 10-15 years e. 15 + years 5. Grades Taught (circle all that apply) K 1 2 3 4 5 234 6. Grade Currently Teaching K 1 2 3 4 5 7. Number of years teaching gifted education _______________ 8. Technology is a broad concept that can mean a lot of different things. For the purpose of this questionnaire, technology is referring to digital technology/ technologies. This is, the digital tools we use such as computers, laptops, iPods, handhelds, interactive whiteboards, software programs, etc. Please answer all of the questions and if you are uncertain of or neutral about your response you may always select “Neither Agree or Disagree.” Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree TK (Technology Knowledge) 1. I know how to solve my own technical problems. 2. I can learn technology easily. 3. I keep up with important new technologies. 4. I frequently play around the technology. 5. I know about a lot of different technologies. 6. I have the technical skills I need to use technology. CK (Content Knowledge) Mathematics 7. I have sufficient knowledge about mathematics. 8. I can use a mathematical way of thinking. 9. I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of mathematics. Social Studies 10. I have sufficient knowledge about social studies. 235 11. I can use a historical way of thinking. 12. I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of social studies. Science 13. I have sufficient knowledge about science. 14. I can use a scientific way of thinking. 15. I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of science. Literacy 16. I have sufficient knowledge about literacy. 17. I can use a literary way of thinking. 18. I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of literacy. PK (Pedagogical Knowledge) 19. I know how to assess student performance in a classroom. 20. I can adapt my teaching based-upon what students currently understand or do not understand. 21. I can adapt my teaching study to different learners. 22. I can assess student learning in multiple ways. 23. I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom setting. 24. I am familiar with common student understandings and misconceptions. 25. I know how to organize and maintain classroom management. 236 PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) 26. I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in mathematics. 27. I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in literacy. 28. I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in science. 29. I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in social studies. TCK (Technological Content Knowledge) 30. I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing mathematics. 31. I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing literacy. 32. I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing science. 33. I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing social studies. 237 TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge) 34. I can choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson. 35. I can choose technologies that enhance students’ learning for a lesson. 36. My teacher education program has caused me to think more deeply about how technology could influence the teaching approaches I use in my classroom. 37. I am thinking critically about how to use technology in my classroom. 38. I can adapt the use of the technologies that I am learning about to different teaching activities. 39. I can select technologies to use in my classroom that enhance what I teach, how I teach and what students learn. 40. I can use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches that I learned about in my coursework in my classroom. 41. I can provide leadership in helping others to coordinate the use of content, technologies and teaching approaches at my school and/or district. 42. I can choose technologies that enhance the content for a lesson. 238 TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) 43. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine mathematics, technologies, and teaching approaches. 44. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine computer literacy, technologies, and teaching approaches. 45. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine science, technologies and teaching approaches. 46. I can teach lessons that appropriately combine social studies, technologies and teaching approaches. 239 APPENDIX B SURVEY OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY CHOICES: DIFFERENTIATED LESSON SET Directions: Attached you will find a lesson set in the content areas of Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science. These lessons were developed as part of a five-year research grant by the University of Southern California focused on Models of Teaching and Gifted Education Javits Research Grant (PR #S206A040072) in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Education. Each lesson has been field tested and determined to be valid. Read each lesson paying careful attention to the syntax, or arrangement of each lesson. As you go through the lessons, please indicate in the Technology Choices column to the right of the syntax column the type(s) of technology that you would choose to integrate in each part, along with a rationale choice in the preceding column. Rationale choices are listed on the following page. Rationale Options to Support Teacher Technology Choices (adapted from ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators for Teachers, 2008) 1. My technology choice promotes the development of creative expression. 2. My technology choice applies to real world issues and promotes problem solving. 3. My technology choice clarifies student understanding of subject matter. 4. My technology choice promotes collaboration among peers. 5. My technology choice allows for student individualization. 6. My technology choice allows students to develop opportunities for interest-based learning and self-improvement. 7. My technology choice is a means of formative or summative evaluation. 240 APPENDIX C RATIONALE OPTIONS TO SUPPORT TEACHER TECHNOLOGY CHOICES Adapted from National Educational Technology Standards and Performance Indicators for Teachers, (ISTE, 2008) 1. My technology choice promotes the development of creative expression. 2. My technology choice applies to real world issues and promotes problem solving. 3. My technology choice clarifies student understanding of subject matter. 4. My technology choice promotes collaboration among peers. 5. My technology choice allows for student individualization. 6. My technology choice allows students to develop opportunities for interest-based learning and self-improvement. 7. My technology choice is a means of formative or summative evaluation. 241 APPENDIX D DIFFERENTIATED LESSON SET 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 APPENDIX E CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TEACHER DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND KNOWLEDGE DATA

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study was conducted to understand how teachers of gifted and talented students perceive their own knowledge of pedagogy, content, and technology based on the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework (TPACK). The study also asked teachers what technologies they would use in a differentiated curriculum and instructional lesson set and were accompanied by a set of rationale choices for teacher selection uncovering a relationship between teachers’ self-perceptions of technology knowledge in content and pedagogy and technology selections within the differentiated lesson set. ❧ A mixed methods approach was used to gather data through a quantitative and qualitative survey. Teachers reported moderate to high self-perceptions within the seven knowledge domains of the TPACK framework. Teachers rated themselves highest in pedagogy and content, yet the addition of technology to these domains lowered teachers’ self-perceptions. Overall teachers favored five technology selections in the Differentiated Lesson Set: document camera, Internet, computer, interactive whiteboard, and PowerPoint. The most frequent rationale given for technology choices was the clarification of student understanding. The results of the study indicate a pronounced teacher-directed use of technology in contrast to self-perceptions of knowledge. ❧ The study implies that although teachers of gifted learners are aware of many technologies, they select from a limited scope of choices. Lack of available technology in schools could have been a determinant in teacher decision-making. This reveals the need for teachers to understand how technology skills and standards are connected to principles of differentiation of curriculum and instruction for gifted learners. It is suggested that professional development for teachers of gifted learners include theory-based technology integration that is aligned with the needs of gifted learners and their technological strengths.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines

PDF

The spill over effect: an examination of differentiated curriculum designs in a heterogeneous classroom

PDF

Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students

PDF

Appropriate technology implementation in K-12 classrooms

PDF

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

PDF

Exploring primary teachers' self-efficacy and technology integration in early reading instruction

PDF

Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices

PDF

Transformational technology in K-12 schools: an elementary case study

PDF

Evaluation of New Teacher Induction (NTI) mentor practice for developing NTI teachers capable of differentiating instruction to address cultural diversity, equity, and learner variability

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

PDF

Technology integration and its impact on 21st century learning and instruction: a case study

PDF

Actual and ideal instructional practices in California high school gifted geometry education

PDF

Using task based writing instruction to provide differentiated instruction for English language learners

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school

PDF

The intersection of curriculum, teacher, and instruction and its implications for student performance

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

Asset Metadata

Creator McGuire, Michelle S. (author)

Core Title Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 11/28/2012

Defense Date 10/15/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag curriculum,differentiation,gifted learners,instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest,technology integration,TPACK

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra (committee chair), Housand, Brian (committee member), Keim, Robert G. (committee member)

Creator Email mcguiremichelle@hotmail.com,mcguiremichelle@mac.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-121519

Unique identifier UC11291669

Identifier usctheses-c3-121519 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-McGuireMic-1341.pdf

Dmrecord 121519

Document Type Dissertation

Rights McGuire, Michelle S.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA