 |
Edited by Dr. David J. Ayersman, Mary Washington College, and Dr. W.
Michael Reed, New York University
|
| formerly Journal of Research on Computing in
Education |
Volume 33 Number 5 Summer
2001
Technology and
Multiculturalism in the Classroom
Case
Studies in Attitudes and Motivations, Part II
Ines Marquez Chisholm and Keith Wetzel
Arizona State University West
Methodology and Data
Analysis
Using qualitative techniques, our research examined the pedagogical
beliefs of five female teacher educators who were early users of the
Smart Classrooms. Specifically, we were interested in learning their
motivation behind using the Smart Classroom technology and determining
how they went about designing instructional activities for use in their
multicultural learning environments. Research data were obtained through
oral interviews followed by a set of written questionnaires. (Read the
questions in the Appendix.)
Each of the 45-minute interviews was audiotaped and then later
transcribed on paper. Interview questions included the following
queries:
- What is your teaching philosophy?
- In what ways is your course student-centered?
- Do you address the teaching of diverse populations? If so, how?
- Describe some of the instructional activities you have conducted in
this room.
Using the constant comparative method (Strauss, 1987), data
collection and analysis were performed concurrently and continued
throughout our research. The transcripts were initially read
independently, but a subsequent meeting was held to share information
and discuss emerging patterns we observed in the data. At the conclusion
of this meeting, we decided to create a mini-case study of each
participant to get a better appreciation of her individual teaching
practices. To assist in the creation of these case studies, a written
questionnaire containing the following questions was e-mailed to each of
the teacher educators:
- How long have you taught at ASUWest?
- How long have you been in higher education?
- What technologies are of primary interest to you?
- Are these technologies related to your scholarly pursuits? If so,
how?
After all the data from the written questionnaires were collected,
the original transcripts were then reevaluated, and the initial case
study drafts were completed. We observed certain commonalties among the
case studies. These include beliefs, learning activities and technology
fit, management of technology, student-centered approaches, learning
activities, assessment of teaching, and multicultural teaching. To
ensure that the case studies were accurate representations of the
participants, we reviewed each study collectively then forwarded it to
the respective teacher educator for comment. All of the case studies
were accepted as being fair and accurate assessments. In fact, responses
such as “seems to be a good summary of my intent and teaching
style” were typical.
Mini-Cases
Case 1
Dr. A, a professor in special education, recently studied the effect
of the Internet on the achievement and attitudes of students taking
Internet classes. She also conducted research on the issues and
challenges of teamwork using the Internet. Dr. A has been in higher
education for 31 years, nine of which have been at the current
institution where she teaches special education methods courses and
strategies of academic behavior management.
Dr. A developed a Web-based distance education course for graduate
students, yet perceives herself as less knowledgeable about computers
than about their applications. Though she learned HTML, she indicated
that she still does not feel comfortable in using computers, lacks
computer terminology, and does not know computer programming. Her
approach to computers is very functional. As she explained, “All I
care about is: Can I do my e-mail? Can I do Netscape composer? Can I
search the Internet? Can I get those Web pages to work?”
Several times during the semester, Dr. A met with students in her
course on instructional management in the Smart Classroom. This course
prepares preservice teachers to design and implement instruction, select
appropriate materials and instructional procedures, and assess effects
on academic performance. As a result of her interviews with graduates
from the program, she now explicitly includes in this course
computer-assisted instruction for children with special needs. She
espouses experience-based learning, mastery learning, innovative
teaching, and the application of knowledge and skills. She chose to use
the Smart Classroom because of the capabilities of the room, which
allows students to demonstrate their work at their computer station
using an LCD projector.
In the computer classroom, students work concurrently in randomly
assigned pairs or individually to complete a variety of activities.
These preservice teachers completed a self-selected sequence of
activities using a database instructional model. They assessed
classmates using a specific instructional management system. Students
also conducted a WebQuest on the Internet for specific information on
how to use the Internet for good instruction. After reading an article
on the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction, students
conducted an experiment comparing the effectiveness of a
computer-mediated game and a board game.
Students’ learning is evaluated in a number of ways. Using a
rubric, students self-assess their teaching in terms of their pace, use
of techniques, use of professional vocabulary, and use of appropriate
level of difficulty. Instructors also look for cohesiveness and
consistency between the instructional management system they profess to
demonstrate and their lesson plan, their interactions with students
during teaching, and the research literature they summarize to support
their chosen management system. Students also submit a list of effective
teaching practices that they have demonstrated. Classmates assess each
other by listing the effective practices they have seen individuals
demonstrate.
Case 2
Dr. C, an associate professor in bilingual and ESL education, has a
research interest in culture and technology, particularly the creation
of equitable access through culturally responsive teaching. She has been
involved in higher education for nine years and teaches courses in
multicultural education and bilingual and ESL language arts.
Dr. C feels very comfortable in using computers. Indeed, she
described herself as a “virtual techie.” Though she does not
see herself as a computer specialist, she does perceive herself as a
high-end user. She has developed Web pages for all of her courses and
uses them both as a means of instructional delivery and as a resource
for students. She uses a digital camera to take and post photos of her
students on her Web pages. She currently is experimenting with digital
voice recording for use on Web pages for second-language learners.
Throughout the semester, Dr. C held her language arts classes in one
of the Smart Classrooms. These courses focus on methodology for
developing viewing skills, listening comprehension, speaking ability,
and writing skills in children acquiring English. Over the years, Dr. C
has increased her use of computers in these classes because of her
belief that inservice teachers must experience computer use in teaching
and learning if they are to provide, as teachers, second-language
learners access to technology. Her approach to teaching is eclectic. She
advocates faculty modeling of effective teaching methods and strategies,
firsthand experience for learners, hands-on learning, and collaborative
work. She decided to use the Smart Classroom so that students had direct
experience with computers as tools for gathering information, with
sharing information through presentations, and with teaching language
arts to children acquiring English.
Students engaged in simultaneous learning activities in the Smart
Classroom that generally required all students to use the computers
concurrently but sometimes had students simultaneously on different
tasks. Students usually worked in randomly assigned pairs or triads but
sometimes individually or in self-selected groups. For example, students
role-played being faculty members on a school committee and gathered
information on assessment of non-native English students at their
school. Committees, consisting of three students per group, used links
on the instructor’s Web pages to gather information, summarize it,
and present a report with recommendations to the other committees.
Students also participated in jigsaw activities in which pairs select
online readings from the instructor’s links and then share the
information with other students. Students explored Web sites for
listening and reading activities determining age appropriateness,
educational value, and level of language difficulty. They have used
metasearch engines to find Web sites on specific topics and then
evaluated them using an instructor-developed form on her Web pages. In
learning the writing process, students develop Kid Pix (1989–2001)
slide shows, in conjunction with their educational computing class, and
share them in class.
This instructor assesses student learning through applied projects
and five multiple-choice quizzes throughout the semester. For each
project, the instructor provides a set of weighted criteria in her
syllabus. Writing skills and critical thinking are included in the
criteria for all projects. The other criteria are project
specific—for example, criteria in a total physical response
activity include the use of commands, appropriate gestures, and
appropriate materials to convey meaning.
Case 3
Dr. J, an associate professor in reading education, researches the
role of the language arts in interdisciplinary connections. Given the
current educational focus on technology integration in schools, Dr. J
sees technology as an integral part of her scholarly work. She has been
in higher education for 11 years and teaches methods courses in reading
and language arts.
Although Dr. J said she is a neophyte in using computers, we consider
her to be a moderately competent user. She surfs the Internet for
information, uses word processing software and e-mail effectively, and
integrates several software programs into her teaching. As she explained
during the interview, “I learn to do what I need to do.”
Thus, her approach to computers is very practical and application
oriented.
Each semester, Dr. J uses the Smart Classroom with preservice
students enrolled in a collaborative project incorporating social
studies, science, math, and the creative arts for early childhood
majors. This project immediately precedes student teaching, and its
primary purpose is to demonstrate how the academic subjects are
integrated. Dr. J advocates collaborative learning, faculty modeling,
hands-on learning, and application of knowledge. In her words, she wants
the preservice teachers “to see how even young children can use
the technology to enhance their learning and how to use technology to
enhance the curriculum.” She selected the Smart Classroom based on
the recommendations of a faculty member and the College of
Education’s technical support analyst. She found this classroom
both convenient and usable.
In the Smart Classroom, students learned how to use centers
effectively. Students went on a field trip, gathered specific
information, and then input it into the computer. They worked in
self-selected groups of four, each with one competent computer user.
Groups could rotate across the centers, and each center had activities
requiring the use of the computer. In another activity, students used
Kid Pix (1989–2001) to create a class haiku book, and they
imported pictures of themselves taken with a digital camera.
Assessment of student learning includes multiple-choice tests to help
students prepare for the Arizona Teacher Professional Assessment
required for certification. Other forms of assessment are reflective
papers, observations of and a report on Reading Recovery, a portfolio on
an individual child, a mock communication with a parent, and an
integrated thematic project. Students do in-class presentations, and the
instructor checks how well they are performing activities in class.
Case 4
Dr. N, an associate professor in secondary education, focuses her
research on the uses and abuses of standardized testing. In doing
scholarly work, she uses the Internet, word processing software, and
e-mail as practical tools. Dr. N has been in higher education for 17
years, 14 of these at her current institution. She teaches social
studies methods and principles and applications of effective
instruction.
Dr. N feels very comfortable using computers. She has created Web
pages for her courses, web pages to help students prepare for the new
Arizona Educators Professional Assessment (AEPA); she also received
training at the University of Virginia on using the computer-based
CaseNet approach to teaching.
Dr. N used the Smart Classroom in team teaching a CaseNet distance
learning course. This course is an issues-based case study course in
which students discuss a different case study each week. Students formed
synchronous discussion groups within the classroom or asynchronously
with other CaseNet participants across the country. Dr. N believes in a
student-centered approach to teaching that allows students to bring
their personal perspective to the discussions. She chose the Smart
Classroom because its configuration supported teams working at the
computers.
Students generally worked in teams of four at the computers in the
Smart Classroom. Each randomly chosen team had one competent computer
user, and students helped each other with the technology. Graduate and
undergraduate students worked together in these groups. Use of the
computer depended upon where the students were in their activities. Each
team posted their analysis of the case study to the CaseNet threaded
discussion after within-group discussion. Students also produced
individual electronic journals and their own case studies. At times,
individuals without home computer access used the computers to read the
online cases studies.
Dr. N assessed students both on the quantity and quality of their
journal entries and electronic discussions. Dr. N expected students to
pose questions and respond to other people’s journal entries at
least three or four times per week. They were also expected to post a
reflective journal entry at least once a week. The instructor used a
rubric in evaluating the case study analyses that students posted on the
Web as part of a national competition with external judges. They also
presented in class their self-developed case study.
Case 5
Dr. S, an assistant professor in educational administration and
supervision, has a research interest in school change and teacher
evaluation. Dr. S is interested particularly in how school principals
might evaluate teachers who integrate technology in their classrooms.
She has been in higher education for five years and teaches courses in
public school finance and the principalship and supervises
administrative interns.
Dr. S feels moderately comfortable using computers. She competently
uses e-mail and word processing, presentation, and spreadsheet software.
Dr. S created Web pages for her classes with links to resources for
current students. Though, she is not a computer expert, she is not
afraid to try new things. As she told the interviewer about her computer
skills, “I am able to do what I want to do.”
Dr. S used the Smart Classroom in teaching a graduate course in
school finance that provides a comprehensive view of how schools are
financed. In this course, she presents the underlying values that affect
public goals in school financing (equity, equality, and efficiency) and
helped students understand that these values may be in conflict. The
course also addresses how bonds and taxes work and how finance formulas
are constructed. Dr. S uses an eclectic partially constructivist
approach to teach this course. She uses multiple methods to convey
information and multiple activities for student to process that
information. She builds on students’ existing knowledge and
previous experiences, thus making the information relevant to the
learners. Dr. S used the Smart Classroom because she finds that the
computer opens up a new dimension to students for retrieving,
manipulating, and presenting information. In addition, the configuration
of this room facilitated both group interactions at the computer and
student and instructor presentations.
Students worked in assigned groups on instructor-created databases
using local school district information. Each group had at least one
computer-competent and one math-competent member. The groups computed
tax rates, comparing the effects of different funding formulas for
districts with differently valued tax bases. These activities helped
concretely illustrate where the money comes from, where it goes, and why
some districts have difficulty raising money. Students also engaged in
jigsaw activities in which they discussed articles read and created a
Microsoft PowerPoint (1987–2000) or Word (1983–2000)
presentation that was shared with the class using the LCD panel and the
overhead projector.
For student assessment, this instructor uses mostly summative exams
and quizzes on the course content. During class sessions, she frequently
checks for understanding as a formative evaluation measure.
Results
Beliefs, Learning Activities, and Technological Fit
All five participants voiced similar reasons for choosing to use the
Smart Classroom technology. Chief among them was the fact that the
physical layout of the learning environment was compatible with their
planned activities and supportive of their teaching philosophies. The
compact nature of the Smart Classroom gave students ready access to the
computers and the instructor ready access to the students. As Dr. S
observed, using small group computer workstations “forces peer
interaction.” And yet, despite the close proximity of instructor
and learners, all participants reported finding the layout both user
friendly and convenient.
Another similarity we discovered was that all five teacher educators
espoused a constructivist approach to teaching (i.e., a methodology that
builds on students’ personal experiences and knowledge and
provided for collaboration, small-group interaction, and hands-on
learning). Two of the five participants indicated a preference for an
eclectic or multi-modal approach that supported learning style
differences and multiple intelligences. Two educators explicitly
commented on the importance of the learners’ application while an
equal number stated that instructor modeling was an important part of
their teaching.
The Smart Classroom is not a panacea, however. As Dr. H observed, the
rooms are “good for lots of things, but not for everything.”
The teacher educators were unanimous in their belief in using computers
when it best fits their courses and activities. According to Dr. S,
“[With] other courses it’s more difficult. …
Technology supports my teaching philosophy if it’s properly
configured.” This sentiment was echoed by Dr. A, who commented
that, if all her classes were held in a Smart Classroom, her students
would only demonstrate instructional management strategies that require
the presence of a computer. Heavy reliance on computers would cause her
students to become less familiar with other essential management
strategies.
Managing Technology
None of the instructors formally assessed computer competency. As Dr.
S stated, “This course is not about teaching them [computers], but
it’s time for them to begin to learn.” Nevertheless, three
of the participants indicated that they used informal ways of assessing
computer competency and that assessments were necessary to ensure that
in every group of students there was a technologically competent
colleague available to provide peer support.
As a procedural matter, all five educators mentioned having their
student groups work at the computer stations. Only three indicated that
they monitored individual learning and provided individual responses.
And although two of the participants said all their students used the
computers simultaneously, three stated that, on occasion, students
worked on different activities or different stages of a process. Thus,
not all of their students were all sitting at the computer at the same
time at every class period.
Student-Centered Teaching Approaches
Instructional relevance was important to these teacher educators. All
participants connected course content to students’ personal
interests, past experiences, and prior knowledge. For example, Dr. S
used data from the school districts where her graduate students worked
and linked concepts to personal budgets in her discussions of school
finance. Dr. N gave students the opportunity to bring their personal
perspective on issues being discussed. Dr. A had students do literature
searches on topics of interest to them. Dr. C had students select online
readings based on personal interest. Two instructors linked content to
classroom teaching through role-playing and discussion of classroom
applications.
Most also provided their students some choices within the framework
of common assignments. For example, Dr. J had all students produce pages
for a class haiku book but each student group was allowed to develop its
own unique subject matter and graphics. Both Dr. C and Dr. N allowed
their students to choose from among sets of preselected online readings
for each topic or theme. Two of the teacher educators allowed students
to choose their own partners for computer work. The other three
educators assigned students to groups randomly after first ensuring that
every group had at least one computer-competent student.
Learning Activities Using Technology
The Smart Classroom learning activities varied considerably due to
the nature of the courses and differences in teaching styles among the
participants. For example, Dr. J had students use the digital camera and
download photographs to add to their class book of Haiku poems. Dr.
H’s students published case study analyses that were judged by
outside reviewers as part of a national competition. Dr. C’s
students, while learning and experiencing the writing process, produced
Kid Pix (1989–2001) slide shows that incorporated both photographs
of the authors and the authors’ reading of their text. Dr. S had
students create a PowerPoint (1987–2000) or Word (1983–2000)
presentation using the ClassWorks display system. Thus, these teacher
educators successfully integrated technology into their learning
activities by giving the technology relevance to their overall learning
objectives.
Although all instructors included their e-mail addresses on their
syllabi, only two made teacher–student e-mail communications a
requirement. Dr. J told us that, when students used e-mail, they
received more personal and in-depth responses. Three of the instructors
created their own Web pages and used them in course delivery and
learning activities. For instance, Dr. C presented her classes with Web
pages containing topic outlines, main ideas, and examples of the course
material. These remained available to the students throughout the
semester.
Assessment of Learning
All five educators used formal summative evaluations to assess
students’ learning. As two of the participants indicated, they
provide multiple-choice tests and quizzes to give students experience
with the format of the teacher competency test required for
certification. Four employed informal formative course-embedded
evaluations as well. These informal measures included reflective papers,
observations, and the quantity and quality of electronic journals and
discussions.
Multicultural Teaching
All five of the participants addressed diversity issues within their
course content to some degree. Dr. S spent a portion of her course on
issues of equity in school finance. Dr. J addressed language diversity,
multiple intelligences, and the concept of comfort and challenge zones.
Dr. A’s course focuses on the design, implementation, evaluation,
and redesign of instruction for children with special needs, including
second language learners. Dr. C’s class explored differences in
first and second language writing development, differences in home
literacy experiences, and differences in educational expectations
between home and school culture. In Dr. N’s class, students read
and analyzed case studies on bilingual education, migrant education, and
special education.
Our analysis of the transcripts applying Chisholm’s (1998)
elements for multicultural technology integration revealed that all six
were present to varying degrees among the five teacher educators (Table
1).
|
Table
1. Faculty Application of Six Elements for Multicultural Technology
Integration
|
 |
|
Element
|
Faculty
|
Evidence
|
|
|
Culturally supportive environment
|
A
|
Group work
|
|
C
|
Students incorporate own experiences, collaborative work
|
|
J
|
Collaborative groups, allow for comfort zone through self-selection
of groups
|
|
N
|
Team approach and individual work, express own perspective, allow
different interpretations
|
|
S
|
Peer help with math and computing, students contribute to
discussions
|
|
|
Cultural awareness
|
A
|
Coaching non-native English writers, content focuses on child with
special needs and ESL, individual feedback by e-mail
|
|
C
|
Individual feedback, varied activities to support multiple
intelligences and learning preferences, content focuses on
second-language learners
|
|
J
|
Collaborative, individual feedback, formative assistance
|
|
N
|
Student-centered approach, community of learners, e-mail for private
communication with students
|
|
S
|
Eclectic approach, multiple methods, aware of physical needs, study
sessions, groups with math-confident and computer-competent members,
self-evaluation of initial skills, content on equity issues
|
|
|
Cultural relevance
|
A
|
Students polled for needs and learning interests
|
|
C
|
Firsthand experiences with Web and computers in teaching and
learning, students link to what they see in field
|
|
J
|
Took field trip to gather info and report, created personal haikus,
photos imported, address second-language learners
|
|
N
|
Use own experiences and knowledge in case analysis, personal
journals; case studies on bilingual education, school in Indi, and
special education
|
|
S
|
Build on knowledge and experiences, data from districts, use personal
finance examples
|
|
|
Equitable access
|
A
|
Don’t require Internet assignments, provide computers in class
(cart) for those with none at home, paired with computer competent,
computer use sometimes based on need
|
|
C
|
Use computer as needed at times, take turns as scribes, sometimes
simultaneous use and sometimes not, demonstrate and help as needed,
students e-mail from home or campus
|
|
J
|
Ask about computer competence, haikus—rotated roles, groups of
four at stations, rotate across centers
|
|
N
|
Teams include one competent computer user, those without home
computers use class computers
|
|
S
|
Groups include one competent computer user, work in groups
simultaneously on computer
|
|
|
Instructional flexibility
|
A
|
Choice in management system, choice in Web sites to visit, choice in
sequencing of activities, choice of partners, assessment by instructor,
self, and peers
|
|
C
|
Choose topic within assignments, choose partners, choose online
readings, choose metacrawler to find Web pages
|
|
J
|
Pick teams/pairs, choice within assignments, some at computers &
some at tables
|
|
N
|
Choice of team names, strand, and strand; large- and small-group
discussions; readings; qualitative assessment and objective assessment
(rubric, outside evaluators)
|
|
S
|
Study sessions optional
|
|
|
Instructional integration
|
A
|
Students integrate computers in their teaching use computer to find
information students decided they needed
|
|
C
|
Role playing, information gathering, writing process integrated with
Kid Pix (1989–2001), Web page evaluation
|
|
J
|
Field trip linked to computer work, Kid Pix haiku book, learning
centers with computer activities, digitized photos imported for class
book
|
|
N
|
Cases on the Web, posted analysis across country, electronic
journals, electronic discussions
|
|
S
|
Students’ Word (1983–2000)/PowerPoint (1987–2000)
presentations, spreadsheets for calculations of tax rates and school
funding
|
|
Cultural awareness refers to an acknowledgement of cultural
and individual differences through implementation of instructional and
learning activities that support varied learning preferences, multiple
intelligences, and native languages. These educators demonstrated
cultural awareness through instructional activities such as providing
individual coaching for non-native English learners, giving individual
feedback, providing for students’ physical needs, and using a
variety of instructional activities that support multiple intelligences
and learning preferences.
Cultural relevance is achieved through culturally congruent
and culturally relevant learning activities. To have cultural relevance,
learning activities must relate to the learner’s background,
personal experiences, personal interests, and prior learning. They must
also focus on the realities and challenges of living in a culturally
diverse society. The participating teacher educators incorporated
cultural relevance by having students self-identify their needs and
interests, linking learning to field experiences and connecting personal
experiences and prior knowledge to content. Similarly, by providing
direct experiences, such as a field trip or hands-on computer use, the
instructors created relevant shared experiences that gave meaning and an
appropriate context for what was being learned.
A culturally supportive learning environment is one that
integrates the learner’s culture, family, and community. It is a
safe, inclusive environment where divergent opinions are accepted. These
teacher educators created an inclusive classroom environment by
encouraging a widespread use of collaboration, group work, and peer
help. This teaching approach fosters interdependence and acceptance of
peers. They also actively sought their students’ opinions and
perspectives. To the extent that they provided content dealing with
issues in the larger community, they also integrated the students’
community. However, the findings suggest that there was limited
integration of the students’ culture and family backgrounds in the
content and activities.
Managing technology for equitable access implies providing
learners with access to technology in ways that best suit their needs.
The implication is that not all learners need the same software or
hardware and that their access to the technology may require different
levels of support, depending on their individual skills and knowledge.
The teacher educators in our study generally supported their
learners’ access to technology by assigning a competent computer
user to each group after having students self-identify their level of
expertise. The self-described competent user in each group then became a
resource and a peer teacher for those less competent. Other ways of
increasing equitable access was to provide computers in the classroom
for those without computers at home and allow students to use the
computer as needed. As a result, students were able to use the
technology at different times and for different purposes. Because these
teacher educators used technology as a tool rather than as the focus of
their instruction, they did not evaluate or formally teach computer
skills.
Instructional flexibility refers to the use of varied modes of
delivery and assessment that harmonize with the learners’
strengths and preferences. Where instructional flexibility is present,
students have choices in content and in ways of demonstrating learning.
We found that the participants provided choices within the framework of
their assigned activities. For example, students in one class chose
which management system they wished to demonstrate in class. In other
classes, they had choices in readings and topics.
Instructional integration of technology occurs when technology
is an essential tool for learning and teaching. Hence, students and
teachers use technology for challenging, purposeful, authentic, and
productive endeavors. The participants in this study clearly indicated
authentic and productive applications of technology. Use of the
technology was directly linked to classroom teaching and preservice
teachers’ learning. For example, one educator linked the use of
the writing process to the development of an electronic slide show.
Another used the Internet with students to locate pertinent information
related to their stated interests. Yet another used spreadsheets to
illustrate tax rates and their relation to school funding.
Read
more...
Back
to page 1
Copyright © 2001, ISTE (International Society for Technology
in Education). All rights reserved.
|
