}anessa Senn

Nay 21, 2u14

EBET 78u

!"#$#%&' )
Cifuentes, L., Maxwell, G., & Bulu, S. (2011). Technology Integration through
Professional Learning Community. Journal Of Educational Computing Research,
44(1), 59-82.
http://ezproxy.usca.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc
t=true&db=eric&AN=EJ919411&site=ehost-live&scope=site

*+$",-&.$#,+

The puipose of Cifuentes, Naxwell, anu Bulu's stuuy was to examine anu
evaluate a vaiiety of effoits that piimaiily cultivateu a leaining community that
woulu suppoit technology integiation.
The two yeai stuuy was conuucteu in a "natuialistic setting" of thiee Texas
school uistiicts. Two out of the thiee school uistiicts aie consiueieu to be "high
neeu." The thiiu uistiict seiveu as a mentoi since they have pieviously
uemonstiateu success in seiving stuuents with a shaieu uemogiaphic (the mentoi
uistiict was not examineu foi this stuuy). 0nly five schools within the two high neeu
uistiicts paiticipateu in this stuuy.
Theie weie Su paiticipants in the stuuy. This incluueu SS teacheis (nine
weie elementaiy; 26 weie seconuaiy); nine auministiatois (thiee fiom each
uistiict); thiee school technology specialists; two univeisity faculty membeis, anu a
univeisity giauuate stuuent in euucational technology.
The subjects weie foimeu into five uesign teams (one foi each of the five
schools in the two uistiicts) that woulu meet six uays uuiing the two school yeais
anu foi two five-uay summei sessions. Each team hau five teacheis (one of which
uoubleu as a technology coach), one auministiatoi, anu a teachei fiom the mentoi
school. The univeisity paiticipants woulu meet with teacheis anu auministiatois to
assess neeus, uesign anu manage pioject activities baseu on neeus, collect uata fiom
teacheis, anu iegulaily uelivei oi auministei woikshops.
Classioom obseivations anu teaching anu leaining touis weie conuucteu
thioughout the two school yeais. Piogiess was monitoieu thiough iegulai suiveys,
uiscussions, evaluations, anu questionnaiies.
Paiticipating subjects weie expecteu to shaie mateiials, lessons, anu ieflections
on an inteiactive website that was built by the univeisity membeis. Tiaining was
pioviueu to ensuie paiticipants coulu effectively utilize the website's featuies.
This stuuy analyzeu its iesults iegaiuing teachei auoption of technology into
classioom instiuction at thiee points within the two-yeai time fiame: at the
beginning of the stuuy, at the enu of the fiist yeai, anu at the enu of the seconu yeai.
The ieseaich analyzeu the iesults using The Stages of Auoption Inventoiy, a self-
assessing tool maue available on the community website. At the stait of the stuuy,
the majoiity of paiticipants peiceiveu themselves as having a funuamental
unueistanuing of the ways technologies can be applieu, which is the thiiu stage of
Auoption Inventoiy. At the enu of the fiist yeai, paiticipants vieweu themselves as
being familiai anu confiuent with instiuctional technologies, the fouith stage of
Auoption Inventoiy. Some of the paiticipants still felt they weie at the thiiu stage at
this point. By the time the stuuy concluueu, paiticipants mostly believeu they weie
able to cieatively apply the technologies to new contexts, the sixth stage of Auoption
Inventoiy, with only a few iemaining at the thiiu stage of the Auoption Inventoiy.
Cleaily, uespite the small pool of subjects that felt they weie not beyonu the thiiu
stage, theie was a steauy inciease in the auoption of technologies between the two
uistiicts.
0bseiveis weie tiaineu how to obseive foi active cognitive engagement anu
compliance. The Teaching anu Leaining Toui Piotocol ueteimineu the stuuents'
levels of engagement. 0bseiveis utilizeu this tool uuiing fiist anu seconu yeai
obseivations. 0veiall, the iesults ueteimineu that active stuuent engagement
incieaseu, on aveiage, 11%, fiom 71% in the fiist yeai to 84% in the seconu. These
iesults mean that 2S% of stuuents weie no cognitively engageu in leaining at the
beginning of the stuuy. At the beginning of the seconu yeai, the numbei of
cognitively uisengageu leaineis uioppeu to 16%.
An inteiesting anu unintentional iesult that was iecoiueu was the shift in
technology usage. Eaily in the stuuy, most of the technology use was teachei-
centeieu. At the enu of the two-yeai stuuy, technology use became stuuent-
centeieu.
0veiall, the iesults of the stuuy concluueu that these uistiicts incieaseu theii
integiation of technology into instiuction, hau an inciease in cognitively engageu
stuuents, anu piacticeu moie stuuent-centeieu instiuction.
The ieseaicheis pioviueu thiee limitations of theii stuuy. The fiist limitation
was that the STAR piogiam was not necessaiily iesponsible foi the positive iesults
that occuiieu. Seconu, a vaiiation of uemogiaphics anu chaiacteiistics that woulu
be founu in anothei (uiban) uistiict coulu leau to uiffeiing iesults. Finally, the thiiu
limitation was that the ieseaicheis aie highly biaseu in the powei of the community.
An outsiue obseivei may have a moie objective analysis.
The ieseaicheis imply that this paiticulai stuuy pioves that the teacheis in the
STAR pioject socially constiucteu theii knowleuge in a community of othei
teacheis, auministiatois, anu univeisity-euucatois anu weie able to focus on
incieasing theii stuuents' engagements in leaining (8u).
As uesciibeu in the ieseaicheis' limitations, I think it woulu be impoitant to
apply this stuuy to multiple uemogiaphically vaiying school uistiicts; not just thiee
similai uistiicts in one paiticulai iegion (though this was a moie logical necessity to
evaluate the piogiam's effectiveness). By changing the chaiacteiistics of the
schools, the stuuy anu its piacticeu pioject can be thoioughly evaluateu foi its
univeisal appeal anu effectiveness foi all euucatois acioss the countiy, anu
potentially the woilu. Cieating a laigei pool of subjects woulu uefinitely be the next
step baseu on the outcome of this stuuy.

!"#$#%&'
The ieseaich question is cleaily stateu: Bow is effective technology integiation
encouiageu in classioom teaching anu leaining thiough a shaieu leaining
community.
I think that the ieview of this liteiatuie was beneficial to me, specifically baseu
on my cuiient inteiests anu obligations in euucation. Though the stuuy piesenteu
iueas ciiculaily, its was well oiganizeu anu I was exposeu to new iueas, pioblems,
anu consiueiations in teims of piofessional uevelopment. When I fiist founu this
ieseaich stuuy, I thought it was appiopiiate foi my topic of inteiest (cieating
effective stuuent-centeieu leaining enviionments) because it is uesciibeu in it.
Bowevei, the abstiact was inueeu misleauing as it focuseu piimaiily on community
leaining foi piofessional uevelopment foi technology integiation, which, of couise,
leu to the auueu bonus of stuuent-centeieu teachei-ioles.
The ieseaichei wiites faiily well, using language anu teims that aie, foi the most
pait, colloquial in iegaius euucatois. If a non-euucatoi weie to ieau this stuuy, a
select numbei of teims anu phiases woulu neeu to be uefineu. Because of this, I
woulu say the wiiting is accessible only to a wiuely euucateu auuience.
As afoiementioneu, I think that the abstiact of this ieseaich aiticle was a bit
misleauing, but oveiall, it uoes inuiiectly apply to my ieseaich topic. Ny inteiest
was stuuent-centeieu leaining, but this aiticle examineu technology integiation
thiough piofessional leaining communities. Cleaily, my inteiest uoesn't exactly
match up to that. Bowevei, I uiu appieciate anu value the appioach that this stuuy
piesenteu to me. Since I was iecently uesignateu leauei of my school's piofessional
uevelopment team, I was inspiieu to suggest anu maybe conuuct piofessional
leaining communities that focuseu on masteiing technology integiation foi the sole
puipose of impioveu active stuuent cognitive engagement.
The ieseaichei makes it entiiely cleai what knowleuge has been gaineu, what
knowleuge is valiu, anu what knowleuge shoulu be taken with a giain of salt.
Piofessional leaining communities aie uefinitely piefeiieu by teacheis, but can be
costly. They (leaining communities) piove to be effective in implementing
technology, but not to the extieme multi-uistiict extent that was piacticeu in this
stuuy. Stuuents' cognitive engagement impioveu significantly uuiing the two-yeai
stuuy, though the cause of the impiovement cannot be awaiueu to the stuuy's
ieseaich piogiam.
Aftei the ieauing the ieseaich stuuy thiough its entiiety, I iealize that the
leaining theoiy that was explicitly stateu in the conclusion of the stuuy was
implicitly being testeu all along. Cifuentes, Naxwell, anu Bulu's stuuy contiibutes to
the leaining theoiy that iegaius "communities of piactice anu technology
integiation by uemonstiating the powei of leaining community" (8u). I think it
woulu have been beneficial foi this implication to be stateu in the intiouuction of
the stuuy insteau of at the enu of the conclusion. Bau this infoimation been
incluueu eailiei, the ieauei woulu have easily been able to iecognize the puipose of
this stuuy.

!,+./&0#,+0
0veiall, I uo believe that this stuuy was quite useful. A stuuy of this natuie
shoulu uefinitely stait with a smallei pool of subjects just to see what will woik anu
if it will woik at all. If a follow-up stuuent weie to be conuucteu baseu on this stuuy,
it woulu have been necessaiy anu beneficial to have this stuuy to seive as a
compaiison anu a stepping-stone.
The finuings of this stuuy aie somewhat limiteu in theii application to my
situation. I am assuming that my uistiict woulu measuie up in size baseu on the
uesciiption of the iuial school uistiicts. Bowevei, the technologies available seem
to be limiteu, even at the completion of theii stuuy, compaieu to what my school
cuiiently offeis (which is uefinitely not a whole lot!).
The statements I pioviueu in my intiouuction weie baseu on the infoimation
available in the stuuy. The stuuy uiu offei me a new insight anu appioach to
piofessional uevelopment, with an inuiiect bonus of impioving active stuuent
engagement. I plan on implementing (oi at least suggesting) a piofessional leaining
community at my school since I leau the piofessional uevelopment team. Anu
because I feel that impioving stuuent engagement is impoitant anu uiiectly
influenceu thiough the integiation of technology, I will my piofessional
uevelopment team with this. Fuitheimoie, I acquiieu the phiase "active stuuent
engagement vs. compliance" in teims of measuiing stuuent engagement. I thought
the phiasing of this was highly appiopiiate. I woulu love to leain moie about the
specifications foi measuiing this. Also, some of the uata was not consistently
measuieu at the uesignateu uata-collection points thioughout the stuuy.
Tiauitionally, infoimation was collecteu at the beginning of the stuuy, at the enu of
the fiist yeai, anu at the conclusion of the stuuy (enu of the seconu yeai). The
measuiement of stuuent engagement was only measuieu at the beginning of the
stuuy anu at the enu of the fiist yeai. Bau the ieseaicheis offeieu the final uata then
I think that this stuuy woulu have pioven itself valiu.