Kim Peacock, M.Ed. Yvonne Norton Michael Carbonaro, Ph.D. University of Alberta

1. The Aboriginal Teacher Education Program Technology Initiative: Current Progress in a One-to-One Laptop Program to Support Blended Delivery Kim Peacock, M.Ed.Yvonne Norton Michael Carbonaro, Ph.D. University of Alberta

2. The ATEP Program • Established in 2001 • ATEP pre-service education programs to Aboriginal students in partnership with First Nations colleges and/or local school authorities across Northern Alberta • Provides access to teacher education programs for individuals in remote areas • Students receive a B.Ed. From the University of Alberta

3. The ATEP Philosophy • Seeks to deliver community based education that is reflective of: • Community culture • Local concerns and aspirations • Feeling “at home” while learning • Students can continue to live and work in their home communities

4. Institutional Collaboration • The University works with the First Nations colleges to: • Identify and hire instructors • Develop curricular materials • Plan individual course delivery • Secure resources • A site coordinator also assists students with their individual program planning

5. ATEP Logistics • ATEP uses a cohort-based model • Build a climate of trust and community • Foster supportive collegiality • Two-year cohort cycle • Average intake of 18-25 students per cycle • Students do not have to be aboriginal to participate in the program • Since 2001, 71 students have graduated from the ATEP program

6. The ATEP Technology Initiative • In conjunction with Blue Quills First Nations College in St. Paul, Alberta • Approximately 140 miles (220 KM) north-east of Edmonton.

7. The ATEP Cohort • 20 ATEP Students • 15 Aboriginal and 5 non-aboriginal • 15 females and 5 males • Average age: 35 years old in 2007 • Median age: 33 years old in 2007 • All 20 are participating in the research component of this initiative in some way

8. Rationale • Previous experiences with ATEP have indicated that participation and retention are directly linked to issues surrounding: • Commuting • Communication • Financial resources • Access to resources (library, classroom, etc...) • Increases in blended-learning opportunities

9. Project Purpose • Increase access • Increase integration

10. Project Purpose - Access • Increase student access to technology equipment and resources • Increase access to courses through distance and blended delivery • Foster a community of learners that extends beyond face-to-face learning and contributes to the cultural experiences of ATEP.

11. Access • Through the generous support of the University of Alberta TLEF program, the TELUS Community Foundation and Hewlett-Packard, each student received: • An HP laptop computer • Microsoft Office 2007 • EVDO satellite Internet card • Unlimited Internet access for the duration of their program

12. Project Purpose - Integration • Increase levels of technology integration in the program • Develop students’ technology skills • Develop students’ knowledge of classroom technology integration to: • Promote student problem-solving • Promote critical thinking • Support learners with special needs

13. Integration • Students participated in a series of PD sessions to enhance their skills and raise awareness of resources. • Instructors were approached about the project and encouraged to develop activities that made use of the technology.

14. Methodology

15. Research Questions • The research team developed a set of research questions that included examining: • Student and instructor skills • Attitudes towards technology • Instructor best practices • Student integration levels • Overall effectiveness of our model

16. Examining Student Progress • This paper/presentation looks at our students’ progress so far. • In light of our research questions, this translates to: • Student attitudes • Student skills • Students’ integration levels

17. Methodology • Both qualitative and quantitative • Qualitative: • Student reflections • Student interviews • Student focus groups • Sharing circles • Artifacts • Concept maps • Quantitative: • Numerous instruments delivered pre-mid-post (pre and mid only at this time)

18. Methodology –Attitudes • Instruments administered: • Survey of Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Information Technology (TAT) (Knezek & Christenses, 1998) • Attitudes section of the Fordham University Regional Technology Center Technology Skills Self-Assessment Profile (D’Agustino, Imbimbo & King, 2004) • Student reflections • Interviews, focus groups and sharing circles

19. Methodology - Skill • Skill self-assessment only • Instruments administered: • Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment (TPSA) (Ropp, 1999) to examine competencies • University of Alberta Faculty of Education Technology Survey to examine how independently students and faculty can complete technology tasks • Student reflections • Interviews, focus groups and sharing circles

20. Methodology - Integration • Analysis of artifacts: final unit plans from their final methods course (Social Studies). • Concept maps • Interviews with mentor teachers after student teaching. • Student reflections • Interviews, focus groups and sharing circles

21. Learning Styles • For our own interest, we have also administered: • The Paragon Learning Style Inventory (based on the MBPI) (Shindler, 2003) • The Visual – Auditory – Kinaesthetic (VAK) Test (Chislett, 2005)

22. Results and Discussion

23. Student Attitude Influences • High average age of the cohort. • Normal distribution with a mean of 35 and a medium of 33 at the onset of the program in 2007. • Some millennial learners, some baby boomers and some from generation X.

24. Student Attitude Influences • Hardware difficulties • Late arrival • OS issues • Internet access issues • Hardware failures

25. Student Attitude Results • FURETCTSSA Instrument • Students moved towards a more positive attitude towards computers on 17 out of 18 questions • The remaining question had no change. • Moved from pre-point averages of 4.00 to mid-point averages of 4.35 (n=13).

26. Student Attitude Results (n=13)

27. Student Attitude Results • The Survey of Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Technology (TAT) also showed consistent motion towards more positive attitudes. • The formal TAT scoring analysis will be conducted when the post data has been collected (Knezek & Christiensen, 1998).

28. Student Attitude Results • Average changes of more than .5 points on a 5 point Likert scale between pre and mid point administration of the Teacher Attitudes Towards Instructional Technology (TAT) instrument. (n=13)

29. Student Attitude Results • Average changes of more than .5 points on a 7 point semantic scale between pre and mid point administration of the Teacher Attitudes Towards Instructional Technology (TAT) instrument. (n=13)

30. Student Attitude Results • Average changes of more than .5 points on a 7 point semantic scale between pre and mid point administration of the Teacher Attitudes Towards Instructional Technology (TAT) instrument. (n=13)

31. Student Attitude Results • Initial qualitative data supports these findings. • In student reflections about the use of Elluminate for online courses, 12 responses were predominantly positive, 3 were neutral and 3 were predominantly negative. • Mid-point reflections on the project overall had 10 students with predominantly positive responses and 1 student who was neutral. • Our focus group data has similar ratios, though the data is hard to quantify.

32. Student Skill Influences • Students were not starting on the even playing field that was anticipated. • Initial skill-self assessments showed that students did not have the skills you would anticipate after an introductory computing course. • PD sessions had to be modified • Supplemental support for low end learners • Supplemental resources for high end learners • Shift of focus to pedagogy and integration over more complex skills

33. Student Skill Influences • Supplemental support systems were put into place • One additional college support person • One cohort member was hired as a temporary TA • Phone and email support was provided by the PD coordinator

34. Student Skill Results • Technology Proficiency Self- Assessment • 20 skills self-assessed on a Likert scale • Students moved from an average of 3.88 to 4.12 on pre to mid-point measures (n=12) • Of the twenty items, students moved more towards disagree on one of the skills, three remained the same and moved towards agree on the remaining 16 items. • We have substantial amounts of qualitative data that support these findings.

35. Student Skill Results (n=12)

36. Student Skill Results • We will compare the students on our own University of Alberta Faculty of Education Technology Survey which was only administered at pre and post points because of length. • The instrument has students gauge their skill level on a five point scale of: • I am totally confident that I can do this on my own. • I am pretty sure that I can do this on my own. • I could do this with a bit of help. • I can’t do this but would like to learn how. • I can’t do this and don’t really care to learn how.

37. Integration Challenges • Instructors did not always respond to the initiative in the way we had hoped. • Some instructors made extensive use of the available technology while... • Others opted not to make use of it at all. • Another reason why pedagogy and integration became an important focus of the PD sessions

38. Integration Experiences • Despite these challenges, students were able to experience a number of technologies in their courses, including: • Taking a synchronous online course • Taking an asynchronous online course • Recording a podcast • Completing digital scavenger hunts • Creating multimedia storybooks • Creating concept maps with Inspiration • Authoring spreadsheets • Blogging • Using Ning as a CMS

39. Integration Experiences • Students were also able to explore a wide range of tools and software in the PD sessions, even though they didn’t have a chance to apply them in the classroom: • Read and Write Gold • BoardMaker Plus! • Google Earth • Community Walk • Google Sites • Blogger • VoiceThread • And more..

40. Technology Integration Results • Results to follow... • Students have just begun their final round of student teaching. • Students will complete the second round of concept maps at the call-back day in April. • We do currently have the students’ final unit plans from their last methods course and are beginning to analyze them for technology integration activities.

41. Conclusion • Despite many challenges, we have seen evidence of positive growth in terms of student attitudes towards technology and self-assessed skill. • We are currently beginning to examine evidence of enhanced student technology integration in their teaching and planning.

42. Conclusion • We will be publishing further results after we gather post data at the end of the project. • We will also publish best practices and lessons learned for organizations who may be seeking to implement similar programs. • This initiative has provided us with a great deal of guidance about future endeavours and will inform many future decisions about technology use in our off-site programs.

43. Thank You! • Kim Peacockkim.peacock@ualberta.ca • ATEP Web Sitehttp://atep.ualberta.ca • ATEP Technology Initiative Web Sitehttp://atep.ualberta.ca/technology/