Virtual School Meanderings

March 22, 2016

SITE 2016 – A Comparison of Classrooms of Tomorrow (COT) and 1:1 Classrooms and Associated High School Student Learning Outcomes

As I mentioned in the entry entitled SITE 2016 And K-12 Online Learning, the the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE) 2016 annual conference is occurring in Savannah, Georgia this week, and SITE is home to the K-12 Online Learning SIG.  That means that I will be blogging many of the sessions throughout the week.  The eleventh session I am blogging is:

A Comparison of Classrooms of Tomorrow (COT) and 1:1 Classrooms and Associated High School Student Learning Outcomes

  1. Tina Heafner, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, United States
  2. Ponscheck Ashley, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, United States

Tuesday, March 22 2:15-2:45 PM in Scarbrough 2 View on map

Discuss  Download Paper

This study examines how teaching and learning are different based on classroom technology resources available to K-12 teachers and students. Objectives of the study are to: richly describe how secondary teachers are using technology to support student learning of English, mathematics, science and social studies; determine if uses of technology align with ISTE teacher standards; explore teacher motives for technology uses and determine whether these motives are associated with content areas and/or technology resources available; observe learning contexts and how these vary based on the technology resources available to teachers and students (COT vs. 1:1): and determine if differences in teacher uses of technology within core subject areas are associated with differences in student achievement and motivation.

ID
48208
Type
Full Paper
Topics
Teaching and Learning with Emerging Technologies Technological, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) K-12 Online Learning

This is actually a grant-funded study where the data collection only finished in January, so these are initial results.  By classrooms of tomorrow, the presenters were really talking about contrasting a one-to one model of education (i.e., Chrome books) with classrooms that resemble student learning centers that we see in many post-secondary settings (think if you merged a traditional library, with a traditional classroom, with a Starbucks – minus the coffee).

Based on these initial findings, the shift from individual spaces (i.e., 1-1) to shared (i.e., COT) spaces made teachers focus more on interaction, engagement and collaboration.  Similar the shift from constrained spaces (i.e., non-moveable furniture) flexible spaces made teachers focus on technological influences, pedagogical mindsets, and learning designs.  Also, the physical spaces – desks create separation (i.e., isolation).  Finally, COT classrooms also facilitated spaces for decision making – which resulted in good and bad decisions on the part of students.

There wasn’t much difference in the use of technology between the 1-1 and the COT classrooms, and the technology use in the COT classrooms tended to be more teacher-focused and teacher-driven.  Interestingly, there wasn’t that much different in the opportunities for communication.  A bit more in the collaborative writing for the COT classroom, but overall fairly consistent between the two settings.  It should be noted that the social studies was an anomaly, where the COT classroom ran counter to findings for the other items.  Finally, regardless of setting, assessment was still done in very traditional ways.

I should note that the presenters had 38 slides for a 30 minute session (and many of the first 10 or so slides had multiple transitions within the slide, essentially like turning a single slide into multiple slides) – and I even finished about 6 minutes early, as I didn’t have any questions.  So they used all 35 minutes given to them and still didn’t get to the end of their slides on time.  In fact, they did their final 3 slides after time was up, and entertained questions following that (which meant the presenters coming into the room for the next session had less time to set-up).  The session eventually ended 7 minutes past the actual end time (for those counting, that was actually 43 minutes of time).

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: