Validation of Teaching Competencies

Needed to Facilitate Instruction in

Student-Centered, One-to-One
Learning Environments
Andrea H. Parrish, Ed.D.
Department of Special Education, Towson University
William Sadera, Ph.D. & Scot W. McNary, Ph.D.
Department of Educational Technology and Literacy, Towson University
Background
• Prevalence of 1:1 learning environments grown recently (Richardson et al., 2013)
• Pedagogy in 1:1 learning environments is
• student-centered and constructivist (Cavanagh, Dawson, & Ritzhaupt, 2011; Gherardi, 2017)

• collaborative(Broussard, Hebert, Welch, & vanMetre, 2014; Inserra & Short, 2012)

• potentially motivating and engaging (Harper & Milman, 2015; Holen, Boury, & Semich, 2017)

• more relevant and personalized (Spires et al., 2009)

• But requires more of teachers

• differentiation (Gherardi, 2017; Milman, Carlson-Bancroft, & Boogart, 2014)

• skill at improvising, coaching, and consulting (Spires et al., 2009)

Assessment:Why
• Planning/guiding/evaluating professional development experiences
helps
• teachers self-assess
• reformers determine knowledge capital for planning and guiding
implementation
• evaluators assess implementation for individuals and institutions
• teacher preparation institutions:
• better research and measure the preparedness of future teachers;
• anticipate and develop new teaching strategies and professional development needs
Assessment:What
• Parrish (2017) Delphi study to develop an inventory of teaching
competencies for 1:1 learning environments
• 33 experts across US identified 30 competencies
• 5 categories
• instructional planning
• instructional delivery
• assessment of learning
• classroom management
• professionalism and leadership
Assessment:How
• From 33 competencies to N items
• Assessed for content validity via Delphi study (Parrish, 2017; 2018)
• Questions remaining:
• Who is the observer?
• What is the setting?
• What is the frequency and duration of observation?
• What is the “granularity” of the behavior being observed?
• Yet to be done:
• Writing items and response scales (YOU ARE HERE)
• Expert review
• Piloting the instrument
• Evaluation of internal consistency
• Validation research
• Scale validation is iterative (DeVellis, 2003)
References
• Broussard, J., Hebert, D., Welch, B., & VanMetre, S. (2014). Teaching today for tomorrow: A case study of one high school’s 1:1 computer adoption. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(4), 37-45. Retrieved from
https://www.questia.com/library/p438442/delta-kappa-gamma-bulletin
• Cavanagh, C., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2011). An evaluation of the conditions, processes, and consequences of laptop computing in K-12 schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 359-378. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.3.f
• DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Gherardi, S. (2017). Digitized and decoupled? Teacher sensemaking around educational technology in a model 1:1 program. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 29(2), 166-194. Retrieved from https://www.mwera.org
• Harper, B. & Milman, N. B. (2015). One-to-one technology in K-12 classrooms: A review of the literature from 2004 through 2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 129-142. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2016.1146564
• Holen, J. B., Hung, W., & Gourneau, B. (2017). Does one-to-one technology really work: An evaluation through the lens of activity theory. Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 34(1-2), 24-
44. doi: 10.1080/07380569.2017.1281698
• Inserra, A. & Short, T. (2012). An analysis of high school math, science, social studies, English, and foreign language teachers’ implementation of one-to-one computing and their pedagogical practices. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
41(2), 145-169. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/ET.41.2.d
• Islam, M. S., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). An international literature review of 1: 1 computing in schools. Journal of educational change, 17(2), 191-222. 10.1007/s10833-016-9271-y
• Maninger, R. M., & Holden, M. E. (2009). Put the textbooks away: Preparation and support for a middle school one-to-one laptop initiative. American Secondary Education, 5-33. Retrieved at http://www.ashland.edu/academics/education/ase/
• Milman, N. B., Carlson-Bancroft, A., & Vanden Boogart, A. (2014). Examining differentiation and utilization of iPads across content areas in an independent, preK-4thgrade elementary school. Computers in the Schools, 31, 119-133. doi:
10.1080/07380569.2014.931776
• Parrish (2017)
• Parrish (2018)
• Richardson, J. W., McLeod, S., Flora, K., Sauers, N. J., Kannan, S., & Sincar, M. (2013). Large-scale 1:1 computing initiatives: An open access database. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication
Technology, 9(1), 4-18. Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu
• Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of technology immersion on middle school students’ learning opportunities and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 299-315. Doi:
10.1080/00220671003767615
• Spires, H., Wiebe, E., Young, C. A., Hollebrands, K., & Lee, J. K. (2009). Toward a new learning ecology: Teaching and learning in one-to-one environments. Friday Institute White Paper Series. NC State University: Raleigh, NC.
• Strong, M., Gargani, J., & Hacifazlioğlu, Ö. (2011). Do we know a successful teacher when we see one? Experiments in the identification of effective teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 367-382. DOI: 10.1177/0022487110390221.