Rural teacher attitudes and engagement with computing and technology

Authors

  • Melissa P Mendenhall Utah State University
  • Colby Tofel-Grehl Utah State University
  • David Feldon Utah State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2022.v12n2p179-196

Keywords:

Rural Teacher, Professional Development, STEM, Computing, Technology

Abstract

The purpose of this sequential Case Study-Mixed Methods research is to explore rural teacher attitudes toward, approaches to, and engagement with making and computational thinking during STEM professional development and co-teaching learning experiences. Specifically, we examine the professional learning needs of two rural, middle school teachers as they engage technology. Using the lens of cultural historical activity theory, this paper examines the ways in which teacher attitude about computing shifted throughout professional learning and instructional practice. Findings show three broad themes that emerge surrounding teacher attitudes, approaches, and engagement with technology: Anxiety, Independent Learner, and Integration. Additionally, findings suggest that teacher attitude toward technology can be moderated through the means of a more knowledgeable other who scaffolds teacher learning and integration of technology.

Author Biographies

Melissa P Mendenhall, Utah State University

Melissa P. Mendenhall, MA, is currently pursuing a PhD in Education, Curriculum and Instruction, Concentration in Science Education from Utah State University after completing a Master of Arts, Teacher Education, Integrated STEM emphasis from Brigham Young University. Her main research interest includes finding ways for all students to access effective STEM instruction. As the Elementary Science and STEM Specialist for the Utah State Board of Education, Melissa hopes to build the capacity of educators to scaffold disciplinary literacy in students, thereby providing them with the knowledge and skills to participate in STEM discourse and prepare for STEM career pathways if they so choose.

Colby Tofel-Grehl, Utah State University

Colby Tofel-Grehl, PhD, is an associate professor of science education in the School of Teacher Education and Leadership at Utah State University. Her research focuses on finding ways to engage technology within core content STEM classrooms to create more equitable learning opportunities and supports for youth STEM identity development. Her research has appeared in The Physics Teacher, Journal of Educational Research, and Journal of Science Education and Technology. In 2020, she was honored with the early career Science Teacher Educator of the Year award from the Association for Science Teacher Education.

David Feldon, Utah State University

David Feldon, PhD, is a professor of instructional technology and learning sciences at Utah State University. His scholarship engages two foci: (1) identification of mechanisms of learning and motivation in postsecondary STEM education and (2) their interactions with structural barriers that hinder equitable career trajectories. His research attempts to build bridges from a deep understanding of motivation and cognition to broader cultural and structural influences that shape divergent pathways to expertise and modes of professional success.

References

Alexander, C., Langub, L. W., & Rosen, D. (2014). “Watch it, do it, teach it”: Technology and early childhood field experiences. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 133–146.

Avci, Z. Y., O’Dwyer, L. M., & Lawson, J. (2020). Designing effective professional development for technology integration in schools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(2), 160-177. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12394

Barrett, N., Cowen, J., Toma, E., & Troske, S. (2015). Working with what they have: Professional development as a reform strategy in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 30(10), 1–18.

Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on technology in K-12 schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 489-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2003.10782398

Bullough, R. V., & Baughman, K. (1997). “First-year teacher” eight years later: An inquiry into teacher development. Teachers College Press.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. Employment projections: 2012-2022 summary. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecopro_12192013.pdf

Cowen, J. M., Butler, J. S., Fowles, J., Streams, M. E., & Toma, E. F. (2012). Teacher retention in Appalachian schools: Evidence from Kentucky. Economics of Education Review, 31(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.12.005

Delgado, A. J., Wardlow, L., McKnight, K., & O’Malley, K. (2015). Educational technology: A review of the integration, resources, and effectiveness of technology in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 397-416. https://doi.org/10.28945/2298

DeWitt, J., & Archer, L. (2015). Who aspires to a science career? A comparison of survey responses from primary and secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 2170-2192.

Engeström, T. (1999). Activity theory as individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge University Press.

Gaytan, J. A., & McEwen, B. C. (2010). Instructional technology professional development evaluation: Developing a high-quality model. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 52(2), 77-94.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Greeno J. G., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of learning sciences (pp. 128-150). Cambridge University Press.

Guetterman, T., & Fetters, M. (2018). Two methodological approaches to the integration of mixed methods and case study designs: A systematic review. American Behavioral Scientists, 62(7), 900-918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218772641

Guskey, T. R. (2002, April). Linking professional development to improvements in student learning [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, April 1-5, 2002, New Orleans, LA, United States.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106

Howley, A., & Howley, C. B. (2004). High-quality teaching: Providing for rural teachers’ professional development (ED484929). ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED484929.pdf

Jones-Kavalier, B., & Flannigan, S. L. (2008). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century. Educause Quarterly, 2, 8-10. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/connecting-the-digital-dots-literacy-of-the-21st-century

Kafai, T., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. MIT Press.

Koschmann, T., Kuuti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture & Activity, 5(1), 25-41.

Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality (M.J. Hall, Trans.). Prentice Hall. (Original work published 1975).

Margolis, J., Goode, J., & Ryoo, J. J. (2015). Democratizing computer science. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 48-53.

Nasah, A., DaCosta, B., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S. (2010). The digital literacy debate: An investigation of digital propensity and information and communication technology. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 531–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9151-8

National Science Foundation & National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013. Special Report NSF 13-304. Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/

Oliver, J. S. (2007). Rural science education. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 345–369). Erlbaum.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Peppler, K., & Glosson, D. (2013). Stitching circuits: Learning about circuitry through e-textile materials. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 751-763.

Pittman, T., & Gaines, T. (2015). Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade classrooms in a Florida school district. Education Technology Research & Development, 63, 539-554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9391-8

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) for America’s future. Report to the President. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf

Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.

Rude, H. A., & Brewer, R. D. (2003). Assessment of professional development systems: Improving rural special education services. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22, 20–28.

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1-24.

Schwarz, B. B., & Hershkowitz, R. (2001). Production and transformation of computer artifacts: Towards construction of meaning in mathematics. European Research in Mathematics Education II, 8(3), 241-254. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0803_4

Searle, K., Tofel-Grehl, C., & Breitenstein, J. (2019). Equitable engagement in STEM: Using e-textiles to challenge the positioning of non-dominant girls in school science. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 21(1), 42-61.

Smith, L. K. (2002). Reconceptualizing context from a situated perspective: Teacher beliefs and the activity of teaching within the context of science reform (UMI No. 3058264). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah]. ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143-1144.

Tofel-Grehl, C., Searle, K. A., & Ball, D. (2022). Thinking thru making: Mapping computational thinking practices onto scientific reasoning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09989-6

Tofel-Grehl, C., Searle, K. A., & Feldon. D. (2018). Professional development for secondary science teachers: A faded scaffolding approach to preparing teachers to integrate computing. In J. Kay, & R. Luckin (Eds.), Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018 (pp. 560-567). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/903

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.

Weintrop. D., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Truille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5

Weitzenkamp, D. J., Howe, M. E., Steckelberg, A. L., & Radcliffe, R. (2003). The GOALS model: Rural teacher preparation institutions meeting the ideals of a PDS through educational technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(4), 574–585.

Wertsch, J. V. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 548-557.

Downloads

Published

2022-11-04

How to Cite

Mendenhall, M. P., Tofel-Grehl, C., & Feldon, D. (2022). Rural teacher attitudes and engagement with computing and technology. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 12(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2022.v12n2p179-196

Issue

Vol. 12 No. 2 (2022): Theory & Practice in Rural Education: Special Issue on Rural STEM Teacher Development

Section

Research Forum

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Melissa P Mendenhall, Colby Tofel-Grehl, David Feldon

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright Notice

Articles will be published using a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Sharealike license. (For more information on this license, please visit the Creative Commons license page.) Please also note that the authors are explicitly granting permission for Academic Library Services to store a copy of the article in The ScholarShip, ECU's Institutional Repository under the terms of the current ScholarShip license. As a North Carolina agency, ECU contributes copies of all publications to the North Carolina State Archives.