Technology tools are in the beginning stages of integration into instructional practices of speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of SLPs, as they learned to use a matrix connecting curriculum tasks to technology tools through participation in a community of practice (CoP). The theoretical framework for the study was based on situated learning theory. The study utilized design-based research methods to explore how using the matrix and participating in a CoP affected perceived knowledge, skill levels, and technology integration toward instructional synthesis for a purposeful sample of SLP teachers in the southwestern United States. Field notes, focus group sessions, and communication via e-mail and Facebook™ transcriptions were open coded, then axial-coded for emerging themes and changes in attitude and depth of technology usage. Survey data were analyzed. Overall, findings indicated qualitative changes in teaching practices were due to raised awareness about technology tools and applications through exposure to the matrix and collaboration within the CoP. Implications provide insight on how educators and researchers can improve professional development for technology integration within the SLP teaching environment.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Scope of practice in audiology. Retrieved fromwww.asha.org/policy
2.
BarabS.SquireK. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13, 1–14. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database
3.
BonkC. J. (2009). The world is open. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
BrounL. (2009). Take the pencil out of the process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 14–21. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database
6.
California Department of Education State Educational Technology Service. (2010). EdTechProfile. Retrieved from EdTech Profile: http://www.edtechprofile.org/index.php
7.
ChmiliarL. (2007). Perspectives on assistive technology: What teachers, health professionals, and speech and language pathologists have to say. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 35, 1–17. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/232461912?accountid=12085
8.
CourduffJ. (2011). Technology integration in the resource specialist environment(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Minneapolis, MN: School of Education, Walden University.
9.
CourduffJ. (2012). Language tasks and technology tools[training handout]. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: West End Special Education Local Plan Agency.
10.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
DedeC. (2005). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10, 4–36.
13.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.
14.
EdyburnD. (2009a). Hindsight, understanding what we got wrong, changing directions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24, 61–64.
15.
EdyburnD. (2009b). Using research to inform practice. Special Education Technology Practice, 11, 21–29.
16.
EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (2005). Handbook of special education technology research and practice. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
17.
ErtmerP.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, culture, and beliefs intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 255–284.
GlazerE.HannafinM. (2008). Factors that influence mentor and teacher interactions during technology integration collaborative apprenticeships. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16, 35–61.
20.
HallG. E.HordS. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Danbury, CT: Allyn & Bacon.
21.
HallG.LoucksS. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether treatment is actually implemented. American Research Journal, 14, 263–276. doi:10.2307/1162291
22.
HoustonT. K.PerigoeC. B. (2010). Speech-language pathologists: Vital listening and spoken language professionals. The Volta Review, 110, 219–230.
JohnsonB.ChristensenL. B. (2008). Educational research quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
KealyM. (2010). Superintendent’s commentary: A leadership focus on teacher effectiveness: Support for novice teachers. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 52–55.
26.
KopchaT. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 175–190. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9095-4
27.
LaveJ. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life (Learning in doing). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29.
LawlessK. A.PellegrinoJ. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575–615. doi:10.3102/0034654307309921
30.
LevinT.WadmanyR. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-based classrooms: A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 157–181.
31.
MillsG. (2007). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
32.
NewtonD. N.DellA. (2011). Mobile devices and students with disabilities: What do best practices tell us?Journal of Special Education Technology, 26, 47–49.
33.
OkanZ.TarafH. U. (2013). The use of blogs in secondary language teacher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 282–289.
34.
OverbaughR.LuR. (2008, Fall). The impact of a NCLB-EETT funded professional development program on teacher self-efficacy and resultant implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 43–62.
35.
PotterS. L.Rockinson-SzapkiwA. J. (2012). Technology integration for instructional improvement: The impact of professional development. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 51, 22–27. doi:10.1002/pfi.21246
36.
QuinnB.BehrmannM.MastropieriM.BauschM.AultJ.ChungY. (2009). Who is using assistive technology in schools?Journal of Special Education, 24, 1–13.
37.
ReevesD. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
38.
SitkoM.LaineC. J.SitkoC. (2005). Writing tools: Technology and strategies for struggling writers. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 571–598). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
39.
TaylorA.McQuigganC. (2008). Faculty development programming: If we build it, will they come?EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31, 28–37. Retrieved fromhttp://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUS
40.
Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act 1988, Pub. L. 100-407, Sec. 2, 102 Stat. 1044 (1988) (amendment 1990).
41.
WangY.PaulP. V. (2011). Integrating technology and reading instruction with children who are deaf or hard of hearing: The effectiveness of the cornerstones project. American Annals of the Deaf, 156, 56–68. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/874488909?accountid=12085
42.
WangF.HannafinM. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 5–23.
43.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
WestR. (2009). What is shared? A framework for understanding shared innovation within communities. Education Tech Research Development, 57, 315–332.
45.
ZabalaJ.CarlD. F. (2005). Quality indicators for assistive technology services in schools. In EdyburnD.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 179–208). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
