You are here:

Trends in Types Of and Goals For Technology Usage As Teachers Increase Their Technology Integration
PROCEEDING

, , University of Virginia, United States ; , Virginia Commonwealth University, United States ; , University of Virginia, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Savannah, GA, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Leaders in the treatment schools in a quasi-experimental study were guided to provide high-quality professional development as part of participation in a technology leadership development project. All schools’ leaders and teachers responded monthly as to their provision of and uses of, respectively, teachers’ opportunities to learn to integrate and actual uses and purposes for integration. Chi-square test of independence tests showed statistically significant differences between treatment and comparison schools’ teachers’ types and frequencies of, and purposes for technologies integrated. All Teachers frequently used technology, and teachers in treatment schools more often used technologies highly recommended in science and math; however, the nature and extent of the role technology played in supporting students’ deep conceptual understanding fell short of what is recommended.

Citation

Dexter, S., Anderson Morgan, M., Jones, W.M. & Meyer, J.P. (2016). Trends in Types Of and Goals For Technology Usage As Teachers Increase Their Technology Integration. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1203-1209). Savannah, GA, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., & Baber, C. (2011). An evaluation of multimodal interactions with technology while learning science concepts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 266-290.
  2. Chapman, L., Masters, J., & Pedulla, J. (2010). Do digital divisions still persist in schools? Access to technology and technical skills of teachers in high needs schools in the United States of America. Journal of Education for Teaching,36(2), 239-249.
  3. Cory, B.L. & Garofalo, J. (2011). Using dynamic sketches to enhances preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ understanding of limits of sequences. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 65-97.
  4. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12(4), 11431168.
  5. Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
  6. Goldin, G.A. (2002). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures. InBeliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 59-72). Springer Netherlands.
  7. Goldman, S.R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 239-244. Doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00023-3
  8. Knuth, E.J., & Hartmann, C.E. (2005). Using technology to foster students’ mathematical understandings and intuitions. In Masalski, W.J., & Elliot, P.C. (Eds). Technology-supported mathematics learning environments: Sixty-seventh yearbook. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  9. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
  10. Miles, S., & Kaplan, I. (2005). Using images to promote reflection: An action research study in Zambia and Tanzania. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 5(2), 77-83.
  11. Millar, M. (2005). Technology in the Lab; Part I: What Research Says about Using Probeware in the Science Classroom. Science Teacher, 72(7), 34-38.
  12. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  13. Plass, J.L., Homer, B.D., & Hayward, E.O. (2009). Designing factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 31 – 61. Doi:10.1007/s12528-009-9011-x
  14. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 4-14.
  15. Swartz, B., Patel, Y., Dexter, S., & Garofalo, J. (2013, March). Focusing the Technology Leadership: Key Technologies to Integrate into Secondary Math and Science Classrooms. In Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2013, No. 1, pp. 4861-4869).
  16. Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  17. Wiske, M.S., Franz, K.R., Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.