You are here:

Negotiations with New Tools: A Skill-Based Framework for an Online Teacher’s Technology Adoption
PROCEEDINGS

, University of Tampere, School of Communication, Media and Theatre, Finland

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Tampere, Finland ISBN 978-1-939797-08-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

An online teacher of today is constantly expected to get into negotiations of new software in order to make an informed decision whether to use a particular tool in and beyond the classroom and how to turn it into a pedagogically and didactically reasonable tool. This paper takes a look at the processes of negotiation in order to conceptualize the adoption and pedagogicalization by drawing on theories of technology adoption and usage. Rather than looking the pedagogical technology relationship from the perspective of roles, the paper places the process of adoption of and negotiation with technology to its starting point, identifying core skills and potential hindrances for dealing with technology. Based on online discussions among upper secondary school teachers (N=123) on five different courses of online pedagogy, skill-based framework is expected to be productive for professional learning and development.

Citation

Jaakkola, M. (2014). Negotiations with New Tools: A Skill-Based Framework for an Online Teacher’s Technology Adoption. In J. Viteli & M. Leikomaa (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2014--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1892-1900). Tampere, Finland: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 13, 2024 from .

© 2014 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, T. (2008). “Teaching in an online learning context.” In T. Anderson (Ed.) Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 343–365). Athabasca: Athabasca University.
  2. Brookfield, S. (2010). “Critical reflection as an adult learning process.” In N. Lyons (Ed.) Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry (pp. 215–236).
  3. Van Dijk, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Gibson, J.J. (1977). “The theory of affordances.” In R. Shaw& J. Bransford (Eds.) Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5. Grizzle, A. & Wilson, C. (Eds.) (2011). Media and information literacy curriculum for teachers. Paris: UNESCO.
  6. Livingstone, S. (2004). “What is media literacy?” Intermedia 32 (3), 18–20.
  7. McLoughlin, C. (2011). “Reinventing the 21st century educator: social media to engage and support the professional learning of teachers.” In G. Williams& P. Statham & N. Brown& B. Cleland (Eds.) Changing demands, changing directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011 (pp. 847–851).
  8. McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M.J.W. (2010). “Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 16 (1), 28–43.
  9. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). ”Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.” Teachers College Record 108 (6), 1017–1054.
  10. Oh, E. & Reeves, T.C. (2010). “The implications of the differences between design research and instructional systems design for educational technology researchers and practitioners.” Educational Media International 47(4), 263–275.
  11. Venkatesh, V. & Bala, H. (2008). “Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions.” Decision Sciences 39 (2), 273–315.
  12. Whitehouse, P. (2011). “Networked teacher professional development: The case of Globaloria.” Journal of Interactive Learning Research 22 (1), 139–165.
  13. Wilson, G. & Stacey, E. (2004). “Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 20(1), 33–48.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References