C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

  • Published on
    14-Jun-2015

  • View
    534

  • Download
    2

Transcript

1. Technology and Learning Barbara Kinast Susan Swan Smith George Washington University Educ 246 Spring 2010 2. Outline I. Objective II. Introduction III. Research Supporting Technologys Effectiveness IV. Research Refuting Technologys Effectiveness V. Resources 3. I. Objectives Convey a high-level understanding of recent research on technologys effectiveness in K-12 education Spur consideration of technology-related issues that will face you as administrators Provide context for each of you to decide what the role of technology in K-12 education should be 4. II. Introduction Education is rich and intellectually rewarding,entailing the posing of questions,the examination of issues andthe search for adequate evidence. - John Dewey (1933) How We Think The Question is: Does technology help or hindereducation as Dewey characterizes it? 5. II. Introduction (Barron, 2003) 6. Supportive ResearchOur doubts are traitors,And make us lose the good we oft might winBy fearing to attempt.- Shakespeare Measure for Measure(1.4)Studies by DisciplineStudies on Teaching and Learning Studies on 21 stCentury Students Expectations & Suggestions 7. III.Supportive Research, cont. Language Arts/English: When students had computer assistance in Canadian literacy classes they demonstrated: a higher level of engagement, more active participation in class,a deeper level of understanding. Regardless of teacher knowledge or attitude. (Davis, 2009) Mathematics: Key inequities in computer use are not in how often they are used, but how they are used.Computer use to teach higher-order thinking skills, had a significant positive impact on eighth graders scores. (Wenglinsky, 1998) 8. III.Supportive Research, cont. Social Studies & History : Students scores increase when technology is used because:They have greater interest in doing research after exploring electronic resources,Access to primary sources brings history alive for them, andTheir diverse learning styles were addressed.Professional developmentimproved Teachers technology skills,Their teaching skills, andTheir confidence in using technology.(Taylor, 2006) Science: Long-term, authentic research projects using information technology improved students: Attitudes toward,Perceptions of, andSelf-confidence in science. Previous studies without the imbedded IT component were inconclusive. (Kaya, 2007) 9. III.Supportive Research, cont. Teaching Practices: When one-to-on laptop program & professional development implemented: increased student-centered teaching,increased tool-based teaching, andincreased meaningful use of technology.Some classroom practices did not change: classroom organization, andassessment practices.The most significant changes were observed in areas where the professional development program had placed emphasis. (Dawson, Cavanaugh and Ritzhaupt, 2008) 10. III.Supportive Research, cont. Learning: Students who use technologically innovative study methodsortraditional study methods do well on exams and attend class regularly. Students who dobothdo not score as well or attend class as regularly; possibly because they do not feel they need to attend class and therefore miss important interpersonal interactions. Students who doneither(no surprise) do more poorly than either of the other groups. (Debevec, Shih and Kashyap, 2006) Assessment: Studentswho use 24/7 (web-based) access to performance measures regularly: Are more motivated, Perform better, and Demonstrate self-regulating behavior. Parentswho have access to performance measures feel: More included in educational process, and Better informed by teachers. (Zappe, 2002) 11. III.Supportive Research, cont. Student Expectations: View the internet as integral to learning,See internet as combination virtual textbook, tutor, study group, guidance counselor and backpack, Use internet educationally outside the school day, and Think not-so-engaging uses of technology are predominant in their classes.Student Recommendations: Better align classroom activities with how they use the Internet outside of class, Increase the quality of technology and information available to them, Put more emphasis on professional development for teachers and on media literacy skills for themselves, and, they caution,The digital divide is a reality to be taken seriously. (Pew, 2002) 12. IV.Contradictory Evidence Once a new technology rolls over you, if youre not part of the steamroller, youre part of the road. - Stewart Brand Is technology worth the money spent? Does technology produce higher achievement? 13. IV.Contradictory Research, cont. Cost v. Benefit of Technology: Computer-Aided Instruction (CAI): requires a large investment of funds leads to a decrease in funding of other programs Results of study: No evidence that increased use of computers raised scores In some cases, students with increased computer use experienced a decrease in scores. (Joshua Angrist and Victor Lavy, 2002) 14. IV.Contradictory Research, cont. Cost v. Benefit of Technology: U.S. government subsidies for technology/E-rate: Designed to decrease the perceived digital divide Urban, low-income schools with high minority populations are most likely to take advantage of E-rate programs. Significantly increased the number of computers and the level of Internet access available to schools Results of study: A 66% increase in Internet access did not result in any measurable increase in school performance. ( Austan Goolsbee and Jonathan Guryan, 2002) 15. IV.Contradictory Research, cont. Cost v. Benefit of Technology: Silicon Valley, California: has more Technological wealth than most other areas in California and in the U.S. does not show more innovative use of computers for instructional purposes than the rest of the state or country Results of study: Using a variety of surveys, Cuban found that higher levels of access to computers, Internet connectivity and computer literacy did not lead to changes in instructional practice. ( Larry Cuban, 2001) 16. IV.Contradictory Research, cont. Traditional v. Virtual Methods: A study of concrete manipulatives v. virtual manipulatives: Given equal instruction on equivalent fractions, students who used concrete manipulatives performed better than students using virtual manipulatives. Results of study: Students responded positively to both types of manipulatives. Students performed better on posttests after interacting with concrete manipulatives.( Sonya Brown, 2007) 17. V.Resources Angrist, J., Lavy, V. (2002, October).New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning.The Economic Journal,112, 735-765.Retrieved fromhttp://econ.www.mit.edu/file/22 .Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., Kalaydijian, K. (2003). Large-Scale Research Study in K-12 Schools:Technology Integration as It Relates to the National Educational Technology Standards.Journal of Research on Technology on Education , 35(4), 489-507. Retrieved fromwww.iste.org/ . Brown, S. (2007).Counting Blocks or Keyboards?A Comparative Analysis of Concrete versus Virtual Manipulatives in Elementary School Mathematics Concepts.Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov . (ED499231) Cuban, L. (2001).Oversold and Underused:Computers in the Classroom.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press. Davis, J. M. (2009, April 20).Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) in Language Arts: Investigating the Influence of Teacher Knowledge and Attitudes on the Learning Environment.Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov . (ED505173) Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, a. D. (2009)Floridas EETT Leveraging Laptops Initiative and Its Impact on Teaching Practices.Journal of Research on Technology on Education , 41(2), 143-159. Retrieved fromwww.iste.org/ . Debevec, K., Shih, M, & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning Strategies and Performance in a Technology Integrated Classroom.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,38(3), 293-307. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ . (EJ728906) Debevec, K., Shih, M, & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning Strategies and Performance in a Technology Integrated Classroom.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,38(3), 293-307. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ . (EJ728906) 18. V.Resources Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, a. D. (2009)Floridas EETT Leveraging Laptops Initiative and Its Impact on Teaching Practices.Journal of Research on Technology on Education , 41(2), 143-159. Retrieved fromwww.iste.org/ . Debevec, K., Shih, M, & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning Strategies and Performance in a Technology Integrated Classroom.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,38(3), 293-307. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ . (EJ728906) Debevec, K., Shih, M, & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning Strategies and Performance in a Technology Integrated Classroom.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,38(3), 293-307. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ . (EJ728906) Goolsbee, A., Guryan, J. (2002, August).The Impact of Internet Subsidies in Public Schools.NBER Working Paper Series.Cambridge,MA.Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov . (ED468062) Kaya, O. N., Ebenezer, J. (2007, April).High School Students' Affective Dispositions in Science: Scientific Inquiry with Information Technologies . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association . Chicago, IL. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov . (ED500737) 19. V.Resources Kingsley, K. V., Boone, R. (2009). Effects of Multimedia Software on Achievement of Middle School Students in an American History Class.Journal of Research on Technology on Education , 41(2), 203-221. Retrieved fromwww.iste.org/ .Wenglinsky, H. (1998).Does It Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov . (ED425191) Zappe, S. M.; Sonak, B. C.; Hunter, M. W.; & Suen, H. K. (2002, April).The Effects of a Web-Based Information Feedback System on Academic Achievement Motivation and Performance of Junior High School Students . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association . New Orleans. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ . (ED468915)