Paths+Toward+Integration


 * Premises
 * Teaching Theories
 * Links
 * Bloom's Taxonomy
 * Research
 * Effectiveness of Technology Use with Students
 * Teaching Theories and Technology Use

** Premises **

 * 1) // Classroom technology use has two modes: Instructional (teacher use) and Demonstration (student use). //
 * 2) // When students use technology, they talk. //
 * 3) // Students learn when they actively participate. //
 * 4) // Teachers must teach responsible, ethical, and safe use of technology tools. //
 * 5) // Students have a right to use technology in every classroom every year. //
 * 6) // Not all technology tools are created equal. //
 * 7) // Everything is easier with a partner. //
 * 8) // Teachers must be flexible about incorporating technology. //

**Teaching** **Theories**

 * __Behaviorism __: teachers hold the knowledge and transmit that knowledge to students through what teachers reveal and explain in instruction
 * __Constructivism__: students learn through active participation in acquiring knowledge, social interactions, and the connection of new information to what they already know
 * __Blended (Cognitivism, Interactivism)__: teacher provides a skeleton of basic skills for the whole class, which is a behaviorist method, and then releases most students to build on the skeleton skills, based on paired and shared work, which is constructivist

** Links **
//[|How to Protect Kids’ Privacy Online: A Guide for Teachers]//

** Bloom's Taxonomy **

 * Interactive Model of Bloom's Taxonomy and The Knowledge Dimensions
 * Bloom's and ICT Tools wiki
 * Bloom's Digital Taxonomy Wheel and Knowledge Dimension

** Research **
**EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNOLOGY USE WITH STUDENTS**

Researchers have struggled to find ways to measure the effects of computer-based technology on academic performance. One issue is the number of potential ways students can use digital tools in their learning. In fact, researchers distinguish between learning “from” computers and learning “with” computers. Learning “from” computers refers to using computers as tutors, as in integrated learning systems and skill practice software. Learning “with” computers refers to using computers as tools to do work that extends to the higher order thinking skills (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002).

Researchers can measure academic growth of students who use computers as tutors for basic skills because the use of the computers is contained to one purpose and easily tested. In learning “from” computers, on longitudinal studies, students experience higher mastery of basic skills (Ringstaff et al., 2002). Learning with technology improves students’ fluency with basic skills and their performance on standardized tests. However, this growth is at the lowest level of learning: remembering, understanding and applying. It is a legitimate use of computers, but it does not promote the level of knowledge we want children to attain (Cramer, 2007).

When students are learning “with” technology, they are using the technology as a tool to facilitate their growth. This is much harder to measure because the types of digital tools and the ways they can be used vary so much from child to child, classroom to classroom, and school to school. In a writing unit, for instance, technology use could mean word processing, teleconferencing with an author, blogging, co-writing, accessing a writing mentor, developing a script for multimedia, generating a poem on a website, taking photos to illustrate a metaphor, or publishing a book. Also, researchers must consider how to separate the effects of the technology tool from the social interactions with others or the motivational factor of a tool. Even harder to accomplish is separating students’ in-school uses from out-of-school uses of technology that might influence growth. Besides, the skills that these technologies promote – critical thinking, creativity, problem-solving, and other higher level thinking skills – are not typically measured through standardized tests. Research on learning done “with” computers has presented mixed results (Pilkington, 2008). Anecdotally, teachers who use technology talk about higher student engagement, deeper understanding, and more student-centered practices. How to capture that change through research is still a challenge.

However, in one study, teacher pairs at grades 1, 3, 10, and 11, worked together to create pedagogically-sound units of study that they could deliver with and without technology tools. Teachers presented two units per class, one with technology and another without technology, which removed the bias of one teacher being more skilled than the other in the pair. Based on pre- and post-testing, students performed significantly better when the units were taught with appropriate technologies than in the non-technology units, in all conditions (Taylor, Castro, & Walls, 2007).

Teaching effectively with technology changes the classroom – gradually. In longitudinal studies of teachers learning to integrate technology effectively in their schools, researchers have seen a gradual but perceptible change in teaching (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Orlando (2014) found it took a minimum of three years to see perceptible changes in teachers' practices with digital technology. Some researchers have noted that when teachers have integrated technology into their classrooms, they move from being teacher-centered to a consultant or facilitator role for students as they experience learning activities (Sun, Lin, & Yu, 2007). While once it was thought that knowing how to use the technology hardware would enable teachers to use technology effectively in the classroom, researchers are beginning to see that effective integration calls for knowledge about good pedagogy and how technology supports good instruction (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). These ideas are explored in more depth in later chapters.

** References ** Cramer, S. (2007). Update your classroom with learning objects and twenty-first-century skills. //The Clearing House//, //80//(3), 126-132.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education//, //42//(3), 255-284.

Orlando, J. (2014). Teachers' changing practices with information and communication technologies: An up-close, longitudinal analysis. //Research in Learning Technology, 22//, 1-15.

Pilkington, R. (2008). Measuring the impact of information technology on students’ learning. //International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education//, //20//(10), 1003-1018. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_63

Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). [|The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research]. WestEd RTEC.

Sun, K., Lin, Y., & Yu, C. (2008). A study on learning effect among different learning styles in a Web-based lab of science for elementary school students. //Computers & Education, 50//, 1411-1422.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Taylor, L. M., Casto, D. J., & Walls, R. T. (2007). Learning with versus without technology in elementary and secondary school. //Computers in Human Behavior, 23,// 798-811

ON TEACHING BELIEFS AND TECHNOLOGY USE
Learning theory influences teachers’ pedagogy, which is the art and science of teaching or how teachers teach. The learning theories described here are actually a collection of distinct theories that are related to one another by fundamental assumptions (Dede, 2008). The two primary learning theories are generally discussed as behaviorism and constructivism, although each is comprised of many smaller theories.


 * Behaviorism** is based on the works of Ivan Pavlov and B. F. Skinner (Bowden, 2008). The central tenet is that individuals can be conditioned to behave in specific ways through rewards and punishment. In education, instruction is presented through direct instruction from the teacher, who is the “fountain of knowledge” (Boghossian, 2006, p.722), to students. Feedback in terms of rewards and punishments narrow students’ responses until students consistently have the “right” answer. A behaviorist would interpret students’ correct response to a question as evidence of successful conditioning, which would translate into the reward of good grades (Boghossian; Dede, 2008). Most assessment is done through tests or exams.The purpose of education, for behaviorists, is for children to be able to recall facts, define and illustrate concepts, apply explanations, and perform a specified sequence of events (Dede, 2008). These skills represent low level thinking on Bloom’s Taxonomy.

In behaviorist classrooms, because the teacher is transmitting knowledge to students, collaboration, cooperative learning, and student participation are not encouraged (Boghossian, 2006). Behaviorism is out of favor in education (Bowden, 2008), but many teachers were taught in this manner and teach as they were taught. Behavioral uses of technology tend to be computer-aided instruction, adaptive skill software, and computer-based training (Berg, 2009). When teachers approach student learning through a behaviorist lens, technology tools are typically simply replacements for traditional tools they already use (Rice, Cullen, & Davis, 2011). Because large scale assessments reflect a behaviorist approach (Voogt & Knezek, 2008), teachers often feel they need to retain the old ways of teaching (Su, 2009).


 * Constructivism**, which is based on the works of John Dewey and Jean Piaget (Hewitt, 2006), lies at the opposite end of learning theory from behaviorism (Boghossian, 2006). In constructivism, teachers believe that students come with different perspectives and use what they know to construct meaning when they encounter new materials (Bowden, 2008). This construction of knowledge is also influenced by beliefs, experiences, and interactions with others (Dede, 2008). Constructivism encourages collaboration, cooperation, reflective thinking, discovery, and problem-solving (Boghossian; Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006; Hewitt). Assessments are often done through projects and demonstrations, which students design and present. Some theorists ask whether basic skills, such as arithmetic operations or vowel sounds, would be more efficiently taught in a behaviorist approach than through exploration (Dede,2008). The types of skills supported by constructivist approaches, such as critical thinking and problem-solving, cannot easily be assessed through standardized testing (Voogt & Knezek, 2008), so proving the efficacy of technology integration in a constructivist classroom is challenging.

Both learning theories have roles in education. Research shows that some behaviorist-based technology programs increase students’ basic skills. Constructivist-based technology integration involves students actively in building understanding and higher level thinking skills (Rice, Cullen, & Davis, 2011). The routes to constructivist-based technology are also much more varied than behaviorist-based technology. Teachers can choose from a multitude of tools and projects.

Research has shown a definite connection between teachers’ theoretical beliefs and the use of technology in their classrooms. Teachers with constructivist approaches use more varieties of student-centered technologies (Ertmer, et al., 2006; Friedrich & Hron, 2011; Hsu, 2016; Okojie, Olinzock, & Okojie-Boulder, 2006; Rice, et al., 2011) and are less likely to use drill and skill software (Inan, Lowther, Ross, & Strahl, 2010). Unfortunately, even teachers who claim a constructivist approach to teaching do not necessarily use technology tools in ways that are pedagogically powerful or innovative (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). The most common uses of technologies in those classrooms are word processing, using Internet, and developing presentations (Inan et al.). Longitudinal studies have indicated, though, that as teachers integrate technology, their teaching styles become more constructivist over time (Sun, Lin, & Yu, 2007).

Computers can serve as catalysts for conversations among children about learning. Researchers have found that children using technology have more and different conversations than when they play with blocks or puzzles (Van Scoter, 2008). The nature of technology seems to make computer screens public, where much of students’ work is considered private. For instance, first grade students who used computers and pencil and paper for their writing were observed to look at the text on peers’ screens and offer comments. They were never observed doing this with one another’s handwritten texts (Leeuwen & Gabriel, 2007). Baker (2001) coded both implicit viewings, when students checked one another’s screens for ideas, and explicit viewings, when students commented on what they read on the screen in a technology-rich fourth grade classroom. Although students considered their writing notebooks private and expected to be asked for permission even for the teacher to read them, anything on a screen was considered public. **References** Baker, E. A. (2001). The nature of literacy in a technology-rich, fourth-grade classroom. //Reading Research and Instruction, 40//(3), 159-184.

Berg, G. A. (2009). Educational technology and learning theory. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), //Encyclopedia of distance learning, Second Edition// (pp. 759-763). doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch108

Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, constructivism, and Socratic pegagogy. //Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38//(6), 713-722.

Bowden, R. (2008). Linking premise to practice: An instructional theory-strategy model approach. //Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5//(3), 69-76.

Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), //International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, Part One, Vol. 20,// (pp. 43-62). NY: Springer.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42//(3), 255-284.

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. //Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23//(2), 55–61.

Friedrich, H. F. & Hron, A. (2011). Factors affecting teacher's student-centered classroom computer use. //Educational Media International, 48//(4), 273-285.

Hewitt, T. W. (2006). //Understanding and shaping curriculum: What we teach and why.// Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Hsu, P. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology integration: A case study. //TechTrends, 60//(1), 30-40.

Inan, F. A., Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, D. (2010). Pattern of classroom activities during students’ use of computers: Relations between instructional strategies and computer applications. //Teaching and Teacher Education, 26//, 540-546. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.017

Leeuwen, C. A. v., & Gabriel, M. A. (2007). Beginning to write with word processing: Integrating writing process and technology in a primary classroom. //The Reading Teacher, 60//(5).

Okojie, M., Olinzock, A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. (2006). The pedagogy of technology integration. //The Journal of Technology Studies, 32// (2), 66-71.

Rice, K., Cullen, J., & Davis, F. (2011). Technology in the classroom: The impact of teacher’s technology use and constructivism. Retrieved January 12, 2012 from []

Su, B. (2009). Effective technology integration: Old topic, new thoughts. //International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT)//, //5//(2), pp. 161-171.

Sun, K., Lin, Y., and Yu, C. (2007). A study on learning effect among different learning styles in a Web-based lab of science for elementary school students. //Computers & Education, 50//, 1411-1422.

Van Scoter, J. (2008). The potential of IT to foster literacy development in kindergarten. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), //International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, Part One, Vol. 20,// (pp.149-161). NY: Springer.

Voogt, J. & Knezek, G. (2008). //International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, Part One, Vol. 20.// NY: Springer.