Chapter+4+Instructional+Use

Purposes for Instructional Technology

 * Develop background knowledge prior to studying a unit
 * Model an activity or skill
 * Read
 * Demonstrate
 * Solve a problem
 * Explore
 * Review information
 * Respond to or critique an idea or sample
 * Appeal to other senses
 * Engage students in thinking about and discussing an idea
 * Reach outside the walls of the classroom.

Links:
IPEVO document cameras

National Library of Virtual Manipulatives
 * Explore **

//Scholastic Ellis Island interactive tour//

Comic Creator at ReadWriteThink
 * Engage Students in Thinking about and Discussing Ideas**

Skype an Author
 * Reach beyond School Walls**

Research
Teachers can energize their teaching by using technology to bring more visual and kinesthetic/tactile experiences into the classroom. With basic digital set-ups, teachers can introduce more active involvement of students in whole group instruction. “Teachers should develop strategies to motivate students to keep them focused as the instruction progresses and to consider that different students prefer different learning styles and that they learn at different rates” (Okojie, Olinzock, & Okojie-Boulder, 2006, p. 67). Technology can be used in instructional delivery to promote student engagement with content and higher order thinking (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).

When researchers were studying the value of placing interactive whiteboards in a school system, their participants regularly talked about the value of being able to see the board more clearly. Researchers realized that the interactive whiteboard had less value for their participants than a laptop connected to a projector. “The value attributed to the ‘big screen’ by the teachers and learners suggests that a laptop connected to a data projector is a worthwhile investment. Moreover, it would seem that in this study the visibility afforded by the data projector supersedes the interactivity offered by the eBeam” (Slay, Sieborger, & Hodgkinson-Williams, 2008, p.1332). Activities mentioned by teachers also seemed related more to using multimedia display, rather than to the interactivity of the board. Slay et al. (2008) recommended that the less expensive route of a laptop and projector would bring about the effect the educational system was seeking.

The key difference between a projector and interactive whiteboard as a tool for teaching, is, of course, the ability to control the computer on an interactive whiteboard at the touch of a finger. Yet, research literature on interactive whiteboards rarely refers to that distinction, so it is difficult to separate out that feature from the advantages gained simply by projecting a computer onto a screen (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005).

Using technology more effectively or frequently in the classroom sometimes creates tension for teachers. Some teachers experience pressure from their grade level teammates or administrators when they attempt to introduce constructivist practices that put technology into the hands of students (Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Making changes in instructional delivery practices, such as introducing more visuals through a projector and engaging students more in discussion, usually does not threaten colleagues because the changes are not as visible.

As an ultimate goal, teachers need to focus on effective technology integration, which means not doing the same tasks with new tools, but rather developing new tasks that couldn’t be accomplished with the old tools (Judson as cited in Rice, Cullen & Davis, 2011; Su, 2009). Good teachers understand the ways that content (the subject matter that is being taught/learned), technology (the digital tools that can be containers for content), and pedagogy (the methods and practices of teaching/learning) interact to create dynamic environments for learning (Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007). For instance, a teacher in a foreign language class (content), aiming for collaboration with native language speakers (pedagogy) may consider Skype or ePals (appropriate technology tools) as an avenue to reach the content objective of having students practice their language skills. To encourage thinking about the inter-relationships of technology, content, and pedagogy, in the remaining chapters of this book, attempts have been made to connect technology tools to content areas and pedagogic purposes.

Effective teaching requires effective integration of technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006; Su, 2009). Effective integration includes the following: constructivist learning environments, problem-based learning, and digital tools that engage students in actively creating, questioning, and producing (Su), group participation, frequent interaction and feedback, and real-world connections between students and outside experts (Labbo & Place, 2010). Use of technology tools alone will not serve students; teachers must combine a good learning environment with thoughtful planning, instruction, and assessment that considers the balance of content, pedagogy, and technology (Ertmer et al, 2010).

//__Digital books__//. Many teachers use sustained silent reading during the school day to encourage students to read self-selected books at their own pace. For students with reading struggles, reading silently for a sustained period may not be as beneficial as assisted reading. A number of studies have supported the use of assisted reading devices such as taped books and mp3 players. In one study, 20 students from five elementary schools, all in intermediate grades and with documented reading disabilities, were given printed texts and mp3 players with the same text downloaded as audiobooks so that they could read as they listened. A comparable control group of students was also identified. Treatment was randomized at the school, rather than student, level. On the pre-test, both groups showed similar reading fluency scores, but by the end of eight weeks, the audio book readers showed significantly more improvement in fluency rates than the control group (Esteves & Whitten, 2011). In another experimental study, kindergarteners had four conditions for reading practice: peer reading as tutor and as tutee with an e-book, individual reading with an e-book, and a control group of kindergarteners working on literacy in a classroom. The results of the study showed that students using e-books demonstrated significant reading gains when compared to the control group, and the paired reading of an e-book demonstrated the biggest effect (Shamir, Korat, & Barbi, 2008). **References** 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.

Esteves, K. J. & Whitten, E. (2011). Assisted reading with digital audiobooks for students with reading disabilities. //Reading Horizons, 51//(1), 21-40.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledged in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, and technology. //Computers in Education, 49//, 740-762. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012

Labbo, L. D., & Place, K. (2010). Fresh perspectives on new literacies and technology integration. //Voice from the Middle, 19//(3), 9-18.

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 []

Shamir, A., Korat, N., Barbi, N. (2008). The effects of CD-ROM storybook reading on low SES kindergarteners’ emergent literacy as a function of learning context. //Computers and Education, 51//(1), 354-367.

Slay, H. Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008) Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just ‘‘lipstick”? //Computers & Education 51,// 1321–1341.

Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. //Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21//, 91-101.

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