c:\fakepath\technology and learning kinast & swan smith [b]

19
1 Technology and Learning Barbara Kinast Susan Swan Smith George Washington University Educ – 246 Spring 2010

Upload: barbara-kinast

Post on 14-Jun-2015

544 views

Category:

Education


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

1

Technology and Learning

Barbara KinastSusan Swan Smith

George Washington UniversityEduc – 246

Spring 2010

Page 2: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

2

Outline

I. Objective

II. Introduction

III. Research Supporting Technology’s Effectiveness

IV. Research Refuting Technology’s Effectiveness

V. Resources

Page 3: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

3

I. Objectives

Convey a high-level understanding of recent research on technology’s 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

Page 4: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

4

II. Introduction

Education is rich and intellectually rewarding, entailing the posing of questions,

the examination of issues and the search for adequate

evidence. - John Dewey (1933) How We Think

The Question is:Does technology help or hinder

education as Dewey characterizes it?

Page 5: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

5

II. Introduction

(Barron, 2003)

Page 6: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

6

III. Supportive Research

Our doubts are traitors, And make us lose the good we oft might win

By fearing to attempt. - ShakespeareMeasure for Measure (1.4)

Studies by Discipline Studies on Teaching and Learning Studies on 21st Century Students’

Expectations & Suggestions

Page 7: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

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)

Page 8: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

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, and

Their diverse learning styles were addressed.

Professional development improved

Teachers’ technology skills, Their teaching skills, and Their confidence in using

technology. (Taylor, 2006)

Science:

Long-term, authentic research projects using information technology improved students’:

Attitudes toward, Perceptions of, and Self-confidence in science.

Previous studies without the imbedded IT component were inconclusive.

(Kaya, 2007)

Page 9: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

9

III. Supportive Research, cont.

Teaching Practices:

When one-to-on laptop program & professional development implemented:

increased student-centered teaching, increased tool-based teaching, and increased meaningful use of technology.

Some classroom practices did not change: classroom organization, and assessment practices.

The most significant changes were observed in areas where the professional development program had placed emphasis.

(Dawson, Cavanaugh and Ritzhaupt, 2008)

Page 10: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

10

III. Supportive Research, cont.Learning:

Students who use technologically innovative study methods or traditional study methods do well on exams and attend class regularly.

Students who do both do 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 do neither (no surprise) do more poorly than either of the other groups.

(Debevec, Shih and Kashyap, 2006)

Assessment:

Students who use 24/7 (web-based) access to performance measures regularly:

Are more motivated, Perform better, and Demonstrate self-regulating

behavior.Parents who have access to

performance measures feel: More included in educational

process, and Better informed by teachers.

(Zappe, 2002)

Page 11: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

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)

Page 12: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

12

IV. Contradictory Evidence

Once a new technology rolls over you, if you’re not part of the steamroller,

you’re part of the road.- Stewart Brand

Is technology worth the money spent? Does technology produce higher

achievement?

Page 13: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

IV. Contradictory Research, cont.

13

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)

Page 14: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

IV. Contradictory Research, cont.

14

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)

Page 15: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

IV. Contradictory Research, cont.

15

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)

Page 16: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

IV. Contradictory Research, cont.

16

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)

Page 17: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

17

V. ResourcesAngrist, J., Lavy, V. (2002, October). New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning. The

Economic Journal, 112, 735-765. Retrieved from http://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 from www.iste.org/.

Brown, S. (2007). Counting Blocks or Keyboards? A Comparative Analysis of Concrete versus Virtual Manipulatives in Elementary School Mathematics Concepts. Retrieved from http://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 from http://www.eric.ed.gov. (ED505173)

Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, a. D. (2009) Florida’s EETT Leveraging Laptops Initiative and Its Impact on Teaching Practices. Journal of Research on Technology on Education, 41(2), 143-159. Retrieved from www.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 from http://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 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/. (EJ728906)

Page 18: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

18

V. ResourcesDawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, a. D. (2009) Florida’s EETT

Leveraging Laptops Initiative and Its Impact on Teaching Practices. Journal of Research on Technology on Education, 41(2), 143-159. Retrieved from www.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 from http://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 from http://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 from http://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 the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov. (ED500737)

Page 19: C:\Fakepath\Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

19

V. ResourcesKingsley, 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 from www.iste.org/.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does It Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://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 the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/. (ED468915)