Valuing Technology Integration for Enhanced Resources Access

I was asked to respond to the following prompt for a mini conference presentation: Technology integration in learning environments provides access to more resources and information (as society changes). So here are a couple of my thoughts as to how this might go.

 

In today’s classrooms, technology has not only become expected, but teachers are also expected to integrate technology to enhance access to resources and information (Bebell & O’Dwyer, 2010;Johnson et al., 2013; Hannon et al., 2013).  Bringing a diverse array of technology into the classroom serve not only as a tool, but also as a resource for accessing materials that facilitate enhanced learning (Johnson, Levine, Smith & Stone, 2010; Moyle, 2010).  Technology blended learning environments create new opportunities for students to learn (Cassidy et al., 2014; Walling, 2014; Martin, Diaz, Sancristobal, Gil, Castro, & Peire, 2011; Johnson et al., 2013).  Access to instructional technologies implies use, and that use implies an educational impact (Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2008)

Empirical studies noted that integration of technology in classrooms has created efficient systems of addressing student needs (Kay & Lauricella, 2011), allowed students to access information in an up to date manner (Weston & Bain, 2010; Weston & Brooks, 2008), and warranted hands-on practical learning (Sen & Passey, 2013). For example, Feldstein et al. (2012) study looked at the Flat World Knowledge textbook initiative only to discover that adopting open technologies in the learning environments “increases access to educational materials” (p.2); increased access can lead to better student outcomes in terms of learning and student performance.

As society expectations shift towards technonocetric learning environments students are more likely to align with systems that have high the visibility of technology resources (Bates, 2003).  Studies (e.g. Kuker, 2009; Lindshield & Adhikari, 2013; Warschauer, Zheng, Niiya, Ctten, & Farkas, 2014).  Found that technology integration across academic campuses has lead to increased collaboration among instructors and continued use of flexible access to resources. Additionally, technology integration allows instructors improved access to student populations while simultaneously allowing students increased access to education (NEA, 2001; Jackson, 2004; Okamoto, 2013).  In fact several studies have found that instructors will shape their teaching approaches to accommodate for technology that allows learns more access to information (Drayton et al., 2010; Shapley el al., 2010; Suhr et al., 2010).

 

References

Bates, A. T. (2003). Chapter ten: Avoiding the faustian contract and meeting the technology challenge. In A. T. Bates (Ed.), Managing technological change: Strategies for College and University Leaders (pp. 210-217). Chicago, IL: Jossey-Bass.

Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), 5-14.

Cassidy, E. D., Colmenares, A., Jones, G., Manolovitz, T., Shen, L., & Vieira, S. (2014). (2014). Higher education and emerging technologies: Shifting trends in student usage. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(1).

Drayton, B., Falk, J.K., Stroud, R., Hobbs, K., & Hammerman, M.J. (2010). After Installation: Ubiquitous Computing and High School Science in Three Experienced, High-technology Schools. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(3), 5-54.

Feldstein, A., Martin, M., Hudson, A., Warren, K., Hilton III, J., & Wiley, D. (2012). Open Textbooks and Increased Student Access and Outcomes. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 1-9.

Hannon, J., Bisset, D., Blackall, L., Huggard, S., Jelley, R., Jones, M., … Sadler, R. (2013). Accessible, reusable and participatory: Initiating open education practices. In H. Carter, M. Gosper and J. Hedberg (Eds.), Electric Dreams. Proceedings ascilite 2013 Sydney. (pp.362-372). Retrieved from: http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney13/program/papers/Hannon.pdf

Jackson, R. M. (2004). Technologies supporting curriculum access for students with disabilities. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/technologies_supporting

Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). The NMC horizon report: 2013 higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from: http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-horizon-report-HE.pdf

Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: New Media Consortium. Retrieved from: http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2010

Kay, R. H., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Exploring the Benefits and Challenges of Using Laptop Computers in Higher Education Classrooms: A Formative Analysis. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 37(1), 1-18

Kuker, G. (2009). Technology integration: A study on the impact of increased technology access. University of Northern Iowa.

Lindshield, B. L., & Adhikari, K. (2013). Online and Campus College Students Like Using an Open Educational Resource Instead of a Traditional Textbook. Journal Of Online Learning & Teaching, 9(1), 1-26.

Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1893-1906.

Moyle, K. Australian Council for Educational Research, (2010). Building innovation: Learning with technologies (371.334678). Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: ACER Project Publishing.

National Education Association (2001, March). Focus on distance education. Update 7(2). Washington, DC.

Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, No Use, No Impact: Snapshot Surveys of Educational Technology in K–12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 36(1), 15-27.

Okamoto, K. (2013). Making Higher Education More Affordable, One Course Reading at a Time: Academic Libraries as Key Advocates for Open Access Textbooks and Educational Resources. Public Services Quarterly, 9(4), 267-283. doi:10.1080/15228959.2013.842397

Shapley, K.S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of Technology Immersion and its Relationship with Student Achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4), 5-67.

Sen, A., & Passey, D. (2013). Globalisation of next generation technology enhanced learning environment (tele) for stem learning: Contexualizations in the asia-pacific region. In 2013 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E) (pp. 111-118). doi: 10.1109/T4E.2013.35

Suhr, K.A., Hernandez, D.A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Laptops and Fourth-Grade Literacy: Assisting the Jump over the Fourth-Grade Slump. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(5), 4-43.

Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the One-To-One Equation: Equity and Access in Three Laptop Programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 46-62.

Weston, M.E. & Bain, A. (2010). The End of Techno-Critique: The Naked Truth about 1:1 Laptop Initiatives and Educational Change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(6), 5-24.

Weston, M., & Brooks, D. (2008). Critical constructs as indicators of a shifting paradigm in education: A case study of four technology-rich schools. Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research in Education, 2(4), 281–291.

Cellphones in your class?

There is a breadth of literature out there that states users, even teachers, will not use technological tools if they do not see value in the larger concept (e.g., Ertmer, 2005). They won’t even go near a new tool.  Granted there is more to adopting new technology than seeing value. For example, if someone consistently has issues with a specific browser they are more likely to switch to a different one.

I once gave a question to a group of teachers, “How do you think cellphones can be used in your classroom?” I posted this question as a presentation slide and made all of the teachers in the room text their responses in; below is a snapshot of a few of their responses.  (Note that the teachers had to use their phones to submit their answers!)

Many of the teachers commented that cellphones were a distraction and should not be used unless it was an emergency. A few teachers saw value in students using their mobile devices to look up information, and a handful mentioned that students might be able to use tools like the calculator or dictionary apps. Despite having just taken a poll via their phone none of the teachers mentioned students using their devices for real-time feedback or assessments…funny how that works out. Their value system for cellphones is so set in a particular mode that it became difficult to expand their concept into one of a useful tool.

Straub (2009) in his work, adopted from Anderson (1997), Hall (1979) and Hord et al. (1987), on technology adoption and diffusion describes 7 stages: 0) Awareness; 1) Informational; 2) Personal; 3) Management; 4) Consequence; 5) Collaboration; and 6) Refocusing. Most of these teachers haven’t acknowledged this tool as having additional uses, in fact their use in framed in with real-time assessment or feedback.  Their use of this tool is guided by their fundamental and “semantic knowledge of object function” (Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525), centered around traditional use, further enhanced by years of using this tool in set ways.  In fact, Gibson (1979) mentions that generally individuals perceive tools as having a set focus and particular mode of interaction when in fact it can be “used in a multitude of other ways” (as cited in Osiurak, Jarry, & Le Gall, 2010, p. 525).

So how do we allow for these teachers to expand their understanding of how tools can be used differently, particularly in their context of instruction? Add meaning.  If models and discussions are presented to instructors that let teachers add value to a tool, then they are more likely to adopt it for their purposes.

Suppose you show a teacher that cellphones can be used for more that texting, facebook stalking, and can become valuable tools…suppose you show them that incorporating tools makes the teaching-learning process more engaging, efficient, effective, and enhances the environment. Simple right? Easier said than done.  If truth be told, instructional tools haven’t changed all that much in the past century (Cuban, 1983).  Think about it, the same means of presenting information are used. Davis (1989) mentions that teachers are more likely to incorporate tools when they are low effort, easy to work with, and are viewed as enhancing performance.

Clue to the application developers: make it easy to learn and adopt into the instructional practices.  But simple tools like polleverywhere and geddit aren’t complicated to use, in fact there are a bunch of help guides and videos to walk users through creating questions.  While there are hundreds of research papers that display real time feedback as valuable, instruction tools that allow for simple data aggregation seem to be a ‘no, no’ – why so?

References

Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 331–367.

Cuban, L. (1983). How did teachers teach, 1890–1980? Theory Into Practice, 22(3), 159–166.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Hall, G. E. (1979). The concerns-based approach to facilitating change. Educational Horizons, 57, 202–208.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Osiurake, F., Jarry, C. & Le Gall, D. (2010). Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychological Review 117(2), 517-540.

Straub, E.T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research 79(2), 625-649.

Looking for other tools that can serve a new purpose? Try using your search bar as a calculator, no really – type out “= 6*2”