Critique of the Literature



Critique of Technology Integration Literature

By: David C. Hills

CSCI 588: Website Development with Dreamweaver

Instructor: Lloyd Reiber

The following report is to fulfill the technology integration literature critique/summary paper for CSCI 588: Website Development with Dreamweaver.

Abstract:

 

The articles reviewed reflect many views on the integration of technology into the classroom. As a classroom teacher of nine years, I will use my experiences and reflections as the backdrop for the evaluations. Having spent time in a large district that focused little on new technologies and time in a small district that has placed investments in technology as a high priority, I have experienced varying ends of the philosophical spectrum. It is my personal belief that any technology introduced into the classroom must have purpose and relevance. An increasing amount of technology has found its way into schools and homes displacing many teachers as the primary source of information. This fundamental shift is one that is difficult for many, myself included, to embrace. In the wake of ever increasing technological advancements, many students now have greater access to subject-related information than the teachers. It has become apparent to me that the teachers’ role must evolve to meet the changing needs of our society.

Critique:

The first critique will be on the paper “Teaching with Technology” by Simon Hopper and Lloyd Rieber. This appears to be a chapter from a text involving the understanding of technology and its integration into the classroom. This is the most substantial and concise article that I read. In the chapter, an important distinction between technology in education and educational technology is made:

“Technology in education is often perceived in terms of how many computers or videocassette recorders are in a classroom and how they might be used to support traditional classroom activities…Educational technology involves applying ideas from various sources to create the best learning environments possible for students”(Hooper,1995).

The chapter also describes a five-step model of technology adoption in the classroom and traditional and contemporary roles of technology in education.

The chapter begins with a sometimes forgotten truth, that “classroom teaching is a demanding job.” Many falsely assume that time is readily available for the implementation of all kinds of whimsical programs. I believe this is why most technology is not fully implemented. As teachers, our time is limited, and most new technologies require an investment of time to master.

“A typical example of familiarization is a teacher participating in an in-service workshop covering the "how to's" of a technology, such as word processing, spreadsheets, assertive discipline, cooperative learning, motivational strategies, etc…A great deal of instructional innovation begins and ends with this phase”(Hooper,1995).

Teachers will revert to old techniques if new technologies do not quickly produce desired results. School districts who invest in the development and use of technology increase the likelihood of its implementation; however, schools typically only invest extended development time and money in technologies that are used school wide, such as grade programs and attendance programs.

I found the model of technology adoption to be most interesting.

[pic]

On the five-step model, I would have to place the majority of my current staff either at step 1, familiarization or step 2, utilization. I think most teachers stop at step two because of the perceived unreliability of the technology. When you have a lesson that is reliant on some form of technology, and the technology fails to work, it is frustrating and causes many teachers to revert back to old methods. Further complicating matters are the expenses related to new technologies. If a teacher decides to alter their philosophical thinking about teaching and they choose to integrate new forms of technology, they are limited to the availability of the tools that the school provides. My wife teaches at a larger neighboring district that has decided to use the same attendance program we currently use. After teacher training and implementation, they discovered that the computers that they use are not big enough to run the program. Their district and teachers are limited by the technology available to them. Integration, reorientation and evolution, centered on technology, can only take place if the tools are readily available and reliable.

“The full potential of any educational technology can only be realized when educators progress through all five phases, otherwise, the technology will likely be misused or discarded” (Hooper, 1995).

Another factor impeding the progress for school districts through all five phases is the dramatic difference in knowledge and experiences by the staff. Teachers coming out of college have much more experience with newer technology. While this is not a new phenomenon, the rapid rate of change in technology is. Therefore, schools are facing challenges of what types of new tools and advancements to invest in, knowing that much of the staff will be resistant to it.

The article discusses the cognitive educational goals of classrooms while examining both the traditional and contemporary uses of technology. The article identifies one of the shortcomings of modern educational institutions as an inability of students to apply the information taught in the classroom.

“Among many educational goals, three cognitive outcomes are that students should be able to remember, understand, and use information (Perkins, 1992). Apparently, one of these outcomes is very difficult to achieve. After more than a decade of schooling, many students leave school unable to use much of the content they have learned ”(Hooper, 1995).

In that State of Michigan, I might argue that this is a result of the recent focus on testing. Teachers often focus on information that is likely to be encountered on a state administered test. Information is plowed through and quickly covered, rather than explored for deeper meanings. State curriculums and guidelines further define the specific information that is to be taught, driving many teachers to focus on these bits of information. State testing may be causing a shift back to a focus on curriculum rather than allowing for structuring the materials and building upon student’s knowledge and experiences.

Critique:

The second article that I chose to critique was an editorial by Dr. Sylvia Charp. The article focused on the need of educators to accept and implement technology, as well as the increasing need for research and funding in the field of educational technology. Dr. Charp pointed to the many opportunities for partnerships and cooperatives, as well as the availability for inexpensive resources to improve and expand opportunities. While I agree with the premise of the article, I was immediately frustrated with the suggestion that football was a primary cause for the elimination of the programs requiring technology.

“Finally, the superintendent decided to eliminate the programs requiring technology in favor of football and other sports activities. I'm sure other school systems were similarly affected” (Charp, 2002).

As a football coach, maybe I am hypersensitive about this point. However, I take offense to football, and athletics, continually being singled out as the root of many problems. Maybe these technology programs were not as productive in producing the desired outcomes as the athletic programs, and therefore, it would make logical sense to cut funding for them first. We tend to stereotype athletics as mindless endeavors, rather than looking at the real cognitive and kinesthetic values.

I agree with Dr. Charp that professional development is indeed an ongoing need. Too often teachers are expected to implement technologies based on limited knowledge and training. Schools must choose technology carefully and be committed to continual training. Rapid change requires persistent updating of materials and programs. Dr. Charp also includes some discussion about the use and availability of the Internet:

“It has become extremely important for educational institutions to serve residential students as well as those who cannot come to campus. However, despite this increased use of the Internet, we have not yet begun to understand how to use the Web most effectively in education” (Charp, 2002).

While the Internet has many positive uses, it is also filled with much misguided information. It is the responsibility of the teacher to plan well-structured and organized activities that promote educational learning. It should be the teacher’s role to guide students to discovering the origin and validity of information on the Internet.

Critique:

In this article, Christopher Moersch describes and explains six instruments for assessing teachers’ use of technology. Changing standards and legislation mandating accountability for federally funded programs, have amplified the importance of these assessments.

“Specifically, Title II, Part D of NCLB, Enhancing Education through Technology (EETT), provides both formula-based and competitive grants that require research-based evidence of effectiveness of instructional interventions to ensure they meet technology standards” (Moersch, 2002).

While reading this article, it occurred to me that everyone is trying to quantify something that is subjective and arbitrary, making it inherently difficult to assess. I think the LoTiQ is best at addressing some of the difficulties and is the best choice for use in the assessment of public schools. It seems to be an all-encompassing evaluation that gives attention to more than simple computer usage. The component that seems most advantageous for teachers is the opportunity to tailor the professional development to the individual needs.

“Recently, the LoTi instrument has been folded into a larger, more expansive Web-based portal that enables teachers to create professional development plans, enroll in courses, and track their continuing education credits based on the results of their LoTi data profile” (Moersch, 2002).

While I agree and support the notion that you can and should try to measure success, I question some of the political motives and uses for this information. Assessments should be employed to create strategies for the improvement of the teachers’ effectiveness and implementation of useful technologies.

Critique:

Michael M. Grant’s article on project-based learning was informative and well written. This article focuses on the value of project-based activities and offers examples and suggestions for their implementation and use. The theoretical foundations are rooted in constructivism and constructionism, both dealing with the development of a more personal and meaningful learning experience. Having used a variety of projects throughout my teaching career, I have identified the key factors in determining the effectiveness to be preparation and planning. While this is certainly not a revelation, it is important to note that without an investment in the preparation of the project, it loses it’s meaning for the learner.

“Finally, teachers interested in trying out project-based learning in their classrooms should refer to articles, literature and the Web sites mentioned above along with consulting their textbook for additional ideas” (Grant, 2002).

The example model of project-based learning was most informative. I think all too often projects fall short on guidance and scaffold. Projects usually require students to conduct their research and produce a final project with little help in between. As I read through the example, my major concern with the project had to do with the time commitment. With the advent of State standardized test and rigid requirements to follow State curriculums, projects must be in line with specific standards. Projects requiring in-depth investigations may limit the amount of curriculum you can cover in a given year.

“The in-depth investigations require more time, so less time may be spent on other content in the curriculum. By beginning slowly, teachers can design projects that reflect state or national objectives and continue to meet standards” (Grant, 2002).

I greatly enjoyed this article and will utilize the project structure when creating new lessons.

Critique:

Clif Mims’s article on authentic learning challenges many of my beliefs about teaching. I tend to have structured classes with teacher directed activities. Some of my projects allow for students to explore differing topics. However, my experiences with allowing for personal “exploration and inquiry” have resulted in similar outcomes: taking the easiest route to get something finished and handed in. Admittedly, the projects may not have been planned and set up in the most effective way (not all of Mims’s steps are typically included in every project). Student’s pursuit of knowledge in the desired curriculum and subject is not always great enough to allow self guided activities. After reading this article, perhaps I need to spend more time on the environment and set up of activities.

“After hearing about this opportunity, the students are excited and immediately become enthralled with the project.  Initially, the students engage in lengthy discussions as they map out the details of their new advertising campaign” (Mims, 2003).

I believe motivation is the most important aspect for authentic learning. Does allowing for student exploration lead to more interest in the subject or does it lead to students getting off task and investigating unrelated topics? I would fear that some students taking my “required” course might not be driven to seek out information on the subject.

“Learning is centered on authentic tasks that are of interest to the learners” (Mims, 2003).

The rationale seems to be that a large proportion of students are currently unmotivated and unsuccessful in many of today’s classrooms. Changing the methods of the instructors to more productive methods should result in a higher percentage of students engaging in the learning process. This article, similar to Michael M. Grant’s article on project-based learning, has challenged many of my teaching and planning methods. I enjoyed these articles and will continue to explore similar examples.

References:

Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with Technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice, (pp. 154-170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Charp, S. (2002). Educators' Acceptance of Computer Technology?. T.H.E. Journal , 29(9) [On-line]. Available:

Moersch, C. (2002). Measures of success: Six instruments to assess teachers' use of technology. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(3), 10-13, 24. [Online] Available:

Grant, M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases, and recommendations. Meridian: Middle School Computer Technology Journal , 5(1) [On-line]. Available:

Mims, C. (2003). Authentic Learning: A Practical Introduction & Guide for Implementation. Meridian: Middle School Computer Technology Journal , 6(1) [On-line]. Available:

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download