October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fleischmann, K. R. (2004). Exploring the design-use interface: The agency of boundary objects in educational technology, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. Fleischmann, K. R. (2005). Virtual dissection and physical collaboration. First Monday, 10 (5), retrieved October 15, 2007 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_5/fleischmann/index.html. Fleischmann, K. R. (2006a). Do-it-yourself information technology: Role hybridization and the design-use interface. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (1), 87-95. Fleischmann, K. R. (2006b). Boundary objects with agency: A method for studying the design-use interface. The Information Society, 22 (2), 77-87. Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology, New York: Basic Books. Hess, D. J. (1995). Science and technology in a multicultural world, New York: Columbia University Press. Hoff, D. J. (2002). Science standards have yet to seep into class, panel says. Education Week, 21 (37), 10. Monahan, T. (2005a). The school system as a post-Fordist organization: Fragmented centralization and the emergence of IT specialists. Critical Sociology, 31 (4), 583-615. Monahan, T. (2005b). Globalization, Technological Change, and Public Education, New York: Routledge. National Education Association (2003). Timeline for future NCLB mandates. NEA Today, 21 (8), 34. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards, retrieved October 15, 2007 from http://books.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/. Owen, M. (1999). Appropriate and appropriated technology: technological literacy and educational software standards. Educational Technology & Society, 2 (4), 62-69. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2 nd Ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Swain, C., & Pearson, T. (2002). Educators and technology standards: Influencing the Digital Divide. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (3), 326-335. 117
Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K., & Hwang, F.-K. (2007). Factors Influencing Junior High School Teachers’ Computer-Based Instructional Practices Regarding Their Instructional Evolution Stages. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (4), 118-130. Factors Influencing Junior High School Teachers’ Computer-Based Instructional Practices Regarding Their Instructional Evolution Stages Ying-Shao Hsu Department of Earth Sciences & Science Education Center, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan // yshsu@.ntnu.edu.tw Hsin-Kai Wu Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan // hkwu@.ntnu.edu.tw Fu-Kwun Hwang Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan // hwang@phy.ntnu.edu.tw ABSTRACT Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer (1996) list five stages in the “evolution” of a teacher’s capacity for computerbased instruction—entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation and invention—which hereafter will be called the teacher’s computer-based instructional evolution. In this study of approximately six hundred junior high school science and mathematics teachers in Taiwan who have integrated computing technology into their instruction, we correlated each teacher’s stage of computer-based instructional evolution with factors, such as attitude toward computer-based instruction, belief in the effectiveness of such instruction, degree of technological practice in the classroom, the teacher’s number of years of teaching experience (or “seniority”), and the teacher’s school’s ability to acquire technical and personnel resources (i.e. computer support and maintenance resources). We found, among other things, that the stage of computer-based instructional evolution and teaching seniority, two largely independent factors, both had a significant impact on the technical and personnel resources available in their schools. Also, we learned that “belief” in the effectiveness of computer-based instruction is the single biggest predictor of a teacher’s successful practice of it in the classroom. Future research therefore needs to focus on how we can shape teachers’ beliefs regarding computer-based learning in order to promote their instructional evolution. Keywords Technology adoption, Teachers’ beliefs, Educational technology, In-service teachers Introduction The rapid development of modern information and communication technologies has opened new possibilities for establishing and delivering distance learning. Given the popularity of the Internet, computer applications have recently become one of the most promising kinds of educational tool. Computers can now help educators in designing and promoting the teaching and learning process (Ministry of Education in Taiwan, 1999; Sinko & Lehtinen, 1999; Smeets, Mooij, Bamps, Bartolomé, Lowyck, Redmond, & Steffens, 1999). From studies (Angeli & Valanides, 2005; Hsu, Cheng , & Chiou, 2003), computers or/and Internet technology have positive impacts on students learning only when teachers know how to use computers or/and Internet technology to promote students’ knowledge construction and thinking. How can teachers use computers or/and Internet technology to promote students’ meaningful learning? Firstly, the teacher’s role should no longer be that of a traditional lecturer; rather, the teacher must now be a coach or co-learner (Beaudion, 1990; Brophy & Good, 1986). Secondly, activities in the classroom should become learnercentered and flexible in order to help students organize information and undergo self-initiated, exploratory learning processes (McKenzie, Mims, Davidson, Hurt & Clay, 1996; Winn, 1993). With computers and Internet technology, a teacher can utilize online teaching resources to arrange flexible learning activities; these can assist students in analyzing and organizing large amounts of information. Thirdly, the teacher’s attitude toward computers will be important to the way computer-based technology is used in instruction (Beaudion,1990; Ercan & Ozdemir, 2006; Gardner ,Discena & Dukes, 1993). Lloyd and Gressard (1984) have pointed out that a teacher’s positive feelings about computers will also help to generate or reinforce such feelings in the students. Comber et al. (1997) found that younger teachers might have more experience in computer use and thus a more positive attitude toward computers (Jennings & Onwuegbuzie, 2001). Braak (2001) noted that personal acceptance of technological innovation would ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org. 118
Page 1 and 2:
October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4
Page 3 and 4:
Abstracting and Indexing Educationa
Page 5 and 6:
The Relationship of Kolb Learning S
Page 7 and 8:
a question about learning together
Page 9 and 10:
affordances of networked learning s
Page 11 and 12:
included a unit on collaborative le
Page 13 and 14:
on at different times and work indi
Page 15 and 16:
• the numerous evaluation studies
Page 17 and 18:
wanted to work. The same inquiry pr
Page 19 and 20:
usability studies have a place in t
Page 21 and 22:
Milrad, M., & Jackskon, M. (2007).
Page 23 and 24:
information- and communication tech
Page 25 and 26:
Interactive Examination, the studen
Page 27 and 28:
Table 1. Criteria for grading OD st
Page 29 and 30:
content. Differences in the attitud
Page 31 and 32:
Even though further research on the
Page 33 and 34:
Olofsson, A. D. (2007). Participati
Page 35 and 36:
Etzioni (1993) points out that an i
Page 37 and 38:
programme. They are rather construc
Page 39 and 40:
to be that each individual trainee
Page 41 and 42:
Bernmark-Ottosson, A. (2005). Demok
Page 43 and 44:
The Knowledge Foundation (2005). IT
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 1. Design Theories in contex
Page 47 and 48:
attention as we frequently discuss
Page 49 and 50:
Blog Reflection This design concept
Page 51 and 52:
Narrative Structure (Form) Content
Page 53 and 54:
Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (200
Page 55 and 56:
critique, neither do the single ind
Page 57 and 58:
suggested by Ljungberg (1999b) we c
Page 59 and 60:
the del.icio.us site (see figure 3)
Page 61 and 62:
Device cultures It is not only the
Page 63 and 64:
uilt using a camera-equipped PDA ru
Page 65 and 66:
Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L.,
Page 67 and 68:
Milrad, M., & Spikol, D. (2007). An
Page 69 and 70:
components to be able to deal with
Page 71 and 72: compulsory throughout the project.
Page 73 and 74: only with their existing day-today
Page 75 and 76: As our work continues, we will try
Page 77 and 78: cognition as well as self-regulated
Page 79 and 80: Mobile mind map tool for stimulatin
Page 81 and 82: the pictorial knowledge representat
Page 83 and 84: Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (19
Page 85 and 86: Al-A'ali, M. (2007). Implementation
Page 87 and 88: complex cognitive skills involve em
Page 89 and 90: Table 1. CAT and a linear mathemati
Page 91 and 92: It is agreed that the difficulty le
Page 93 and 94: Figure 7. Our newly added factors i
Page 95 and 96: question factors according to IRT;
Page 97 and 98: Instructure 1 Login User-ID Passwor
Page 99 and 100: Shute, V., & Towle, B. (2003). Adap
Page 101 and 102: distinguish between partial knowled
Page 103 and 104: esponse is identified, then the sco
Page 105 and 106: are stored in the answer record and
Page 107 and 108: 2 (7) MNSQ = ∑WniZ ni ∑ Wni =
Page 109 and 110: in the course. A randomized block d
Page 111 and 112: To test whether ET can effectively
Page 113 and 114: course, more comparison tests could
Page 115 and 116: Fleischmann, K. R. (2007). Standard
Page 117 and 118: educational standards in practice t
Page 119 and 120: laboratory activities, which are bu
Page 121: process is currently a largely top-
Page 125 and 126: evolution with computing technology
Page 127 and 128: Resources 0.55 0.72 e17 In my schoo
Page 129 and 130: teachers’ instructional evolution
Page 131 and 132: Regression models indicating relati
Page 133 and 134: of beliefs about integrating comput
Page 135 and 136: Sinko, M., & Lehtinen, E. (1999). T
Page 137 and 138: concept of social support. Lastly,
Page 139 and 140: Procedure Content analysis procedur
Page 141 and 142: and mice are out of order. I have t
Page 143 and 144: feature of supportive online groups
Page 145 and 146: Anderson, J., & Lee, A. (1995). Lit
Page 147 and 148: Schwab, R. L., Jackson, S. E., & Sc
Page 149 and 150: Investigating the problem An extens
Page 151 and 152: meets the anywhere, anytime require
Page 153 and 154: minimise housekeeping tasks and fre
Page 155 and 156: 3. Join Group Discussion 4. Attend
Page 157 and 158: Figure 4. Learning Shell showing He
Page 159 and 160: engineering the Learning Shell so i
Page 161 and 162: Olfos, R., & Zulantay, H. (2007). R
Page 163 and 164: portion of CourseInfo requires that
Page 165 and 166: Table 2. Assignment evaluation resp
Page 167 and 168: E-3c. Likert scale on usability: Th
Page 169 and 170: organized in four groups, namely: T
Page 171 and 172: The correlations were not high enou
Page 173 and 174:
Data illustrate some reliability an
Page 175 and 176:
nature, some specific core objectiv
Page 177 and 178:
Frederiksen, J.R., & Collins, A. (1
Page 179 and 180:
Bottino, R. M., & Robotti, E. (2007
Page 181 and 182:
The Text Editor allows the editing
Page 183 and 184:
Mathematical content and structure
Page 185 and 186:
Consolidation exercises Solution co
Page 187 and 188:
As to course components, the activi
Page 189 and 190:
handle more formal representations
Page 191 and 192:
Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Labor
Page 193 and 194:
processed information was classifie
Page 195 and 196:
Method Participants The participant
Page 197 and 198:
Table 5. Learning outcomes of diffe
Page 199 and 200:
peers and benefited most from discu
Page 201 and 202:
Kayes, D.C. (2005). Internal validi
Page 203 and 204:
This paper considers the potential
Page 205 and 206:
The first assumption ensures that c
Page 207 and 208:
allowed to rise when external fundi
Page 209 and 210:
The second option, lowering the cos
Page 211 and 212:
Downes, S. (2003). Design and Reusa
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix A. Good-enough approaches
Page 215 and 216:
Rapid Prototyping and Design Based
Page 217 and 218:
Initial Design Because the field-ba
Page 219 and 220:
• reducing the number of required
Page 221 and 222:
that they felt this hindrance; I fe
Page 223 and 224:
goals” (Edelson, 2002, p. 114) wa
Page 225 and 226:
more and more from the periphery of
Page 227 and 228:
Edelson, M. (1988). The hermeneutic
Page 229 and 230:
Wang, H.-Y., & Chen, S. M. (2007).
Page 231 and 232:
If the universe of discourse U is a
Page 233 and 234:
we can see that S( X ) − S( Y ) S
Page 235 and 236:
Example 1: Let Ã and B ~ be two va
Page 237 and 238:
columns shown in Table 2, where 1
Page 239 and 240:
(3) Find the maximum value among th
Page 241 and 242:
By applying Eq. (7), we can get the
Page 243 and 244:
Q.2 carries 25 marks, Q.3 carries 2
Page 245 and 246:
the proposed methods can evaluate s
Page 247 and 248:
Gogoulou, A., Gouli, E., Grigoriado
Page 249 and 250:
enabling learner (subject) to work
Page 251 and 252:
• Self-, Peer- and Collaborative-
Page 253 and 254:
(iii) Regulates the communication:
Page 255 and 256:
Figure 3. A screen shot of the SCAL
Page 257 and 258:
2 nd study: Thirty-five students pa
Page 259 and 260:
them characterized it as time and e
Page 261 and 262:
Soller, A. (2001). Supporting Socia
Page 263 and 264:
making reference to the others wher
Page 265 and 266:
Solution 2.2: Deliberately select h
Page 267 and 268:
just near a deadline, when it may b
Page 269 and 270:
assessed on an individual basis. Wi
Page 271 and 272:
- and even appreciated - by student
Page 273 and 274:
Panitz, T., & Panitz, P. (1998). En
Page 275 and 276:
Concept Mapping Concept mapping by
Page 277 and 278:
Research Questions In order to dete
Page 279 and 280:
with their teacher but rather than
Page 281 and 282:
Tukey’s HSD post hoc test reveale
Page 283 and 284:
collaboratively during study time?
Page 285 and 286:
Jegede, O.J., Alaiyemola, F.F., & O
Page 287 and 288:
esources. The use of synchronous te
Page 289 and 290:
The use of digital communication mo
Page 291 and 292:
contributed more information and en
Page 293 and 294:
3. Use the second screen for the le
Page 295 and 296:
• Use drawing to develop writing
Page 297 and 298:
student and teacher on the synchron
Page 299 and 300:
Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-
Page 301 and 302:
Cases The first set of ten case stu
Page 303 and 304:
Kılıçkaya, F. (2007). Website re
show all

October 2007 Volume 10 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?