Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Theory of Technology Implementation


Published on

Theoretical Framework for Educational Technology by Doctoral Candidate, Lindsay Morgan. Tarleton State University (Draft one)

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Theory of Technology Implementation

  1. 1. Technology Literacy Student Achievement Future Education Theory of Technology Implementation and Literacy Outcomes
  2. 2. Introduction
  3. 3. Quill Pens & Slates Early one-room school houses taught students how to write and cipher, Wall charts Behaviorism To save the cost John Watson helped of individual establish books, passages behaviorism which were sometimes Models became one of the printed in large Models were given theoretical letters and hung to students to foundations of for all to see. manipulate and learning learn from.1600s 1700s 1826 1855 1901 1914 1923 Manipulatives Primers Maria Montessori’s The New kinesthetic approach England Primer spurred the use of remained the manipulatives. basic school text Historical Perspective for 100 years after its publication.
  4. 4. PBS and NER The Public Broadcasting Act established the Public Broadcasting Service and National Education Radio. Radio World Wide The Ohio Web; ―School of Air‖ Cognitive Approach Constructivist broadcasted Approach; Cognitivists including instruction to Ausubel, Bruner, Gagne, Virtual Reality. homes. and others brought forth the idea of thinking about learning (metacognition).1929 1956 1967 1970 1977 1990s 2003 & beyond Mobile Devices; Online Life; the Grid Bloom’s The P.C. Taxonomy Apple (Steve Jobs A team lead by and Steve Wozniak) Benjamin Bloom creates the first identified and personal computer articulated levels of cognition. Timeline adapted from:, and Saettler, P. (1968) A history of instructional technologies.
  5. 5. Are We Teaching Them??
  6. 6. A:B. What is the relationship between campus leadership perception of technology implementation and teacher perception oftechnology implementation?A:C. What is the relationship between campus leadership perception of technology implementation and student achievement inreading?B:C. What is the relationship between teacher perception of technology implementation and student achievement in reading?A:B:C. What is the relationship between perception of technology implementation and student achievement in reading?
  7. 7. Longitudinal Study (2007/2008– 2010/2011 school years):Comparison of teacher andleader responses on the TexasSTAR to student TAKS readingscores in grades 3-11.
  8. 8. Leader Level of Technology The greater the congruency Implementation between leader and teacher perception of technology implementation = greaterTeacher student achievement in reading. Organizational Implication
  9. 9. Review of LiteratureKulik(2003) purported that the infusion of technology into schools hastrapped education in a cycle of over spending on a non-sustainableresource, stifling learning. Kulik found no relationship between computeruse and academic achievement.Brown (2009) found a positive relationship between digital literacy andelementary student achievement in mathematics, through comparison ofthe Texas STAR chart and student TAKS scores. Mixed Results
  10. 10. Review of LiteratureLovat & Smith (1995) found that teacher beliefs and training intechnology have the potential to greatly impact the quality ofeducational technology, thus impact student achievement.Degranno (2010) suggested that teachers must design constructivistenvironments, where pedagogy are linked with technology and real-world application. Mixed Results
  11. 11. Review of LiteratureCravey (2008) found that educational technology had no directsignificant effect on student achievement.Kaumbulu (2011) found that positive teacher and leader beliefsregarding technology were necessary for successful technologyimplementation.Baker, et. al. (2006) found that effective use of technology canaccelerate efforts to ensure all students master literacy. Mixed Results
  12. 12. A theory of learning that suggests that learners actively construct their own knowledge and meaning from their experiences. Constructivism, by nature is pragmatic, and tied to the administrative theory of Human Relations. The core of this theory is rooted in the works of philosophers including: Dewey (1932), Kant (1781/1946), Piaget (1973), and Vygotsky (1978).Theoretical Foundation & Key Theorists
  13. 13. John Dewey (1932): emphasized the role ofexperiences in learning.Jean Piaget (1973): theorized that children developschemata and used schema to construct newknowledge; children use symbolic thinking wheninterpreting their world.Lev Vygotsky (1978): noted that tool use influencedchild development, and measured how these toolsaffected learning; emphasized the role of socialcontact. Key Theorists and Their Contributions
  14. 14. Pedagogy: the leaderThe leader must provide a learning environment in which…Learning can take place in authentic and real-world environments;Learning can involve social negotiation and mediation;Content and skills are relevant to the learner;Content and skills can be understood within the framework of thelearner’s prior knowledge. Leadership
  15. 15. Pedagogy: the teacherThe teacher must support a learning environment in which…The teacher serves a facilitator of learning, rather than aninstructor;The teacher encourages multiple perspectives andrepresentations of content. Less teacher focus
  16. 16. Pedagogy: the learnerStudents should benefit from an educational environment in which…Students are assessed formatively, serving to inform future learningexperiences;Students are encouraged to become self regulatory, self mediated, andself aware. Student-Owned
  17. 17. Policy: Federal RequirementsNo Child Left Behind Act (2001);U.S.D.O.E. National Education Technology Plan. Federal Requirements
  18. 18. National Technology Plan U.S. Department of Education (2004) Teachers have more resources available through technology than ever before, But many teachers have not received sufficient training in the effective use of technology to enhance the students’ learning. Federal Findings
  19. 19. Policy: Texas RequirementsSBEC Certification Requirements;Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills (TEKS);Long Range Plan for Technology (LRPT);State Comprehensive Education;Career & Technical Education;Title I funding;Professional Development Appraisal System (PDAS). State Requirements
  20. 20. Further Research NeededMany studies based aroundtechnology use in the classroomfocus on technology in support ofmathematics and science.There are a limited number ofstudies that connect literacy(reading, writing, speaking,listening) to technologyinstruction and use. Why?
  21. 21. Further Research NeededOf the 93 million adults in the Low literacy and poor readingU.S. functioning at or below skills are the number onebasic levels of literacy, 30 million indicators for high schoolare the parents or primary dropouts, and 85% of allcaregivers of children ages 0-8 juveniles who interface with the(National Center for Family juvenile court system areLiteracy Fact Sheet). functionally illiterate. (National Assessment of Adult Literacy,Texas has slipped from 45th to 2003).last among states ranked bypercent for citizens in 2005—age Dropouts alone cost Texas $9.625 and older—who have a high Billion annually (United Ways ofschool diploma or GED (Murdock, Texas).2007). Why?
  22. 22. Image source: of Illiterate Texans by County
  23. 23. Questions??
  24. 24. ReferencesBaker, Pearson & Rozendal (2010). Theoretical perspectives and literacy studies:An exploration of roles and insights. In Baker (Ed.), The new literacies: Multipleperspectives on research and practice (pp.1-22). New York, NY: The GuildfordPress.Brown, B. (2009). An examination of the relationship between digital literacy andstudent achievement in Texas elementary schools. Norman, OK: University ofOklahoma.Cravey, R. (2008). An analysis of the relationship of educational technologyimplementation level and student achievement. Stephenville, TX: Tarleton StateUniversity.Degennaro, D. (2010). Grounded in theory: Immersing preservice teachers intechnology-mediated learning. Contemporary Issues in Technology and TeacherEducation, 10(3), 338-359.Dewey, J. (1932). The school and society: The child and the curriculum. Chicago,IL: The University of Chicago Press. References
  25. 25. ReferencesKant, E. (1946). Critique of pure reason. (J.M.D. Meiklejohn, Trans.) NewYork, NY: Dutton.Kulik, J.A. (2003). Effects of using instruction technology in elementaryand secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington,VA: SRI International.National Family Literacy Facts. Retrieved from:Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. New York, NY: Viking Press.Texas A&M Illiteracy Map. Retrieved from:Texas Education Agency (2006). Texas Star Chart: A tool for planning andself assessing. Austin, TX: TEA.Texas Literacy Initiative. Retrieved from:Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higherpsychological process. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. References
  26. 26. ReferencesU.S. Dept. of Education (2005). No child left behind: Educationaltechnology fact sheet. Retrieved from: References