Chapter 2 final draft

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

Introduction

Today’s youth have an increasing knowledge of technology that far surpasses many

people in older generations. This generation, the Millennials, are more ethnically diverse, less

religious, more educated, and extremely tech savvy. Three-quarters of this generation have

created a profile and interacted on a social-networking website and twenty percent have posted a

video of themselves online. While the majority of Millennials have cell phones, 88% of them

use their phones daily to text and 62% use wireless connections to access the internet while away

from home. Compared to Generation X, those whom are one generation older, twice as many

Millennials feel that technology is what defines their generation (PEW Research Center, 2010).

While many of today’s students use technology with ease, our education system lags far

behind in effectively educating today’s youth. Prensky (2001) coined the term digital natives for

the students of today who are well versed in the language and processes surrounding video

games, computers, and the internet. Conversely, people who were born prior to this generation

are digital immigrants. Digital immigrants are in a constant state of learning the language of

technology. However, growing up with little technology has impacted the way that these people

operate in today’s technology-rich world. Digital immigrants have learned how to use some

technologies, but the way in which they process and solve problems is very different. For

example, if a person needed to get the phone number of a restaurant and make reservations, the

digital immigrant would find the phone number in a phone book and call to make reservations.

In contrast, the digital native might look on the Internet for the phone number and possibly make

reservations online. It is very apparent that the two approaches are not right and wrong, rather

more provocative in how differently two generations approach a task based on their experiences

with technology (Prensky, 2001).

This technology gap between teachers and students affects the efficiency and

effectiveness of the lessons delivered in the classroom. Prensky (2001) examined the digital

natives and concluded that they are a generation that is used to multi-tasking, quick answers,

instant gratification, and work best when with other people. This begs the question, how do

today’s students learn in our current educational system? We have teachers who are digital

immigrants attempting to teach a generation of digital natives. Both speak different languages

and have drastically different methods for learning. Prensky (2001) suggested that teachers and

school districts address their methodology and content. Using the pedagogy presented in the

TPACK model, Mishra and Koehler addressed the issues of integrating content, pedagogy, and

technology. In addition to teaching reading, writing, and math, educators need to address the

technology and issues surrounding technology. Educators must teach students how to use

software, hardware, etc. However, they also must include the ethics, issues, and politics

associated with technology. In order to address the “digital divide”, school districts and teacher

preparation programs must address the social, cognitive, and communication barriers that exist as

well (Harper, 2003).

In order to begin the process of closing this gap, it is imperative that teachers look at their

own teaching, pedagogy, and content knowledge as it relates to technology. All teachers have

experiences, positive and negative, with technology that will affect how fully they implement it

in their classroom. In addition, there are external factors that also influence how well technology

is integrated and put to use in the classroom. These factors include the availability of

technology, support from administration, and training (Baek, et al, 2006).

Using Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) studies regarding technological, pedagogical, and

content knowledge (TPACK), it is clear that proper implementation has specific characteristics.

The teacher must have content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge. In addition, teachers

must also be able to learn and implement areas of combined knowledge such as content-

technological or pedagogical-content knowledge. Using this model and Harris and Hofer’s

(2009) research on activity types, teachers can create activities taking into account the context of

the standards being taught. Mayer’s (2005) work with learning has many suggestions for how

teachers can present media to maximize learning and instruction.

In the current study, the researcher used Mishra, Koehler, Harris and Hofer’s findings to

determine the most effective plan for implementing new technologies at an elementary school.

First, the theoretical rationale for the current study will be outlined, followed by a summary of

integration factors. Next, we will explore the application of theory and integration factors to new

technologies. Lastly, the research findings as they apply to the current study will be examined.

Theoretical Rationale

In order for educators to begin to bridge the technology gap between themselves and their

students, they first must acknowledge that technology is advancing in all parts of our society and

that there is a generational divide between students and teachers (Watson, 2006).

Training teachers in technology goes back many years to a time when teachers took

courses in “visual instruction” during the 1920s (Betrus, 2002). As these courses evolved,

teacher preparation programs began offering classes on the history of visual instruction and the

psychology of visual learning. In the 1930s courses were offered in “using the stereoscope”,

“the use of lantern slides”, and “mechanics of projectors and projection” (Betrus, 2002). As

audio recording became available in the 40s, instructors incorporated it into these visual

instruction courses. Computers began to make their way into classrooms in the 1980s and 1990s.

Students began to use computers in the classroom and teacher preparation programs began

offering more courses in “computer assisted instruction” (Betrus, 2002). As technology has

evolved, so have the teacher preparation programs; however, there still exists a large gap

between using technology in the classroom and effectively integrating technology to increase

student engagement and knowledge.

Early in the 21st century, researchers Mishra and Koehler did groundbreaking research

that paved the way for a model of effective technology integration. They took Shulman’s

research on pedagogy and content knowledge and extended it to include technology (Mishra &

Koehler, 2006). The research established that teachers must have specific knowledge about

technology, pedagogy, and content. Where these knowledge areas meet is a new area of

knowledge that teachers must learn.

Figure 1. TPACK Context Model

Using Figure 1, it is apparent that where content knowledge and technological knowledge meet,

that is a new kind of knowledge called technological content knowledge. An example of

technological content knowledge would look like this: combining the content knowledge of a

social studies lesson on the causes of the Revolutionary War and the technological knowledge of

using an interactive timeline to create a lesson about the causes of the Revolutionary War using

an interactive timeline and other required technologies. Teaching only the content requires

different knowledge than teaching the content in the context of technology. Although, TPACK

is not a prescription for how educators should train to teach, it is a model by which educators can

understand their own knowledge and better prepare themselves for teaching effectively with

technology.

In the TPACK model, each knowledge area covers specific topics and concepts that must

be understood in isolation before they are combined.

Content Knowledge. Content knowledge is the information, ideas, hypotheses, and

procedures within a given subject area. It is the knowledge specifically needed to teach a

subject. The content knowledge in a middle school art class is very different from the content

knowledge needed to teach a high school math course. Understanding content knowledge

includes the ability to compare and contrast different subject areas and determine if they have

anything in common. (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

Pedagogical Knowledge. This kind of knowledge involves an understanding of how

people learn. Someone with deep pedagogical knowledge would thoroughly understand how

people construct knowledge, obtain skills, and create positive habits and attitudes in their

learning. Pedagogical knowledge requires an understanding of theories and how these theories

apply to students in a classroom. (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

Technological Knowledge. Technological knowledge is knowledge about technologies

including books, magazines, and whiteboards, as well as more advanced technologies such as

digital videos and document cameras. This involves the knowledge needed to operate the

technology as well as use multiple technologies together. Technological knowledge

encompasses familiarity with computer hardware as well as software programs. Since the

technology available is always changing, someone with technological knowledge must be able to

move with the changes and adapt old knowledge to learn new technology. (Mishra & Koehler,

2006)

Shulman’s research on content and pedagogical knowledge is what Mishra and Koehler

used when they started their research on TPACK. Shulman’s idea about pedagogical content

knowledge (PCK) was important in conveying the concept of a new knowledge area where two

areas met.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). This area of knowledge includes

understanding pedagogy well enough to determine what type of lesson will teach the content

most effectively. It also includes knowledge of students’ backgrounds in the content area as well

as an understanding of what makes concepts easy or difficult to learn. Using PCK is what makes

up the art of teaching. (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK). The relationship between technology and

content knowledge is always changing, however this type of knowledge is demonstrated when a

teacher uses a specific technology to teach content. Teachers must know the content, but also

how to use the technology in the context of the classroom in order for all students to learn. Many

software programs change the way that content is presented such as in a game format or virtual

manipulation of shapes in a geometry lesson. Some of these programs offer students the

opportunity to construct knowledge somewhat passively, while they “play”. (Mishra & Koehler,

2006)

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). The knowledge of what technologies

exist, how to use them, and understanding that teaching may change as a result of using specific

technologies are all aspects of TPK. In addition, this knowledge area includes an understanding

of pedagogical strategies and the ability to apply those strategies to different technologies.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK or TPACK). This is the

newest area of knowledge that extends beyond the three knowledge elements. TPACK is the

foundation on which solid teaching with technology occurs. This model of technology

integration requires a person to be thoughtful in how they intertwine the three core knowledge

areas. A superb technology integrator is one who has a firm grasp on the content and pedagogy

and is able to select the appropriate technology to deliver an effective lesson. Successful

integration balances these three components. Lessons are taught in a specific context. It is very

important to be aware of the context because it will change as the content and students change.

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

Due to the large amount of research supporting TPACK, the current study used TPACK

as a model for creating an implementation plan for teachers. In the following sections, the

hindrances and helps to integration are explored as well as the application of TPACK in training

teachers.

Technology Integration Factors

Taylor, et al (2004) found that students, who learned subject matter with effectively

integrated technology, gained more knowledge than students who learned the same information

without technology. In order for technology to be implemented and used effectively, teachers

need training in how to do this. Many variables determine whether a teacher will fully integrate

computers or not. These factors included: (a) positive teaching experiences with technology; (b)

teacher’s comfort with computers; (c) beliefs supporting the use of computers as an instructional

tool; (d) training and support; (e) motivation; (f) and teaching efficacy (Mueller, et al, 2008).

Baek, Jung, and Kim (2008) found that many of the factors that affected implementation were

external and based on others’ requests or perceived need for technology. Their research also

suggested that teachers with more experience were less likely to begin implementing technology

in their classrooms while new teachers were more motivated to use it willingly.

Based on the TPACK model and the findings of Baek, et al and Taylor, et al, a

conclusion can be drawn that teachers’ willingness to integrate technology is somewhat based on

their training and comfort with technology. It appears that teachers are trained well in content

and pedagogy. Training in technology is now a requirement in teacher credential programs;

however much of the training is specific for using different technologies and software. This

training does not include hands-on application of content, pedagogy, and technology as

suggested in TPACK. Preparing teachers using the TPACK model includes the application of

the three knowledge areas and time to be successful in using technology. Mueller, et al (2008)

found that teachers’ positive experiences with computer technology were the greatest contributor

to integration. The researchers proposed that perhaps these positive experiences boosted

teachers’ confidence in using technology. The research indicated that teachers needed to see that

technology has the potential to improve learning before they are willing to use it in their

classroom. (Mueller, et al, 2008) This finding demonstrates the importance of making trainings

that are teacher-focused and based in pedagogy that is applicable to the content focus. Teachers

need to see how to integrate technology effectively as well as be convinced that technology

works!

Addressing the integration factors in teacher trainings and preparation programs is

important; however, there are many teachers who received little or no technology training when

they were in a credential program. This lack of prior education forces school districts to be

responsible for training their teachers to be effective integrators.

In order for teachers to integrate technology, there need to be training standards and

professional development guidelines (Pittman, 1999). Before the Department of Education

adopted national standards in 2007, prominent organizations in the educational technology field

began putting forth recommendations for what best practices and models should be addressed.

Mishra and Koehler (2006) stated that teachers need to learn not only the basics of software and

hardware, but need a deep understanding of the technology available. This deep understanding

will allow teachers to be flexible and teachable through the many changes and enhancements that

will happen. In addition to a deep understanding, Mishra and Koehler found that it is important

for teachers to appreciate the interrelationships that exist between the technology, tools, users,

and methods. This is a very fluid and ever changing field. For teachers to be successful in

integrating and using technology, they must be able to appreciate it and be willing to learn new

things and apply their knowledge to new situations. The standards that were adopted in 2007

address performance indicators for students, teachers, and administrators. Each set of standards

addresses not only the use of technology, but also how to be a digital citizen and growing in your

knowledge of technological issues.

Mishra and Koehler (2005) suggested that teachers work in groups and learn through

solving an educational issue using technology. With this method, teachers have a lower affective

filter because they are working in a group and they can move at their own pace. Since they are

using technology to solve the problem that the trainer posed, teachers learn what it is like to be

on the student side of learning. In general, they focus more on solving the problem and less on

learning the technology. In other words, technology is being taught implicitly, not explicitly.

This constructivist model of learning by Piaget supports the idea that Young (2003) proposed.

She studied different computer-based learning environments. Her research findings suggest a

model in which students learn from computers not with computers. This means that students,

aided by a computer, actively construct knowledge in a specific context. In contrast to

instructor-led learning, the teachers in this class use a broader range of technologies to solve the

problem, hence giving them experience with a larger number of programs and platforms.

Brown and Warschauer (2006) studied the teacher preparation programs. Their findings

were that most programs and field placements fall short. Students reported that they were too

busy with other classes to focus and learn what they needed to for the technology classes. During

student teaching placements, the same trend was found. Student teachers were overwhelmed

with class work and found it difficult to integrate computers, so many chose not to use it. As

Mishra and Koehler found, the teacher preparation courses focused on mastering hardware and

software functions, rather than tasks that can be used for integrating technology. Brown and

Warschauer believed that infusing technology into the methods courses would provide a context

and a collaborative learning environment by which teachers would learn technology and content

more effectively. They also believed that teacher-education faculty needs to model the use of

effective technology integration. Once teachers complete the preparation program, Brown and

Warschauer suggested that teachers be placed with a technologically proficient mentor of their

new staff. This person would be a role model as well as be able to provide information and

suggestions for successfully integrated lessons.

Application to New Technologies

Teachers need specific contextual examples of how to integrate technology. Clemmons

(2010) focused on the interactive aspect of document cameras and gave many examples of ways

to integrate document cameras into curriculum. Her focus on effective integration supports

Mishra and Koehler’s research demonstrating that context along with technology is a new area of

teacher knowledge. Using the context of a content-specific lesson, Clemmons gives teachers an

opportunity to use technology successfully.

Harris’ extensive work with activity types demonstrated that lesson design is paramount

in effectively using technology and training teachers how to integrate technology. Harris,

Mishra, and Koehler (2009) gave extensive examples of technologies that were compatible with

specific activities. Suppose a teacher wanted students to create a narrative writing about an event

in the past. The technologies that Harris found to be most compatible with that activity are word

processors and concept mapping software. Although Harris’ research is not a prescribed set of

parameters for integration, she created a very user-friendly model.

Using Table 1, you can see that there are many activity choices for knowledge-based

activities. Perhaps a teacher wanted students to listen to the audio version of a radio broadcast to

learn about an event in history. The compatible technology includes MP3 files, podcasts, CDs,

and radio. Using this table, and other like it, helps teachers to determine quickly what kind of

technology would be best for a specific activity.

Table 1.

Knowledge Building Activity Types

Technology Implementation in the Current Study

Based on the research, it is clear that technology implementation is not a short, easy

process. Teachers’ prior knowledge, attitudes, and experiences must be a consideration when

developing an implementation plan.

Mayer (2003) researched design methods across different media and found that students

gained a deep understanding of the material regardless of the media used. This research is

important to implementation because it demonstrated that there are many different types of

media available. As long as the instructional design is sound, students learned the material with

significant depth whether it was using text and illustrations or narration and animation (Mayer,

2003).

Sound instructional design is rooted in the concepts presented in Mayer’s cognitive

theory of multimedia learning (CTML). This theory focused on the idea that multimedia

instructional messages designed in light of how the human mind works are going to be more

understandable than ones that are not (Mayer, 2005). The theory of learning that you have two

channels through which information enters your brain and there is a limit to how much your

brain can process helped Mayer form his conclusion. Mayer found that people learn more

effectively if pictures and words are presented simultaneously rather than separately.

Pairing Mayer’s CTML with Mishra and Koehler’s theory regarding knowledge, one can

create an implementation plan that successfully implements visual and auditory concepts with

content, knowledge, and technology. Although Mishra and Koehler don’t explicitly discuss

document cameras, or document readers, as a form of visual technology, they are beginning to be

used in schools and teachers need training on implementation. Visual media such as digital

photos, video, and document cameras are being used in classrooms with little training in

effective integration.

This study used the research and created an implementation plan for document cameras

based on the findings of Harris, Mishra, Koehler, and Mayer. Document cameras are a digital

projector that allows the user to project an image of an item or document onto a screen.

Document cameras are useful with microscopes, as a digital camera, and as an interactive tool.

While the current research on document camera use is very limited, studies on visual media and

technology integration are applied easily. Using this research, an implementation plan that

includes Harris’ activity types and examples of successful lessons using TPACK was created for

an elementary school that recently purchased document cameras.

Summary

Technology is changing daily and with those changes comes a need for teacher training.

Teachers not only need to know the content and pedagogy behind the standards that they teach,

but also should be able to select appropriate technologies to use. Mishra and Koehler’s research

on knowledge led to the creation of the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge

framework for multimedia instruction. Using this research with Harris’ work on activity types,

the researcher created an implementation plan for using document cameras at an elementary

school. Part of this plan includes instructional strategies suggested by Mayer and his work with

multimedia learning. Applying the TPACK and activity type theories to document cameras was

a natural step forward since document cameras contain much of the same technology as

computers, digital cameras, and digital video recorders.

References

Baek, Y., Jung, J., Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom?

Exploring the factors affecting the facilitation of technology with a Korean sample.

Computers and Education, 50, 224-234.

Baines, L. & Belvin, L. (2001). Rage towards the machine: Technology and standards in 2001.

In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher

Education International Conference 2001 (pp. 2660-2665). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Betrus, A., Molenda, M. (2002). Historical evolution of instructional technology in teacher

education programs. TechTrends, 46(5), 18-33.

Brown, D., Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students’

experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and

Teacher Education, 14(3), 599-621.

Catchings, M. (2000). Models of professional development for teachers: Factors influencing

technology implementation in elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State

University). Retrieved from http://0-proquest.umi.com.library.touro.edu/pqdweb?did=

728321521&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=31638&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Clemmons, K. & Hayn, J. (2009). Why we can’t live without our document cameras: Effective

classroom strategies to integrate technology and interactive instruction. In I. Gibson et al.

(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference 2009 (pp. 2492-2496). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Cox, S. (2008). A conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge (Doctoral

dissertation, Brigham Young University). Retrieved from http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/

ETD/image/etd2552.pdf

Engelien, K. & Stundal, K. (2010). Using TPACK as a model for school development. In D.

Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &

Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3818-3823). Chesapeake, VA:

AACE.

Eteokleous, N. (2008). Evaluating computer technology integration in a centralized school

system. Computers and Education, 51, 669-686.

Harper, V. (2003). The digital divide (DD): A reconceptualization for educators. AACE Journal,

11(1), 96-103. Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-

based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux, (Ed.). Research highlights in technology

and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information

Technology in Teacher Education (SITE).

Harris, J., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content

knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration

reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Hew, K., Brush, T. (2006). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current

knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology

Research Development, 55, 223-252.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). The ISTE national

educational technology standards (NETS-S) and performance indicators for

students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/

NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS_for_Students_2007.htm

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). The ISTE national

educational technology standards (NETS-T) and performance indicators for

teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu

/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_for_Teachers_2008.htm

Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design

methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139. doi:

10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6

Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. (2003). Not “what” but “how”: Becoming design-wise about

educational technology. To appear in Zhao, Y. (Ed.), What should teachers know about

technology (pp.99-122). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for

teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework:

You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning and Leading with

Technology, 36(7), 14-18.

Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., Specht, J. (2008). Indentifying discriminating

variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited

integration. Computers and Education, 51, 1523-1537.

Mueller, J. (2009). Computer integration in elementary and secondary schools: Variables

influencing educators (Doctoral dissertation, Wilfrid Laurier University). Retrieved from

http://0-proquest.umi.com.library.touro.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=1850208191&Srch

Mode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS

=1279774622&clientId=31638

Pew Charitable Trust. (2009). Growing old in America: Expectations vs. reality

(P. Taylor, R. Morin, K. Parker, D. Cohn, & W. Wang, Eds.). Retrieved from

http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/Getting-Old-in-America.pdf

Pew Charitable Trust. (2009). Forty years after Woodstock, a gentler generation gap

(P. Taylor, R. Morin, K. Parker, D. Cohn, & W. Wang, Eds.). Retrieved from

http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/after-woodstock-gentler-generation-gap.pdf

Pew Charitable Trust. (2010). Millenials: Confident. Connected. Open to change

(Kohut, A., Taylor, P., Keeter, S., Parker, K., Morin, R., Cohn, D., Lopez, M., Smith, G.,

Fry, R., Wang, W., Christian, L., Pond, A., Clement, S., Eds.). Retrieved from

http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change.pdf

Pittman, J. (1999). The need for training standards in new technologies for inservice teachers. In

J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher

Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 578-584). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).

Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M., Shin, T. (2009). Technological

pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an

assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 42(2), 123-149.

Straub, E. (2009, June). Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for

Informal Learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625-650.

Taylor, L., Casto, D., Walls, R. (2007). Learning with versus without technology in elementary

and secondary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 798-811.

U.S. Department of Commerce (1991) What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for

America 2000. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/ issues/methods/assment/

as7scans.htm

Young, L. (2003). Bridging theory and practice: Developing guidelines to facilitate the design of

computer-based learning environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,

29(3).

Chapter 2 final draft

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Chapter 2 final draft

More from megerdts

Recently uploaded

Chapter 2 final draft