Module 3: Annotated Bibliography of 3 Articles

Article 1 | Article 2 | Article 3

(click here to see original version of this page)

Article 1

Citation

Brzycki, D., & Dudt, K. (2005). Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher preparation programs. Journal of
             Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619+. Retrieved from Questia database:
             http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5011517184

Summary

This article reports the findings of a study involving 3 locations, all part of the Universities of Pennsylvania (Indiana, Clarion, and Edinboro). The work at all locations was completed as part of a PT3 grant (funded by the U.S. Department of Education). The project they have been developing is entitled "Preparing Teachers for the Digital Age." The conceptual framework these researchers used to study adoption of technology in education is focused on barriers. More specifically, they studied barriers to technology adoption and their relationship to the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) which is one of the most widely used models (and sets of instruments) for analysis of technology adoption within education.

Not surprisingly, the conclusions include ideas for success and learned lessons which recommend that administrators:

1. offer multiple forms of support and incentives
2. tie incentives to desired outcomes
3. involve faculty in decision-making to secure buy-in
4. use faculty models
5. supplement technical support with peer support and well trained student assistants, and
6. cultivate strong administrative support.

One of the more interesting concepts these researchers discuss is what is known as Low Threshold Applications (LTAs). Basically, these are teaching/learning applications of information technology that are readily available, reliable, easy to learn, non-intimidating, and incrementally inexpensive. In other words, these LTA's address the problems of time, support, and cost.

Critique/Reaction

I really liked the concept of the LTA, and feel that this could be a concept worth exploring much further. I have read quite a bit on technology adoption and implementation, and one of the criticisms of 'barrier' research is the focus on the negative. These researchers were very successful at avoiding a cynical or negative tone, which makes their usage of this approach less depressing and therefore encouraging, hopeful, and a potential source of insight. The other thing that set's this article apart from other articles I have read on 'barrier's' is the conspiciuous lack of a focus on the 2 non-faculty staff functions of training and support.

In the past, I read in other articles that training opportunities (moreso for pedagogy, than for mere operation of the equipment) for faculty were a critical factor in the transition process, but also that the confidence and reassurance that IMMEDIATELY available, or actual in-class support technicians are avaiable for assistance and rescue in case of problems was also a big factor. This was also my personal experience when I was responsible for distance ed technology at the TTU COE.

I also have a very strong interest in CBAM. Because there are new and alternative models which have been used in other areas which might be adapted to education, it seems incredible that CBAM has been so resilient even in recent years. I wanted to see if I could find out more about this project and did some independent searching. Here is a link to the Final Grant Proposal and here is the main project page for this group. The best thing about doing your own independent investigation (going beyond a pub, to the original sources), is that you seem to get some bits of data that did not make it through the publication process. There are some photos, and a much more human, informal, and qualitative descriptions of the work and outcomes on the project page.

Lastly, there was one detail that seemed only slowly to become more interesting. As I read through the propsals, and then finally the 1 year extension to the grant, I noticed there was not alot of financial data in what I had access to. However, on the one year extension document, there were some financial summaries. I found it interesting to review the specifics of where the money went: much of the money was salaries, benefits, and stipends for faculty who already have jobs at the College there. This of course supported what the article proposes, that real solid incentives (including money) are important in technology implementation.

Here is the summary they provide for the 1 year extension budget:

~back to top~

Article 2

Citation

Caspi, A., & Gorsky, P. (2005). Instructional media choice: factors affecting the preferences of distance education
            coordinators. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(2), 169+. Retrieved from Questia database:
             http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5011373004

Summary

This article examined the media choices of 51 distance education course coordinators at the Open University of Israel. Of particular interest were the theoretical grounds upon which their hypotheses were drawn: Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984), Social Influence Theory (Fulk, 1993), Media Symbolism (Trevino, Lengel & Daft, 1987), and Experience Account (King & Xia, 1997).

Critique/Reaction

Although the findings appear to be straight forward, their methodology and analysis were exemplary, as well as their theoretical discussion. They were able to show that prior skill, social influence, and medium richness all have an impact on choice of media in distance education. Because of the discussion on "matching" media to the content, it was particularly interesting to follow the careful avoidance of any mention of how media choice might affect achievement. Instead, they simply took the straight forward assumption that some content must (logically) be better suited to some circumstances than others. It can be very precarious to argue that a course in language would be a good match for audio media than a course in art appreciation (which might be better suited to text and visual material than language) -- when our instruments and techniques are barely able to detect achievement impact of many other variables not related to media.

What makes this article particularly interesting to me is that there are so many complex factors related to media choice and most of these have nothing to do with perceptions of influence on student achievement. This of course has direct impact on organizational adoption, implementation, and institutionalization of technologies, because it can reveal the 'why' of adoption.

~back to top~

Article 3

Citation

Otero, V., Peressini, D., Meymaris, K. A., Ford, P., Garvin, T., Harlow, D., et al. (2005). Integrating technology into teacher
             education: a critical framework for implementing reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 8+. Retrieved from
             Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5008307110

Summary

This article recommends educational reform with respect to technology (e.g., National Education Goals Panel, 1991; National Research Council [NRC], 1993; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). There are 2 stated goals of the "program" these researchers developed (on a 3 year PT3 federally funded grant, in the last year at the time of writing), which are basically (1) how and when to use technology in education and (2) "capacity to model and deliver technology-infused curricula, pedagogy, and assessment".

Two former studies, which strongly influenced this study and which are reviewed in this article are:

1. Hooper and Rieber (1995). These researchers proposed a model for the adoption of technologies that includes 5 phases: familiarization, utilization, integration, reorientation, and evolution.
   
2. Butler and Sellbom (2002). These Ball State University faculty identified barriers to faculty adoption of technology which included: (a) reliability, (b) time to learn the technology, (c) knowing how to use the technology, (d) concern that technology might not be critical for learning, and (e) perception of inadequate institutional support.

Almost as mere coincidence, the authors propose a model (they call it a framework) called ETR:

"It is often left to the individual instructor or faculty member not only to develop skills in using the technology itself but also to construct an understanding of the pedagogical use of technology in his or her own classroom. To address this question, we propose an educational technology resource (ETR) model of technological change driven by the theoretical perspectives of social constructivism and situated cognition."

The authors explain this model in depth, and it becomes obvious why they developed this model after reading the case studies and prior research they conducted themselves into technology adoption and implementation.

Fortunately, these authors also include a discussion of the importance of makign "meaningful" use of the technology, so that it is like a learning tool and extension of learning capabilities, rather than as an isolated "event" or activity.

NOTE: In 1999, the U.S. Department of Education established the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) program. the PT3 program (which gave millions of dollars to hundreds of organizations) was designed to support organizational change in teacher education. The purpose of this change was so that future teachers would be able to use interactive information and communication technologies in education.

Critique/Reaction

If I could only pick one thing that I really liked and agreed with from a research and theory perspective, it is that "institutional support" is the real key for some Universities, where improvements are really lacking. There is nothing worse than throwing a powerful tool to each person in a large crowd, and just expecting them to all start using it like mad. That is illogical.

This article also interested me partly from an administrative policies and issues standpoint, because it boldly states what few others have dared to state, about their own bosses: that there is a problem and that change is needed. Plenty of researchers talk about "the field" or in more general terms, but these researchers actually used case studies (albiet, cases which mostly turned out positive) which highlight where problems are and change is needed. Ultimately the students at this University who were in the courses where these principle are applied, will hopefully pass this on to K-12 schools. In other words, the beneficiary of this article would likely be those involved in K-12 education.

In my opinion, this article devotes considerable attention to modern instructional design 'theories' which emphasize concepts such as active learning and meaningful experiences. My original reaction to this part was suspicion that their language was somewhat common (use of popular phrases and cliches) and did not represent much creativity and may be out of vogue within a few years or a decade.

On the other hand, one aspect which may be somewhat innovative which they have also focused on is the changes which are required in the paradigm or perspective of teachers with regard to technology adoption and implementation. In other words, they have alighted upon the concept of 'institutionalization' and a organization wide cultural change. At the individual level, this would mean that teachers think of technology as an extension, amplification, or other intrinsic tool to empower them in their endeavors, rather than as foreign tools which like objects must have a separate agenda from the course content and it's design.

(click here to see original version of this page)

~back to top~