Module 3 (original version):
Annotated Bibliography of 3 Articles
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
This article reports the findings of a study involving 3 locations
part of the Universities
of Pennsylvania (Indiana, Clarion, and
Edinboro) which were 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:
- offer multiple forms
of support and incentives
- tie incentives
to desired outcomes
- involve faculty
in decision-making to secure buy-in
- use
faculty models
- supplement technical
support with peer support and well trained
student assistants, and
- 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.
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
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).
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.
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
This article is interesting from an administrative policies and
issues standpoint, because it deals with
educational reform with respect to technology
(e.g., National Education Goals Panel,
1991; National Research Council [NRC],
1993; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002).
So the beneficiary of this article would
likely be those involved in K-12 education.
There are 2 stated goals of the "program"
these researchers developed (on a 3 year
PT3 federally funded grant), 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".
This article devotes considerable attention to modern instructional
design 'theories' which emphasize concepts
such as active learning and meaningful
experiences. This part is somewhat common
and does 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 the new version of this
page)
~back to top~
|
