Creating Technology-Enhanced, Learner Technology-Enhanced, Learner-Centered Classrooms: K–12 Teachers’ Beliefs, Perceptions, Barriers, and Support Needs ... technology in more Authors: Yunjo An Charles M ReigeluthAffiliation: University of West Georgia Indiana UniversityAbout: Professional development Questionnaire Paradigm shift Belief Ed

  • Published on
    30-Apr-2018

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Transcript

<ul><li><p>54 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 28 Number 2</p><p>Copyright 201112, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. &amp; Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Intl), iste@iste.org, iste.org. All rights reserved.</p><p>Abstract</p><p>Although a wealth of literature dis-cusses the factors that affect technol-ogy integration in general and how to improve professional development efforts, few studies have examined is-sues related to learner-centered tech-nology integration. Thus, this study aims to explore K12 teachers be-liefs, perceptions, barriers, and sup-port needs in the context of creating technology-enhanced, learner-cen-tered classrooms. The researcher used an online survey to collect data, and 126 teachers participated in the sur-vey. The findings of this study provide practical insights into how to support teachers in creating technology-en-hanced, learner-centered classrooms. This article discusses the implica-tions for professional development and the need for paradigm change. (Keywords: Learner-centered instruc-tion, technology integration, teacher beliefs, perceptions, barriers, support needs, teacher education, professional development, paradigm change)</p><p>Our information society needs people who can effectively manage and use ever-increasing amounts of information to solve com-plex problems and to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. There is little argument that the traditional factory model of education is incompatible with the evolving demands of the in-formation age (Reigeluth, 1999b). The factory model also does not take into account students varying needs, which leads to student dissatisfaction and de-motivation. Students and parents often perceive school learning as irrelevant to their personal and real-life needs and interests. </p><p>The learner-centered model focuses on developing real-life skills, such as collaboration, higher-order thinking, and problem-solving skills, and better meets the complex needs of the informa-tion age. The learner-centered model also addresses the personal domain, which is often ignored in conventional schools and classrooms, and it results in increased student motivation and learn-ing. In learner-centered classrooms, stu-dents feel accepted and supported, feel ownership over their learning, and are more likely to be involved and willing to learn (Bransford et al. 2000; Cornelius-White &amp; Harbaugh, 2009; McCombs &amp; Whisler, 1997; Reigeluth, 1994). </p><p>Research evidence on the effective-ness of learner-centered approaches con-tinues to grow. Recently, Cheang (2009) examined the effects of learner-centered teaching on motivation and learning strategies in a third-year pharmaco-therapy course in a doctor of pharmacy program. In the study, the students were asked to complete the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) before and after taking the course. Students also assessed the extent to which the learner-centered approach facilitated their learning. Results show that students intrinsic goal orientation, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and metacognitive self-regulation significantly improved after taking the course. Students were also positive in their assessment of the learner-centered experience in the course. These results indicate that the learner-centered approach is effective in promoting several domains of motiva-tion and learning strategies. </p><p>Using a qualitative metasynthesis ap-proach, Strobel and van Barneveld (2009) compared and contrasted the findings </p><p>of the meta-analytical research on the effectiveness of problem-based learn-ing (PBL), one of the learner-centered approaches. Their results indicate that PBL is significantly more effective than traditional instruction when it comes to long-term knowledge retention, perfor-mance improvement, and satisfaction of students and teachers, whereas tradi-tional approaches are more effective for short-term retention. These are just a few examples. Numerous studies provide evi-dence that students are motivated to learn and develop more in-depth understand-ing of content as well as real-world skills in learner-centered environments. </p><p>Todays students, often called digital natives or the Net Generation, grow up with technology. Most of them have nev-er known life without the Internet. They have spent their entire lives using com-puters, cell phones, and other digital me-dia and have integrated technology into almost everything they do. It is obvious that technology is an integral part of their lives (Oblinger, 2008; Prensky, 2007). To engage them in learning, there has been increased emphasis on the integration of technology into K12 classrooms. Although a wealth of literature discusses technology integration in general, there is a lack of research on learner-centered technology integration. This study aims to explore K12 teachers beliefs, percep-tions, barriers, and support needs in the context of creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms.</p><p>Learner-Centered ClassroomsThe American Psychological Association (1993, 1997) identified 12 learner-centered psychological principles. The domains of the learner-centered principlesthe meta-cognitive and cognitive, affective, personal and social, developmental, and individual </p><p>Creating Technology-Enhanced, Learner-Centered Classrooms: K12 Teachers Beliefs, Perceptions, Barriers, and Support Needs</p><p>Yun-Jo AnUniversity of West Georgia</p><p>Charles ReigeluthIndiana University</p></li><li><p>Volume 28 Number 2 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | 55</p><p>Learner-Centered Technology Integration</p><p>Copyright 201112, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. &amp; Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Intl), iste@iste.org, iste.org. All rights reserved.</p><p>differences factorsemphasize both the learner and learning. McCombs and Whisler (1997) contend that the learner-centered perspective focuses equally on the learner and learning and that the ultimate goal of education is to foster the learning of all learners (p. 14). Learner-centered instruction (LCI) does not take only one form, but learner-centered classrooms tend to have the following general characteristics in common:</p><p>Personalized and customized learn-ing. Learner-centered teachers have high expectations for all students and pay close attention to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that each student brings into the classroom. Considering the unique and diverse needs and styles of the students, they include person-ally meaningful and relevant goals and provide personalized learning experi-ence and support. They are also sensitive to cultural issues as well as individual differences. Students actively engage in learning and work at their own individ-ual pace (Bransford et al., 2000; DiMar-tino, Clark, &amp; Wolk, 2003; McCombs &amp; Whisler, 1997; Reigeluth, 1994, 1999a; Reigeluth &amp; Duffy, 2008).</p><p>Social and emotional support. Learner-centered teachers foster students social and emotional growth as well as intel-lectual growth by creating a supportive and positive environment. They assume that all students want to learn and provide them with emotional support and encouragement. Students feel like they belong in the class (McCombs &amp; Whisler, 1997; Reigeluth, 1999a).</p><p>Self-regulation. Learner-centered teachers serve as facilitators rather than transmitters of knowledge. They give students increasing responsibility for the learning process and provide an optimal amount of structure without being over-ly directive. They encourage students participation and empower students by sharing power. They also help students develop metacognitive skills and learn-ing strategies. Students are actively engaged in and take ownership of their learning (Cornelius-White &amp; Harbaugh, 2009; McCombs &amp; Whisler, 1997; Reige-luth, 1994, 1999a; Weimer, 2002). </p><p>Collaborative and authentic learning experiences. Learner-centered teachers provide students with authentic learning experiences that help students develop real-world skills, such as communication, collaboration, critical-thinking, creative-thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills. Students are encouraged to work collaboratively with others, to solve problems, and to create new knowl-edge rather than just recall or restate knowledge. Learning activities are often global, interdisciplinary, and integrated (Bransford et al., 2000; Cornelius-White &amp; Harbaugh, 2009; McCombs &amp; Whisler, 1997; Reigeluth, 1994). </p><p>Assessment for learning. Learner-cen-tered teachers assess different students differently. They conduct assessments not just to generate grades but to pro-mote learning. They monitor individual students progress continually to provide feedback on their growth and progress. They also promote students reflection on their growth as learners and help them develop self- and peer-assessment skills. What they assess is congruent with students learning goals. Teachers make all assessments as authentic as possible (Bransford et al., 2000; Mc-Combs &amp; Whisler, 1997; Weimer, 2002).</p><p>It is worth noting that different learn-er-centered teachers have varying but overlapping beliefs and that any single learner-centered instruction will not necessarily include all of these attributes (McCombs &amp; Whisler, 1997).</p><p>Technology IntegrationAlthough there is no clear definition of technology integration in K12 contexts (Bebell, Russell, &amp; ODwyer, 2004), tech-nology integration is generally viewed as the use of technology for instruc-tional purposes. Mishra and Koehler (2006, 2008) introduced Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) as a framework for teacher knowledge for technology integration and argued that the development of TPACK is critical for effective technol-ogy integration. The TPACK framework builds on Shulmans (1986, 1987) idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). As the name suggests, the framework has </p><p>three main components: content, peda-gogy, and technology. However, TPACK goes beyond these three components. Emphasizing the importance of dynamic relationships among these components, Mishra and Koehler (2006, 2008) iden-tified pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowl-edge (TPK), and technological pedagogi-cal content knowledge (TPCK) in addition to content knowledge (CP), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technological knowl-edge (TK). The TPACK framework shows that technology integration requires much more than technical skills.</p><p>Recognizing the importance of the links among technology, pedagogy, and content, researchers have examined ways to improve technology integration practices and professional development efforts. For instance, Ertmer et al. (2003) designed and implemented professional development activities to help teachers create problem-based learning environ-ments that promote meaningful uses of technology within the learner-centered context. Brush and Saye (2009) provided preservice social studies teachers with opportunities to explore innovative, emerging technologies in authentic social studies learning and teaching situations. Kopcha (2010) presented a systems-based model of technology integration that uses mentoring and communities of practice to prepare teachers to integrate technology in more student-centered ways. Polly and Hannafin (2010) pro-posed a Learner-Centered Professional Development (LCPD) framework, which includes six major features. LCPD efforts are (a) focused on student learning, (b) teacher-owned, (c) intended to develop knowledge of content and pedagogies, (d) collaborative, (e) ongoing, and (f) reflective. Overall, research suggests that professional development efforts move their focus from building teachers iso-lated technical skills to preparing teachers to implement technology-enhanced, learner-centered instruction.</p><p>Despite generally improved conditions for technology integration, including in-creased access to technology and increased training for teachers, and research efforts </p></li><li><p>56 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 28 Number 2</p><p>An &amp; Reigeluth</p><p>Copyright 201112, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. &amp; Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Intl), iste@iste.org, iste.org. All rights reserved.</p><p>for improving technology integra-tion practices, high-level technology use is still low. In general, high-level technology uses tend to be associated with learner-centered or constructivist practices. Rather than using technology in the ways that the literature suggests, teachers tend to use technology mostly for communication and low-level tasks, such as word processing, drill-and-prac-tice activities, and exploring websites, many of which align minimally with core pedagogical goals (Becker, 1994, 2000; Brush &amp; Saye, 2009; Ertmer, 2005; Russell, Bebell, ODwyer, &amp; OConnor, 2003; Strudler &amp; Wetzel, 1999; Willis, Thompson, &amp; Sadera, 1999; U.S. Depart-ment of Education, 2003). </p><p>To better understand and improve ineffective or inadequate technol-ogy integration practices, researchers have examined factors that may affect K12 teachers technology integration positively or negatively. Becker (2000) argued that certain conditions can help teachers use technology effectively:</p><p>However, under the right con-ditionswhere teachers are personally comfortable and at least moderately skilled in using computers themselves, where the schools daily class schedule permits allowing time for students to use computers as part of class assignments, where enough equip-ment is available and convenient to permit computer activities to flow seamlessly alongside other learning tasks, and where teachers personal philosophies support a student-centered, constructivist pedagogy that incorporates col-laborative projects defined partly by student interestcomputers are clearly becoming a valuable and well-functioning instructional tool. (Becker, 2000, p. 25)</p><p>There are many barriers to inte-grating technology into teaching and learning. Ertmer et al. (1999) classified technology integration barriers in two major categories: first- and second- order barriers. First-order barriers, which refer to obstacles that are external </p><p>to teachers, include such barriers as lack of resources, institution, subject culture, and assessment. On the other hand, second-order barriers are intrin-sic to teachers and include such obsta-cles as attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and skills. Pointing out that the first- and second-order barriers are inextricably linked together, researchers suggest that it is necessary to address both types of barriers rather than addressing them separately (Ertmer, 1999; Hew &amp; Brush, 2007). Hew and Brush (2007) analyzed previous research studies from 1995 to spring 2006 and identified six major categories of the barriers faced by K12 schools when integrating technology into the curriculum for instructional purposes: (a) resources, (b) knowledge and skills, (c) institution, (d)...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >