Effective Technology Integration
This research will investigate the impacts of technology integration into pre-service instructor education programs from the constructivist and behaviorist points of view for the aim of progressing student learning and pre-service educator preparing. Also, it will explore the technology integration planning (TIP) model and the factors in successful technology integration, the learning theory foundations for technology integration, the directed technology integration strategies and the inquiry-based technology integration strategies. An extensive variety of research is referred to, including research articles, books, comparison studies, contextual investigations, government records, papers and sites. The research paper infers that technology integration speaking to learning from technology (behaviorist viewpoint) isn’t the best method to enhance learning in spite of the fact that it encourages students to perform the lower level sub skills consequently. On the other hand, constructivist-learning conditions speaking to learning with technology, which urges students to effectively process and arrange data by making internal cognitive associations, can well give the hypothetical system to the powerful technology integration.
Table of Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc527286235 h 2Technology Integration Planning (TIP) PAGEREF _Toc527286236 h 4Factors in Successful Technology Planning PAGEREF _Toc527286237 h 6• Administrative Support PAGEREF _Toc527286238 h 6• Staff Development and Technical Support7• Availability of Technology7• Technology Use Plan8• Technology Coordinator8• Facilities and Maintenance8• Assessment8• Broad participation8Learning Theory Foundations for Technology Integration PAGEREF _Toc527286246 h 10Constructivist Perspective PAGEREF _Toc527286247 h 10Behaviorist Perspective PAGEREF _Toc527286248 h 11Theories Concealing Directed Technology Integration Strategies PAGEREF _Toc527286249 h 13Behaviorist Theory PAGEREF _Toc527286250 h 13Information Processing Theory: Atkinson and Shiffrin. The Main as Computer. PAGEREF _Toc527286251 h 13Cognitive Behavior Theory: Robert Gagne. Giving Condition to Learning. PAGEREF _Toc527286252 h 13System Theory and Systematic Instructional Design: Dealing with the Complexity of Teaching. PAGEREF _Toc527286253 h 13Theories Concealing Inquiry-Based Technology Integration Strategies PAGEREF _Toc527286254 h 14Social Activism Theory: John Dewey (Learning as Social Experience). PAGEREF _Toc527286255 h 14Platform Theory: Lev Vygotsky(Learning as a Cognitive Building Process). PAGEREF _Toc527286256 h 14Child Development Theory: Jean Piaget (Stages of Development). PAGEREF _Toc527286257 h 14Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc527286258 h 15
IntroductionGovernment funded school education is currently associated with an effort to realize technology combination. There is an emphasis to weave innovation/technology into the texture of the educational curriculum (e.g. Earle, 2002; Lawless and Pellegrino, 2007; National Center for Educational Statistics NCES, 2006). A significant part of the current educational literature is identified with the theme of technology integration (e.g. Earle, 2002; Lawless and Pellegrino, 2007; Mishra and Koehler, 2006), especially as a result of the gigantic totals of cash schools spend to buy technological equipment (e.g. NCES, 2006) and in view of the accentuation on coordinating technology with educating and learning (Lawless and Pellegrino, 2007).
A 2006 review by the NCES uncovered that 99% of educators announced having access to a PC some place in their school building (NCES, 2006). Access to innovation isn’t new; in 2000, the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory found that 90% of American schools and 33% of the classrooms had Internet get to. In spite of the fact that instructor access to technology is important, a few schools appear to buy the equipment just for having it. Next to zero idea or arranging goes into its execution or usage (Zehavi, 1995). It has been expected – mistakenly on occasion – that access to technology impacts understudy learning results (Lawless and Pellegrino, 2007).
The utilization of technology into the school educational modules can possibly enhance the nature and quality of instructing and learning. Be that as it may, the assortment of manners by which learners interact with technologies isn’t constantly gainful. With the end goal to disentangle between the bunch of potential employments of innovations in schools, instructional technologists have generally adopted the expression technology integration to portray how innovation can best effect understudy learning.
Earle (2002) contended that although current popular assessment recommends that technology simply equals machinery, this attention on machinery as opposed to on process ignores the genuine feeling of technology as the use of learning to perform viable errands (Earle, 2002, p. 7). Similarly as the term integration in Latin signifies “to make entire,” Earle (2002) proposed that in instruction/education, integration unites all the elements in teaching and learning, including technology. Significantly more than essentially putting hardware into classrooms, integration accentuates how and why technology is utilized.
Numerous guardians, teachers, government officials and the overall population have grasped the conviction that PC technologies are great instructive tools (Jonassen and Reeves, 1996; Morrison, Lowther, and DeMeulle, 1999). In the past couple of decades, technology has been both utilized and abused in classrooms (Becker and Ravitz, 2001; Leu and Leu, 1997). Technologieshave been utilized to give additional skill practice, to aid in research and to help with association and other essential tasks (Becker, Ravitz, and Wong, 1999). Research shows that frequently the innovation is utilized to help in the acquisition of data outside of the classroom with little accentuation on a particular curricular objective. Less than half of the instructors utilize accessible technology to aid instruction (Earle, 2002). Maybe this is because effectively integrating technology into the educational programs includes more than basically knowing how to utilize the tools, it additionally necessitates that educators know how to mix it with the educational programs and curriculum so it advances the learning procedure (Moursund, 2002).
With all that is being said and done in regards to technology in instruction, it is vital that parents, instructors and officials decide whether PC utilize enhances the education of students. While the effect of technology and student accomplishment has been to a great extent blended, different examinations and research unions have discovered that technology positively affect student learning (International Society for Technology Education ISTE, 2008a; Mann, Shakeshaft, Becker, and Kottkamp, 1999; Ringstaff and Kelley, 2002; Wenglinsky, 1998).
Technology Integration Planning (TIP)The use of technology tools in general content areas in education in order to allow students to apply computer and technology skills to learning and problem solving. Roblyer’s (2006) Technology Integration Planning Model consists of five stages: deciding the relative advantage of utilizing technology, deciding targets and assessment, outlining mediation systems or intervention strategies, setting up the instructional condition and assessing and reexamining the mix methodology. In the primary stage, the educator distinguishes an instructional issue and considers how technology can give a relative advantage and conceivably address that issue. Next, the educator decides both the objectives and the technique in which students’ mastery of the targets will be estimated. Third, the educator distinguishes the teaching methods and intervention strategies that they will use to address the instructional issue. Next, the instructor readies the classroom for the exercise by gathering and sorting out the technology and different resources. The last stage includes the educators assessing students and the technology integration strategy.
The Technology Integration Planning (TIP) model is where the instructor surveys him/herself and gains an intensive comprehension of the understudy populace and their different learning styles and levels. The instructor should take stock in his/her comprehension of technological, pedagogical, and content (TPACK) knowledge to guarantee successful planning.
Utilizing the six stages of the TIP show by Roblyer and Doering, 2010, the instructor can figure, implement, and evaluate the arrangement of the unit as well as the degrees and levels of technology integration.
Stage 1: What is my technological educational substance information? The instructors start by “playing” with the technology and reproducing the exercises for themselves. This would enable the educator to see completely and assess his/her technological instructive substance information. “This metacognitive consciousness of TPACK empowers educators to set learning objectives for themselves and, in turn, settle on insightful choices for technology integration” (Roblyer and Doering, 2010, p. 51)
Stage 2: Why would it be advisable for me to utilize a technology based strategy? This stage enables instructors to consider different structures and procedures of student learning. The instructor ought to assess the value of the innovation before utilizing it with the kids. As it were, Is It Worth It? (Harris, 2005).
Stage 3: How will I know students have learned? The abilities important inside the unit can originate from an assortment of sources. All through the unit, learners are conveying, reflecting, and assessing each other’s work items. This offers the educator both developmental and summative evaluations along the way. Through this procedure, the educator can gather information and investigate regardless of whether the students have learned, applied, and combined what was proposed.
Stage 4: What instructing methodologies and exercises will work best? The techniques incorporated into this unit are both directed and constructivist. The unit presents interdisciplinary methodologies “to demonstrate genuine exercises that require the utilization of a mix of skills from a few substance areas” (Roblyer and Doering, 2010, p. 57). This unit joins topography and culture into English Language Arts. This unit additionally fuses a few student gathering approaches (i.e., singular, sets, little and extensive gatherings). In considering all previously mentioned showing systems, an educator must assess whether or not the technology can bolster these methodologies and how it will show up in an assortment of student groupings.
Stage 5: Are fundamental conditions set up to help technology integration? This unit expect that PCs, programming, and computerized cameras are available to the students and instructor. It is likewise expected that different assets including the ITRT, administrator, and different grown-ups are available and willing to help the educator and learners amid the unit.
Stage 6: What functioned admirably? What could be improved? Information gathered through casual and formal evaluations all through the unit will help the educator in noting inquiries regarding results and conceivable upgrades. Having the learners share their conclusions and thoughts about the exercises will likewise help the educator in this procedure. Through the TIP model, educators can survey their own TPACK information, turn out to be more mindful, and illuminate future guidance. “The TPACK structure is helpful for instructors in supporting their familiarity with what knowledge tools they are presently using together when thinking about incorporating technology into their classrooms and additionally visualizing development and future conceivable outcomes in their educating with technology” (Roblyer and Doering, 2010, p. 61).
Factors in Successful Technology PlanningThe North American writing on technology combination uncovers various achievement factors for schools attempting to enable instructors to embrace technology in their classrooms.
• Administrative Support • Staff Development and Technical Support • Availability of Technology
• Technology Use Plan
• Technology Coordinator
• Facilities and Maintenance
• Broad participationAdministrative Support
For technology integration to prevail on any scale, even in the individual instructor’s classroom, it must have solid help from the school board and from area and school site administrators (Hadley and Sheingold, 1993; Vitchoff, 1989). There are a few explanations behind this. In the first place, as Becker (1992) points out, educators start utilizing technology both on the grounds that they decide to and in light of the fact that they see they are relied upon to do as such by their association. On the off chance that they are to progress exceptionally far they should do it all alone, however desire is essential initially.
Second, administrators can give a portion of the motivating forces which educators need to begin and keep coordinating technology in their classrooms. Hadley and Sheingold (1993) take note of the significance of boosting educators’ confidence by providing acknowledgment, headway, advancement, and financial prizes, assets which are, in many schools and locale, the domain of executives.
Both school and locale administrators can look for people with instructive technological abilities for contracting and advancement inside the area (Garbosky, 1994).They can support gathering and workshop participation by giving discharge time and pay to preparing (Glenn, 1993; Vitchoff, 1989).
Third, in their job as instructional pioneers, they can help inspire instructors to embrace technology by encircling it with regards to class rebuilding, embedding it in a typical substance and binds it to an arrangement of shared objectives (Wiburg, 1991; Sheingold, 1991; Davis, 1991; Russell et al,1994).
For what reason would administrators need to support technology integration in any case? There is a case in the literature, for example, that technology integration prompts changes in pedagogy, to better methods for educating and learning, which thusly underpins rebuilding (Brunner, 1992; Honey and 45 BOB HOFFMAN Moeller, 1990). Hoffman (1996) found that instructors who utilized more technology likewise tended to utilize more co-operative learning, individualized guidance, complex critical thinking, and interdisciplinary guidance, and do less lecturing in their classrooms.
Staff Development and Technical Support
Technology complicates teaching. Without sufficient help nobody can be relied upon to all of a sudden grapple with what is, from various perspectives, a totally new worldview of instruction (Davis, 1991). Everyday help with issues of time, space, supervision, tasks, and access should likewise be addressed (Hadley and Sheingold, 1993).
Achieving effective technology integration in schools requires both staff advancement and specialized help. Together they give the abilities and knowledge that instructors need to start and keep utilizing technology in their classrooms.
An underlying inquiry may be “How do teachers actually learn to use new technologies?” Hadley and Sheingold (1993) made that inquiry and found that effective integrators got their new abilities from (in descending request): 1. self-ponder; 2.conferences and workshops; 3.taking courses at neighborhood schools; 4.courses offered by their locale (in-service); 5.taking courses offered at their school site (in-benefit); 6.courses in alumni or undergrad school and college preparing; 7.courses offered by the region (not in-benefit); 8.guidance from different instructors; and 9.instruction on location by specialists. As for sorting out in-benefit or other innovation workshops, one of the unavoidable issues is “How much do we need and how should we schedule it?” There is reliable agreement in the technology integration literature that broadened and exhaustive – normally characterized as five to six years – staff advancement is required (Bruder, 1989; Bruder, 1991; Brunner, 1992; Collins, 1991; Dwyer et al, 1991; Elmer-Dewitt, 1991; Hadley and Sheingold, 1993; Mahmood and Hirt, 1992; Nelson et al, 1991; Scrogan, 1989; Vitchoff, 1989; Walters, 1992).
Technical support might be composed from (arranged by likely significance) 1.different instructors; 2.a school technology organizer; 3.a region PC coordinator; 4.outside experts; 5.sorted out gatherings of instructors; 6.programming organization delegates; and 7.equipment organization agents (Hadley and Sheingold, 1993; Vitchoff, 1989).
Availability of Technology
Having enough technology for learners and instructors may at first appear too obviously, making it impossible to specify, be that as it may, actually, it is a critical component to consider when endeavoring advancing technology integration. Hoffman (1996) found that educators who were not utilizing technology in their classrooms referred to absence of access as the most vital factor. There are issues of amount, quality, and access.
Technology Use Plan
We have noted above the value of administrative support for technology integration. One way to formalize this help is to build up a technology utilize plan. Such designs are often a prerequisite of technology concedes, and are definitely justified even despite the inconvenience and time they may take to assemble. Various creators prescribe improvement of a long range (3-5-year) technology joining plan which incorporates duty to staff improvement (Paul, 1994; Russell et al, 1994; Vitchoff, 1989).
The technology coordinator is a specialist staff individual whose guideline job is to lead preparing for instructors and training. Studies have demonstrated that the impact of a coordinator leads to more noteworthy utilization of PCs, the utilization of increasingly ‘higher order thinking skills’ software, and more prominent utilization of PCs as instruments in scholarly exercises as opposed to only as practice. The technology coordinator can help support educator certainty and inspiration by giving an abnormal state of specialized help (Paul, 1994).
Facilities and Maintenance
Presumably the most disregarded achievement factor for technology integration, the consideration of facilities and upkeep personnel in getting ready for technology integration, is specified just in passing in the literature. Even so, experienced experts alert that this issue is disregarded at danger. Broken hardware, moderate repairs, and lacking facilities spell disaster for technology integration.
The best technology integration may resemble a troubling disappointment whenever surveyed utilizing traditional techniques. Standardized test scores are not generally the best technique for surveying the advantages of technology. To guarantee continued enthusiasm and support for technology combination, include instructors, guardians, and administrators in growing better appraisal and assessment strategies that reflect new instructive methodologies (Brunner, 1992; Elmer-Dewitt, 1991; Wiburg, 1991).
I have said the significance of solid authoritative help and administration above. However, it is similarly as critical to include site-based decision making also. Becker (1992) records a group of key players, including individual educators, gatherings and panels of instructors, the school-site PC organizer, important and different directors, and region level facilitators or executives, administrators and school sheets.
These eight factors summarize what the North American writing needs to tell us about the conditions which drive accomplishment in school technology integration.
Together they advance the aptitudes and learning, the natural support, the motivators and inspiration required to help educators effectively incorporate technology.
Helping pre-and in-benefit instructors become aware of these achievement variables may enable them to see their own circumstance in context and be readied to sort out conditions in their school and area that will bolster their technological activities.
Learning Theory Foundations for Technology IntegrationVarious theories and systems have been advanced that help comprehend issues identified with technology integration. Researchers have advanced theories of learning amid the twentieth Century. These hypotheses were experimentally constructed and concentrated basically in light of endeavoring to clarify the procedures of learning, and how to best help those procedures.
Constructivist PerspectiveIn instructive uses of technology, Jonassen and Reeves (1996) make a refinement between learning from PCs and learning with PCs. A great part of the early research and advancement with technologies considered the enhanced learning that could be accomplished when PCs played a vital and key role in conveying content and making learning chances to enable learners to make meaning and build up an understanding. In such settings, there was a lessened job for the instructor. Jonassen (1991) proposes that the more opportunistic and successful uses of technologies in classrooms are those where learning is accomplished with the guide of technology, and the resulting environment is one where the technology supports and scaffolds the learning as opposed to being the question or subsidiary of the learning. McClintock (1992) likewise states that in a constructivist-learning condition, technology plays a recognized and intentional job in the everyday exercises, but does not turn into the question of guidance.
At the point when utilized in a constructivist way, students use technologies to a) control information, b) investigate connections, c) purposefully and effectively process data, d) develop individual and socially shared meaning and e) think about the learning procedure (Jonassen, Peck and Wilson, 1999). “The technological applications which bolster learning in such ways are regularly depicted as cognitive tools” (Lajoie and Derry, 1993, p. 32), and more research is presently demonstrating the advantages to be gotten from such applications. Cognitive tools portray such applications as (a) calculators, (b) databases, (c) spreadsheets, (d) interchanges programming, (e) semantic system tools, and (f) learning development instruments. The basic property of cognitive tools isn’t in the data and information that they convey, but the types of student action and commitment that they bolster and support. Cognitive tools still need the educated instructor to outline and manage the learning action, yet they act to increase and disseminate the cognitive tasks through their plan and application.
Jonassen (2000) additionally built up the idea of mindtools: PC based tools and learning situations that have been “adjusted or created to work as intellectual partners with the student in order to facilitate and encourage basic reasoning and higher-arrange learning” (p. 11). As per him, the job of a mindtool is to expand the student’s psychological working amid the learning procedure, and to connect with the student in tasks while developing information. “Mindtools empower students to end up basic masterminds. “When utilizing cognitive tools, students participate in information development instead of information reproduction” (Jonassen, 2000, p. 18). By utilizing regularly accessible programming, students utilize technology to both build and represent knowledge.
PCs can effectively improve the critical thinking capacities of the students by utilizing project-based learning (PBL) exercises; since they are utilized, regularly, in a condition where individuals are attracted to work together normally because of their cultural expectations. Tretten and Zachariou (1995) completed an appraisal of PBL in four elementary schools by controlling educator polls and interviews, and a survery of parents. The sources detailed that PBL had an assortment of positive advantages for learners, for example, attitudes towards learning, work propensities, critical thinking abilities and self-esteem.
As per a three-year investigation of scientific guidance, Boaler (1999) detailed that PBL schools had better national examination results than did customary schools, and the PBL learners built up a more flexible type of scientific learning that they could apply in a range of settings. Learning, which happens with regards to critical thinking, will probably be held and applied than dormant information obtained through more traditional instructing strategies.
Means and Olson (1997) found that technology expanded the complexity with which learners could bargain effectively and made a variety of roles, prompting learner specialization. It permitted in-depth investigation of fewer thoughts. They additionally state: When learners are utilizing technology as an instrument or a help for speaking with others, they are in a functioning role instead of the passive role of recipient of data transmitted by an educator or reading material. The learner is effectively settling on decisions about how to create, get control, or show data. (p. 125)
Hypermedia enables users to enter virtual conditions that incorporate content, sound, visual pictures, animation and video. Ayersman (1996) found that the utilization of hypermedia applications advanced profound understanding and upgraded listening perception, story creation and disentangling skills and enhanced capacity to find links among individuals, places, occasions and issues inside historical settings.
In addition to hypermedia applications, the Internet may give a rich wellspring of outside data resources that enable learners to address complex issues. Irving (1991) led a two-year study in six schools in which learners were offered access to on-line data administrations. The venture was intended to stimulate students’ utilization of an assortment of data assets and the investigation of contemporary subjects. Conclusions of the examination were that “on-line administrations gave prompt, on-request and exceptional material not accessible in or close to the schools, and access to particular data on themes for which textbooks either did not exist or were not in the school resource collection” (p. 225).
Constructivist learning functions admirably with web-based exercises. Learners entering this condition carry with them their prior knowledge. They participate in an online activity, for example, looking through the Internet, gathering data, sorting out their considerations, or speaking with peers by means of email, adding to their intellectual framework.
Behaviorist PerspectiveUtilization of technology from the behaviorist point of view mirrors conventional classroom practice: users are moderately inactive or passive, the substance and cooperation between the user and the software are foreordained, and there is a restricted collection of accessible responses (Jonassen, 2000). The obtaining of facts through repeated practice and rote memory, or gaining from the technology, is the objective of instruction (Jonassen and Reeves, 1996).
Computer assisted instruction (CAI), coordinated learning systems, drill-practice programs, PC based mentoring frameworks, and appraisal programming are a portion of the advancements outlined based on the behaviorist learning hypothesis (Jonassen, 2000). CAI and coordinated learning systems have been promptly embraced in numerous schools as they nearly match the traditional practice of classroom life. Jonassen contends that CAI can increase accomplishment since it prompts automaticity of lower-level aptitudes through extended practice. A PC that is endlessly tolerant with the student monitors this practice. In the instructional exercise type of PC-assisted guidance, the PC gives extra data to the student if a wrong answer is provided. This proceeds until the student is successful. Skinner’s perspectives of quick encouraging feedback following a correct answer are straightforwardly relevant to drill-and-practice and instructional exercise types of CAI (Yaakub, 1998).
Technology integration from this point of view is ordinarily used to build learner inspiration and motivation. In a study investigating contrasts in teachers` employments of technology and their perceptions of the value or role of technology, Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, and Woods (1999) found that larger part of the educators in elementary schools in the USA saw technology as an impetus or behavioral reward with the end goal to persuade students to finish their assignments and make lessons additionally intriguing to students. At the time of the investigation, the instructors in this examination were utilizing technology for drill-and-practice exercises and as a presentation tool to support their lessons. All uses seen by the analysts, as well as those portrayed by the educators, included the use of some kind of instructional amusement or enlightening CD-ROMs. The investigation uncovered that their combination of technology was for the most part identified with its use to utilize PCs as presentation tools giving extra assets and connecting with visuals to enhance lessons, to persuade and motivate students and to advance the conviction that students need to utilize technology to be set up for the future.
Theories Concealing Directed Technology Integration StrategiesBehaviorist TheoryB. F Skinner (learning as stimulus response chains) Learning is an action that happens inside the psyche/mind and can be deduced just by watched behavior. Behavior is formed by “contingencies of reinforcement” to shape wanted reactions: positive reinforcement (increments wanted behaviors with rewards); negative reinforcement (increments wanted behaviors by withholding rewards); discipline/punishment (diminishes unwanted practices with aversive stimuli).
Information Processing Theory: Atkinson and Shiffrin. The Main as Computer.
Learning is encoding data into human memory, like the manner in which a PC stores data.
Sensory registers: a person senses receive data through receptors (i.e., eyes, ears, nose, mouth, or potentially hands).
Short Term Memory (STM) STM Holds new data for around 5 to 20 seconds. Except if it is prepared or rehearsed in a way that makes it exchange to Long-term Memory.
Long Term Memory (LTM) can hold data inconclusively; however for new data to be exchanged to LTM, it must be connected somehow to prior knowledge already in LTM.
Cognitive Behavior Theory: Robert Gagne. Giving Condition to Learning.
Learning is molded by giving ideal instructional conditions. Conditions incorporate the nine occasion of guidance that contrasts as indicated by the sort of the type of skills hierarchy approach that presents basic abilities and builds to complex ones.
System Theory and Systematic Instructional Design: Dealing with the Complexity of Teaching. Learning is cultivated by utilizing a system of guidance dependent on behaviorist data processing and cognitive behaviorist theories. An instructional framework is configured by expressing objectives and destinations; doing assignment examination to set a learning arrangement; coordinating assessment and guidance to goals; making materials; and field testing and updating materials.
Theories Concealing Inquiry-Based Technology Integration StrategiesSocial Activism Theory: John Dewey (Learning as Social Experience).John Dewey. An early advocate of racial balance and ladies’ suffrage, John Dewey’s extreme activism formed his convictions about education. Recognized intimately with the dynamic education change activity prominent in the 1st half of the 1990s, huge numbers of his standards of education were contrary to those of that period. Dewey regretted standardization and trusted that educational modules/curriculum ought to emerge from learners’ interests. He likewise trusted that curriculum themes and topics ought to be incorporated, as opposed to detached, since teaching disengaged subjects kept students from grasping the whole knowledge.
Learning is individual development that occurs through social encounters.
Development is cultivated through hands-on exercises associated with world issues and Problem.
School educational programs/curriculum ought to emerge from learner’ interests and be instructed as incorporated points, instead of as isolated skills.
Platform Theory: Lev Vygotsky(Learning as a Cognitive Building Process).Learning is psychological development molded by individual contrasts and the impact of culture.
Grown-ups (specialists) and children (novices) perceive the world in an unexpected way. The distinction between them is the zone of proximal improvement.
Grown-up support learning through scaffolding, or helping kids expand on what they already know.
Child Development Theory: Jean Piaget (Stages of Development).
Learning is cognitive development through neurological and social development.
Youngsters experience phases of intellectual improvement (sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete, and formal activities) by connecting with their environment.
When they stand up to questions, they encounter disequilibrium; they react with assimilation (fitting it into their perspectives) or accommodation (changing their perspectives).
ConclusionThe study concludes that the utilization of technology as a learning instrument can make a quantifiable contrast in learner accomplishment, mentalities, and connection with educators and peers. Intelligent, self-coordinated learning and higher request thinking can be encouraged by technology, and that technology can have the best advantage when the environment is helpful for such experiences. The proof demonstrates that technology integration representing acquiring from technology (behaviorist point of view) isn’t the best approach to enhance learning, in spite of the fact that it encourages students to perform the lower level sub-skills naturally. On the other hand, constructivist learning situations speaking to learning with technology, which urges students to effectively process and arrange data by influencing interior cognitive connections, can well give the hypothetical structure for the powerful technology integration. Consequently, the change required is a move of obligation from the educator to the students.
The way to making this progress is, obviously, the educator/teacher. This is the way Willis and Raines (2001) clarify: Maybe the time has sought the objective of teaching to change… The PC rehashed knowledge by giving us better approaches to see the world and ourselves. Instruction must move from the statistical, mechanical perspective of the educator as supplier of knowledge to instructor/student as integrator, guide, and facilitator. In any case, for this change to happen, instructors must acknowledge that the PC and its software are not trades for the content of the core of the curriculum, yet are helpful augmentations that supplement content.
Becker, H. J., ; Ravitz, J. L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban’s predictions correct? Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington.
Becker, H., Ravitz, J., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Report #3. Teaching Learning and Computing: 1998 National Survey. Retrieved on June 1, 2009 from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/computeruse/Bruder, I. (1989) Future teachers: are they prepared? Electronic Learning, Jan/Feb, pp. 32-39.
Bruder, I. (1991) Schools of education: four exemplary programs, Electronic Learning, March, pp. 21-24, 45.
Brunner, C. (1992) Integrating Technology into the Curriculum: teaching the teachers. (No. CTE-TR-25) New York: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education
Collins, A. (1991) The role of computer technology in restructuring schools, Phi Delta Kappan, 73, pp. 28-36.
Davis, J. (1991) Restructuring and technology: partners in change, Phi Delta Kappan, 73, pp. 3740 & 78-82.
Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C. & Sandholtz, J. (1991) Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms, Educational Leadership, 48(8), pp. 45-52.
Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology, 42(1), 5-13.
Elmer-Dewitt, P. (1991) Education: the revolution that fizzled, Time, May 20, pp. 48-49.
Garbosky, J. (1994) Revisiting the experiences of educational technologists in public education, Educational Technology, March, pp. 4349.
Glenn, A. D. (1993) Teacher education: one dean’s perspective and forecast on the state of technology and teacher prep, Electronic Learning, 12(5), pp. 18-19.
Hadley, M. & Sheingold, K. (1993) Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers’ integration of computers, American Journal of Education, 101, pp. 261-315.
Harris, J. (2005). Technology assessments as teachers’ decisions: Evaluating learning outcome possibilities. i.e. magazine, 34-37.
Honey, M. & Moeller, B. (1990) Teachers’ Beliefs and Technology Integration: different values, different understandings. New York: The Center for Technology in Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED326203).
International Society for Technology in Education (2008a). Technology and student achievement: The indelible link. Eugene, OR: Author. Retrieved on May 27, 2009 from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Advocacy/Policy/59.08-PolicyBrief-F-web.pdfJonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall
Jonassen, D. H., ; Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with computers: Computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 693-719). New York: MacMillan.
Jonassen, D. H., ; Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K., ; Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc
Lajoie, S., ; Derry, S. (1993). Computers as Cognitive Tools. LEA: Hillsdale, NJ.
Lawless, K. A., ; Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
Leu, D. J., Jr., ; Leu, D. D. (1997). Teaching with the Internet: Lessons from the classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Mahmood, M. A. ; Hirt, S. A. (1992) Evaluating a technology integration causal model for the K-12 public school curriculum: a lisrel analysis (Research In Education, May 21, 1992). Washington: US Department of Education.
Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., ; Kottkamp, R. (1999). West Virginia’s basic skills/computer education program: An analysis of student achievement. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017-1054.
Morrison, G. R., Lowther, D. L., & DeMeulle, L. (1999). Integrating computer technology into the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Moursund, D. G. (2002). Getting to the second order: Moving beyond amplification uses of information and communications technology in education. Learning and Leading with Technology, 30(1), 7-9, 48-49.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2005. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Nelson, W. A., Andris, J. & Keefe, D. R. (1991) Technology where they least expect it a computer-intensive teacher education curriculum, Computers in the Schools, 8 (1/2/3), pp. 103-109.
Paul, D. (1994) An integration/inservice model that works, Technological Horizons in Education, 21 (9), pp. 60-62.
Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment. San Francisco: WestEd.
Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Merrill.
Russell, J. D., Sorge, D. & Brickner, D. (1994) Improving technology implementation in grades 5-12 with the ASSURE model, Technological Horizons in Education, 21(9), pp. 66-70.
Scrogan, L. (1989) The OTA report teachers, training, and technology. Classroom Computer Learning, 1, pp. 80-84.
Vitchoff, L. (1989) Issues around integrating technology into the educational environment (Research In Education, November, 1990). Washington: US Department of Education
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center. Retrieved on September 10, 2002 from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdfWiburg, K. M. (1991) Teaching teachers about technology, Computers in the Schools, 8(1-3), pp. 115-129.
Wiburg, K. M. (1991) Teaching teachers about technology, Computers in the Schools, 8(1-3), pp. 115-129.
Yaakub, M. N. (1998). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in technical education and training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Zehavi, N. (1995). Integrating software development with research and teacher education. Computers in the Schools, 11, 11-24.