This article reports on a study of the complex and messy process of classroom technology integration. The main purpose of the study was to empirically address the large question of “why don't teachers innovate when they are given computers?” rather than whether computers can improve student learning. Specifically, we were interested in understanding the conditions under which technology innovation can take place in classrooms. For a year, we followed a group of K–12 teachers who attempted to carry out technology-rich projects in their classrooms. These teachers were selected from more than 100 recipients of a technology grant program for teachers. The study found 11 salient factors that significantly impact the degree of success of classroom technology innovations. Some of these factors have been commonly mentioned in the literature, but our study found new dimensions to them. Others have not been identified in the literature. Each factor can be placed in one of three interactive domains, the teacher, the innovation, and the context. The article discusses the 11 factors in detail and proposes a model of the relationship among the different factors and their domains.
Beliefs about teaching, or orientations to teaching, of students in undergraduate teacher preparation programs at Michigan State University (MSU) and experienced classroom teachers are described and contrasted. Brousseau, Book, and Byers suggest that the effects of the "teaching culture" in shaping a teacher's educational beliefs are pervasive enough to span school settings (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural) and to minimize differences between beliefs of male and female teach ers. The only variable that shows a significant effect on the vast majority of beliefs measured was years of experience. The authors conclude that the more experience teachers have in classrooms, the more likely they are to: (a) favor a common curriculum, (b) report believing that students should be given more responsibility, (c) believe that there should be common standards for all students, (d) agree that schools should act as change agents, and (e) reduce their sense of efficacy.
Michigan State University students in two entry level education courses were recently asked to complete a questionnaire dealing with their pre-college and college experiences, career aspirations, perceptions of the role of the teacher and demographic characteristics. A total of 473 entering teacher candidates completed the survey during one of four academic terms from Spring, 1981 to Spring, 1982. For a variety of reasons, including developmental changes in the questionnaire and the branching format of certain sections, the number responding to any one question varied.Background Data Seventy-three percent of the students had graduated from high school in either 1979 or 1980, and therefore were in their freshman or sophomore year in college when completing this questionnaire. Over 88% of the students had attended a public high scliool, with the majority (51 %) graduating from a suburban public high school. Those who attended an urban public high school accounted for 14% and those who attended a rural public high school constituted 23%. Over 5 2% of the students graduated with
This article reports on a study of the complex and messy process of classroom technology integration. The main purpose of the study was to empirically address the large question of “why don't teachers innovate when they are given computers?” rather than whether computers can improve student learning. Specifically, we were interested in understanding the conditions under which technology innovation can take place in classrooms. For a year, we followed a group of K–12 teachers who attempted to carry out technology-rich projects in their classrooms. These teachers were selected from more than 100 recipients of a technology grant program for teachers. The study found 11 salient factors that significantly impact the degree of success of classroom technology innovations. Some of these factors have been commonly mentioned in the literature, but our study found new dimensions to them. Others have not been identified in the literature. Each factor can be placed in one of three interactive domains, the teacher, the innovation, and the context. The article discusses the 11 factors in detail and proposes a model of the relationship among the different factors and their domains.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.