You are here:

Examining Perceptions and Decision-making Related to Technology Integration in the Common Core High School Classroom
PROCEEDING

, , , , Arizona State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, TX, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-27-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

With the recent adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) across many states, there is an increased attention to and demand for greater use of technologies in formal learning environments. However, previous research shows that teachers may not yet be successful in adapting their pedagogy to effectively use technology tools for instruction. With a purposeful sample of teachers from the Southwest, this mixed methods study examines high school teachers’ perceptions and decision making related to technology integration in the CCSS instruction. Results indicate that teachers value technology and feel confident to meet the CCSS instructional goals using technology. While technology use is indicated primarily for presenting information, there are instances of meaningful technology instruction. There is a need to impart professional development focusing on technology integration to support CCSS instruction and to improve school culture in support of educational technology.

Citation

Dalal, M., Archambault, L., Robles, R. & Reed, A. (2017). Examining Perceptions and Decision-making Related to Technology Integration in the Common Core High School Classroom. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2302-2310). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

© 2017 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abbitt, J.T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134–143.
  2. Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.
  3. Arizona Department of Education (2013) K-12 Academic Standards. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://www.azed.gov/standards-practices/ Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–84.
  4. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5(307-337).
  5. Becker, H.J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51), 1–31. Http://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n51.2000Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  6. Britten, J., & Jerrel, C. (2005). The technology integration assessment instrument: Understanding planned use of technology by classroom teachers. Computers in the Schools, 22(3-4), 49–61.
  7. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015). Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Retrieved September 4, 2015, from www.corestandards.org
  8. Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (3rd ed.). Thousand oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  9. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 813-834.
  10. Dalal, M. (2014). Impact of multi‑media tutorials in a computer science laboratory course: An empirical study. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 12(4), 367–375.
  11. Dillman, D.A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  12. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
  13. Ertmer, P.A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture Intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
  14. Forssell, K. (2016). Making meaningful advances. In M.C. Herring, M.J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators (pp 247-257). Routledge.
  15. Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers' use of educational technology in US public schools: 2009. First look. NCES 2010-040. National Center for Education Statistics.
  16. Greenhill, V. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
  17. Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312–333.
  18. Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014). A planning cycle for integrating digital technology into literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455–464. Http://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1225InternationalSociety for Technology in Education. (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers (2nded.). Eugene, OR: Author.
  19. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers& Education, 49(3), 740–762.
  20. Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5–20.
  21. Luther, F.D. (2015). Preparing for CCSS implementation: Determining the state of Web2.0 technology. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, (Winter), 47–56.
  22. Mathis, W.J. (2010). The “Common Core” standards initiative: An effective reform tool. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center& Education Policy Research Unit.
  23. Mayer, R.E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.
  24. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Techology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–342.
  25. Pandya, J.Z., & Aukerman, M. (2014). A four resources analysis of technology in the CCSS. Language Arts Journal, 91(6), 429–435.
  26. Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff C. & Dwyer, D.C. (1997) Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
  27. Spector, P.E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal for Organizational Behavior. Http://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150503Tamim,R.M.,Bernard,R.M.,Borokhovski,E.,Abrami,P.C., & Schmid, R.F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28. Http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361
  28. Wang, L., Ertmer, P., & Newby, T.J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231–250.
  29. Yim, S., Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., & Lawrence, J.F. (2014). Cloud-based collaborative writing and the Common Core Standards. Journal of Adolescent& Adult Literacy, 58(3), 243–254. Http://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.345

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Presentation

SITE2017-Presentation-CommonCore-Final.ppsx Download

Also Read

Related Collections