You are here:

Teachers' Ambiguous Views of Technology
PROCEEDINGS

, California State University San Marcos, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Charleston, SC, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-67-9 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate pre-service secondary teachers’ perceptions about the nature of technology and its role in mathematics education. Based on two philosophical theories of the nature of technology, I analyzed 22 teachers’ philosophy statements on educational technology and in-depth interviews with 5 of them. The findings reveal that the teachers had ambiguous notions about the characteristics of technology. Although they were encouraged to reflect on broad socio-political and cultural issues associated with technology, most of them did not have a linguistic and conceptual framework from which to examine thoroughly how technology might influence human consciousness. Implications for mathematics teaching profession are discussed.

Citation

Chen, R.J. (2009). Teachers' Ambiguous Views of Technology. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4036-4041). Charleston, SC, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 11, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Carroll, J.B., & Eifler, K.E. (2002). Servant, master, double-edged sword: Exploring the metaphors teachers use to describe technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 235-246.
  2. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. ChanLin, L., Hong, J., Horng, J., Chang, S., & Chu, H. (2006). Factors influencing technology integration in teaching: A Taiwanese perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 57-68.
  4. Denzin, N. (1989). Interpretive biography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  5. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage.
  6. 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.
  7. Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
  8. Ferneding, K. (2003). Questioning technology: Electronic technologies and educational reform. New York: Peter Lang.
  9. Fleming, R. (1992). Teachers’ views of technology. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38(2), 141-153.
  10. Flick, L.B., & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Technology: What does it mean to you? School Science and Mathematics, 103(7), 313-316.
  11. Guerrero, S., Walker, N., & Dugdale, S. (2004). Technology in support of middle grade mathematics: What have we learned? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(1), 5-20.
  12. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). New York: Harper& Row Publishers.
  13. Ihde, D. (1979). Technics and praxis. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing.
  14. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). New
  15. Robertson, H.-J. (2003). Toward a theory of negativity: Teacher education and information and communications technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 280-296.
  16. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read