While current education reform recommends technology integration be paired with student-centered instruction to prepare students for the demands of the 21st century (American Association for the Advancement of Science - AAAS, 2013; Guzey & Roehrig, 2009; NETP, 2010; Roblyer & Doering, 2013), neither has become synonymous with learning in the classroom. Technology and student-centered learning are not mutually inclusive, but they do share related obstacles, especially in the K-12 environment. Ertmer (1999) concluded that technology integration barriers could be divided into two orders: those extrinsic to the teacher and those intrinsic to the teacher. Extrinsic barriers are determined by forces outside of the classroom like resource and training availability, technical and administrative support, curricular and assessment demands, community structure, etc. Intrinsic barriers deal with capacities and characteristics teachers bring to the classroom including their own demographics, content biases, prior experiences, and philosophies and attitudes about learners and learning (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012).
First order barriers require effective resource management to promote adequate availability and allocation of technology, training with sustained professional development, and comprehensive support from the school, district and community. It is widely accepted that access to technology streamlines administrative tasks in classrooms and expands content, materials and connections available teachers and students, and much progress has been made to reduce resource-based limits (Ertmer et al, 2012). Inequitable access persists in our communities and our classrooms, but internet connected devices, in school and out, are at an all time high and many schools are making significant progress on infrastructure when fiscal and physical factors allow. According to the 2012 Speak Up National survey data (Project Tomorrow, 2013), 45 percent of teachers reported they were creating more interactive lessons because of having access to technology, an increase of 25 percent since 2010.
Unfortunately, other extrinsic factors like educational responsibility and accountability are not faring so well. Technology is so pervasive in our world that digital literacy and critical thinking skills are essential to make informed decisions for oneself and for society at large and the NETP (2010) implores schools to provide “engaging and empowering personalized learning experiences” for all learners and a “model of learning powered by technology.” Yet, time, curricular, and assessment obligations often have not been realigned with increased demands for 21st century skills at the local level (Lepi, 2013; AAAS, 2013). Some delays are likely due to political fetters and the protracted nature of educational research, both of which must transcend many variables and are rarely unambiguous as information trickles from the national to local levels. As observed in the NMC Horizon Report (2012), education reform moves at a glacial pace despite more than a decade of recommendations and some communities are more likely to embrace innovation than others. Obviously, federal mandates are not enough. Local grass-root teacher and parent campaigns showcasing successful implementations and student achievements are necessary to promote the benefits of technology-rich learning.
Teachers also bring intrinsic traits that impact technology integration; even when extrinsic barriers are reduced (Ertmer et al, 2012; Guzey & Roehrig, 2009). Most researchers assert that teachers' attitudes and beliefs about their content, their learners, their pedagogy, and their school culture have the greatest impact on whether they will choose to integrate technology in their instruction. While teachers often cite extrinsic obstacles, and studies continue support the importance of access and training (Inan and Lowther, 2010); in practice, their educational philosophies and attitudes about learning were just as significant influences on their classroom use of technology (Earle, 2002; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Ertmer et al, 2012; Inan and Lowther, 2010; Li, 2007). Koehler and Mishra, 2008 (in Guzey & Roehrig, 2009 ) argue that effective technology integration requires a dynamic interaction between three knowledge elements: content, pedagogy and technology (TPACK). If teachers do not value technology in their content or instructional design, believe technology is more of a classroom distraction or hassle than a benefit to their students, or do not know how or when to use technology; then no amount of internet connected devices will significantly impact classroom practices (Earle, 2002; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Ertmer et al, 2012; Inan and Lowther, 2010; Li, 2007). We must recognize that practicing teachers’ pedagogical models have been shaped by years, possibly decades, of acquired knowledge and by past successes and disappointments in teaching; and thus, are very resistant to change. Unfortunately, teachers are also routinely exposed to rapid intense training sessions on technology as tools without any reshaping of attitudes, values or pedagogy. Furthermore, poor training is sometimes worse than no training because it reinforces cynical or naive impressions about incorporating more technology.
A handful of variables are associated with effective technology in schools, but essentially they revolve around school culture and teacher development. First, schools need a culture that embraces the fusion of technology with best practices across curricula and student diversity. Ubiquitous, seamless technology in the classroom is ideal, but under any circumstances, educators, students and parents need consistent opportunities for positive experiences that incorporate relevant technology efficiently and cultivate affirmative outcomes. This means quality training, allocated time, and support networks at all levels – plans and back-up plans. It has been noted in Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) that even if pre-service teachers are armed with adequate technology skills to integrate their classrooms, they will rapidly succumb to the dominant school culture. In order for those pre-service skills to flourish and spread to established teachers, that school culture must champion the most modern education practices.
Second, current teachers need content and technology specific professional development in their own classrooms and models and mentors that transform perceptions about what exemplifies “good teaching.” These can be face-to-face or synchronous-distance, but teachers need adaptive practice with the resources they actually have. Teachers must be encouraged to participate in new schema as learners with room to experiment and time to reflect so that multiple successful events foster confidence and inspire shifts in beliefs and practices. Teachers must also feel empowered by this process, not replaced; and their pivotal role in guiding the best opportunities for students to learn emphasized. It is time we capitalized on teachers’ desires to do what is best for their students and their innate affinity for learning in a secure environment. According to Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) “ it is time to shift our mindsets away from the notion that technology provides a supplemental teaching tool and assume, as with other professions, that technology is essential to successful performance outcomes (i.e., student learning). To put it simply, effective teaching requires effective technology.”
Resources
American Association for the Advancement of Science – AAAS. (2013). Science for All Americans. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://www.aaas.org/report/science-all-americans.
Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology-Saddle Brook then Englewood Cliffs NJ-, 42(1), 5-13.
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.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435.
Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1).
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137-154.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Cummins, M. (2012).NMC Horizon Report: 2012 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, (pp. 3-31). New York: Routledge.
Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities?. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377.
Project Tomorrow. (2013). From Chalkboards to Tablets - 2012 Speak Up Survey. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/SU12_DigitalConversion_EducatorsReport.html.
Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. (2012). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology - NETP. (2010).Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
First order barriers require effective resource management to promote adequate availability and allocation of technology, training with sustained professional development, and comprehensive support from the school, district and community. It is widely accepted that access to technology streamlines administrative tasks in classrooms and expands content, materials and connections available teachers and students, and much progress has been made to reduce resource-based limits (Ertmer et al, 2012). Inequitable access persists in our communities and our classrooms, but internet connected devices, in school and out, are at an all time high and many schools are making significant progress on infrastructure when fiscal and physical factors allow. According to the 2012 Speak Up National survey data (Project Tomorrow, 2013), 45 percent of teachers reported they were creating more interactive lessons because of having access to technology, an increase of 25 percent since 2010.
Unfortunately, other extrinsic factors like educational responsibility and accountability are not faring so well. Technology is so pervasive in our world that digital literacy and critical thinking skills are essential to make informed decisions for oneself and for society at large and the NETP (2010) implores schools to provide “engaging and empowering personalized learning experiences” for all learners and a “model of learning powered by technology.” Yet, time, curricular, and assessment obligations often have not been realigned with increased demands for 21st century skills at the local level (Lepi, 2013; AAAS, 2013). Some delays are likely due to political fetters and the protracted nature of educational research, both of which must transcend many variables and are rarely unambiguous as information trickles from the national to local levels. As observed in the NMC Horizon Report (2012), education reform moves at a glacial pace despite more than a decade of recommendations and some communities are more likely to embrace innovation than others. Obviously, federal mandates are not enough. Local grass-root teacher and parent campaigns showcasing successful implementations and student achievements are necessary to promote the benefits of technology-rich learning.
Teachers also bring intrinsic traits that impact technology integration; even when extrinsic barriers are reduced (Ertmer et al, 2012; Guzey & Roehrig, 2009). Most researchers assert that teachers' attitudes and beliefs about their content, their learners, their pedagogy, and their school culture have the greatest impact on whether they will choose to integrate technology in their instruction. While teachers often cite extrinsic obstacles, and studies continue support the importance of access and training (Inan and Lowther, 2010); in practice, their educational philosophies and attitudes about learning were just as significant influences on their classroom use of technology (Earle, 2002; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Ertmer et al, 2012; Inan and Lowther, 2010; Li, 2007). Koehler and Mishra, 2008 (in Guzey & Roehrig, 2009 ) argue that effective technology integration requires a dynamic interaction between three knowledge elements: content, pedagogy and technology (TPACK). If teachers do not value technology in their content or instructional design, believe technology is more of a classroom distraction or hassle than a benefit to their students, or do not know how or when to use technology; then no amount of internet connected devices will significantly impact classroom practices (Earle, 2002; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Ertmer et al, 2012; Inan and Lowther, 2010; Li, 2007). We must recognize that practicing teachers’ pedagogical models have been shaped by years, possibly decades, of acquired knowledge and by past successes and disappointments in teaching; and thus, are very resistant to change. Unfortunately, teachers are also routinely exposed to rapid intense training sessions on technology as tools without any reshaping of attitudes, values or pedagogy. Furthermore, poor training is sometimes worse than no training because it reinforces cynical or naive impressions about incorporating more technology.
A handful of variables are associated with effective technology in schools, but essentially they revolve around school culture and teacher development. First, schools need a culture that embraces the fusion of technology with best practices across curricula and student diversity. Ubiquitous, seamless technology in the classroom is ideal, but under any circumstances, educators, students and parents need consistent opportunities for positive experiences that incorporate relevant technology efficiently and cultivate affirmative outcomes. This means quality training, allocated time, and support networks at all levels – plans and back-up plans. It has been noted in Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) that even if pre-service teachers are armed with adequate technology skills to integrate their classrooms, they will rapidly succumb to the dominant school culture. In order for those pre-service skills to flourish and spread to established teachers, that school culture must champion the most modern education practices.
Second, current teachers need content and technology specific professional development in their own classrooms and models and mentors that transform perceptions about what exemplifies “good teaching.” These can be face-to-face or synchronous-distance, but teachers need adaptive practice with the resources they actually have. Teachers must be encouraged to participate in new schema as learners with room to experiment and time to reflect so that multiple successful events foster confidence and inspire shifts in beliefs and practices. Teachers must also feel empowered by this process, not replaced; and their pivotal role in guiding the best opportunities for students to learn emphasized. It is time we capitalized on teachers’ desires to do what is best for their students and their innate affinity for learning in a secure environment. According to Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) “ it is time to shift our mindsets away from the notion that technology provides a supplemental teaching tool and assume, as with other professions, that technology is essential to successful performance outcomes (i.e., student learning). To put it simply, effective teaching requires effective technology.”
Resources
American Association for the Advancement of Science – AAAS. (2013). Science for All Americans. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://www.aaas.org/report/science-all-americans.
Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology-Saddle Brook then Englewood Cliffs NJ-, 42(1), 5-13.
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.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435.
Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1).
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137-154.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Cummins, M. (2012).NMC Horizon Report: 2012 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, (pp. 3-31). New York: Routledge.
Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities?. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377.
Project Tomorrow. (2013). From Chalkboards to Tablets - 2012 Speak Up Survey. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/SU12_DigitalConversion_EducatorsReport.html.
Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. (2012). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology - NETP. (2010).Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010