Developing and Sustaining Schools as Technology-Enriched Learning Organizations

Linda Cole Atkinson*, Mary John O'hair**, H. Dan O'hair***, Leslie Ann Williams****
*Associate Director for K12 Partnerships,K20 Center for Educational and Community Renewal,University of Oklahoma
** Vice Provost for School and Community Partnerships & Director of the K20 Center for Educational and Community Renewal,University of Oklahoma
*** Presidential Professor & Director of the Center for Risk and Crisis Management,University of Oklahoma
****Associate Director for K12 research,K20 Center for Educational and Community Renewal,University of Oklahoma
Periodicity:March - May'2008
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.644

Abstract

During the last two decades, an assumption was advanced by policy makers that making technology available would result in effective technology transfer and integration in the teaching and learning process (Cuban, 2001); however, reality has been less kind with research presenting a pessimistic picture regarding the impact of technology in the classroom and on teachers’ instructional strategies (Becker, 2001).  The purpose of this study was to examine how technology-enriched learning environments can be developed and sustained through professional learning community (PLC) paradigms that make meaningful differences in teacher and student learning.

Keywords

Technology, Student Learning,Technology-enriched Learning.

How to Cite this Article?

Linda Cole Atkinson, Mary John O'hair, H. Dan O'hair and Leslie Ann Williams (2008). Developing and Sustaining Schools as Technology-Enriched Learning Organizations. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 17-33. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.644

References

[1]. Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School Technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect, Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-82
[2]. Becker, H. J. (2001, April). How are Teachers using computers in instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Education Research Association. Retrieved April 3, 2004 From http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/ FINDINGS/special3/How_Are_Teachers_Using.pdf.
[3]. Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist—compatible computer use. [Report no. 7). Irvine, CA: Teaching, Learning, and Computing.Retrieved October 25, 2004 from www.crito. uci.edu/tlc/finds/report_7/.
[4]. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., &Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[5]. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[6]. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, R (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
[7]. Burns, M. (2002, December). From compliance to commitment: Technology as a catalyst for communities of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(4), 295-302.
[8]. Business-Higher Education Forum. (2005, January).A commitment to America's future.' Responding to the Crisis in Mathematics and Science Education. Washington, DC.
[9]. Capra, E (1996). The web of life. New York: Anchor Book by Doubleday.
[10]. Cafe, J. M., Vaughn, C. A., &O' Hair, M. J., (January, 2006). A 17-year case study of an elementary school's journey: From traditional school to learning community to democratic school community. Journal of School Leadership, 16, 86-111 .
[11]. CEO Forum on Education & Technology. (2001, March). Education Technology must be included in comprehensive education legislation. Washington, DC: CEO Forum on Education & Technology.
[12]. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
[13]. Cradler, J., McNabb, M., Freeman, M., & Burchell, R., (2002). How does technology influence student learning? Learning & Leading with technology, 29(8), 46- 49.
[14]. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. United States: President and Fellows of Harvard College.
[15]. Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy (ED—01-CO—0026/0017). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology.
[16]. DeBell, M., & Chapman, C. (2006). Computer and internet use by students in 2003 (NCES 2006065). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Cenfer for Education Statistics.
[17]. Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. (1991 , May). Changes in teachers‘ beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45-52.
[18]. Edtech report: The sustainability challenge. (2003, March). Digital divide network. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.
[19]. Education Oversight Board. (2003). Oklahoma educational indicators program: School report card. Oklahoma City, OK: Office of Accountability Retrieved on February 10, 2005 from http://schoolreportcard.org.
[20]. Education Oversight Board. (2004). Oklahoma educational indicators program: School report card. Oklahoma City, OK: Office of Accountability. Retrieved on February 10, 2005 from http://schoolreportcard.org.
[21]. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
[22]. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey—Bass.
[23]. Fullan, M. (2003). Changing forces with a vengeance. NewYork: FoutledgeFalmer.
[24]. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
[25]. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
[26]. Hamlin, G. (2007). An evaluation report to the Oklahoma Educational Technology Trust concerning sustainability of Grants to Schools. Oklahoma City, OK: OETT.
[27]. Hord, S. (2004). Professional learning communities: An overview. In Hord, S.M. (Ed), Learning together leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities. (pp.5—14). New York: Teachers College Press.
[28]. Hord, S. M., Meehan, M. L., Orletsky, S., & Sattes, B. (1999). Assessing a school staff as a community of professional learners. Issues About Change, 7(1). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
[29]. King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals? Phi Delta Kappan, 81 (8), 576-580.
[30]. Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Ford, B. Markholt, A. McLauglin, M., Milliken, M., et al. (2003). Leading for learning sourcebook: Concepts and examples. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
[31]. Ladner, M.D. (2001). Comparison of web-based and traditional paper based survey methodologies. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University.
[32]. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1994). Restructuring high schools for equity and excellence: What works. New York: Teachers College Press.
[33]. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
[34]. Loucks-Horsley, 8., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
[35]. Meehan, M. L., Orletsky, S. R., & Sattes, B. (1997). Field test of an instrument measuring the concept of professional learning communities in school. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
[36]. Middleton, B. M., & Murray, R. K. (1999). The impact of instructional technology on student academic achievement in reading and mathematics. [Electronic version]. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(1),109-117.
[37]. Morrissey, M. S. (2000). Professional learning communities: An ongoing exploration. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
[38]. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2000, September). Teachers‘ tools for the 24" century, (NCES 2000-102). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Notional Center for Education Statistics.
[39]. Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Youngs, p. (2000, August). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108, 259-299.
[40]. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. University of Wisconsin Systems.
[41]. O'Hair, M.J., McLaughlin, H. J., & Reitzug, U. C. (2000). Foundations of democratic education. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.
[42]. Porter. P (2005, June). A vision for school improvement. SEDL Letter. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
[43]. Printy, S. M. (2004, Winter). The professional impact of communities of practice. UCEA Review, XLVI (1 ), 20-23.
[44]. Punch, K. F. (2003). Survey research: The basics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
[45]. Riel, M., & Fulton, K. (2001, March). The role of technology in supporting learning communities. Phi Delta Kappan,82(7), 518-526.
[46]. Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000, Fall/Winter). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer—based technologies [Electronic version]. The Future of Children Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 76-97.
[47]. Ross, J. D., McGraw, T. M., & Burdette, K. J. (2003). Towards an effective use of technology in education: A summaryofresearch. Charleston, WV: AEL.
[48]. Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Santa Monica, CA: The Milken FamilyFoundation.
[49]. Senge, F: M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
[50]. Senge, P M. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educator, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday Currency.
[51]. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2003). Technology integration. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
[52]. Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
[53]. Spillane, J. Fr, Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (1999). Toward a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective (A working pa per). Northwestern University.
[54]. Sun, P. Y. T., & Scott, J. L. (2003). Exploring the divide—organizational learning and learning organization. The Learning Organization. Evanston, IL: 10(4), 202-216.
[55]. Technology counts 2001 : The new divides. (May 5, 2002) [Electronic version]. Education Week. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education Research Center.
[56]. Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative [TSSA Collaborative]. (2001). Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium.
[57]. U.S. Department of Labor. (2006-2007). Computer Scientists and Database Administrators. [Electronic version]. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handout. Washington, DC: Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections.
[58]. Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement (A working paper). Mid—continent Regional Education Laboratory.
[59]. Waxman, H. C., Lin, M. F., & Michko, G. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes (Gov contract No. ED—01-CO—0011). Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. U. S. Department of Education.
[60]. Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
[61]. Wenglinsky, H. (2005, December/2006, January). Technology and achievement: The bottom line. Educational Leadership, 63 (4), 29-32.
[62]. Williams, L. A. Atkinson, L.C., Cate, J.M., & O’Hair, M. J. (2008). Mutually supportive relationships between learning community development and technology integration: The impact on school practices and student achievement. Theory into Practice.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.