i-manager Publications

i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology (JSCH)

Current Issue Vol. 20 Issue 1

Most Cited

Volume 3 Issue 4 March - May 2008

Article

Performance Assessment In Language Testing

Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan*

* Assistant Professor of TEFL, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan (2008). Performance Assessment In Language Testing. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.640

Abstract

Over the past few decades, educators in general, and language teachers in specific, were more inclined towards using testing techniques that resembeled real life-language performance. Unlike traditional paper-and-pencil language tests that required test-takers to attempt tests that were based on artificial and contrived language content, performance tests are authentic so that the test-taker is asked to perform language tasks that he or she will need to perform in real-life interactions. A very valuable type of performance test is called portofolio assessment in which a record of students' performance across a wide range of language tasks over a logical period of time is kept so that a profile of performance can be obtained for the evaluation of achievement. This paper will define performance assessment, trace its origins and development, explain how performance tests can be constructed, and describes the nature and advantages of portofolios.

References

[1].Alderson .J.C.(1980) Native and nON native spealer performance on cloze tests .Language learning 30, 59-76.

[2]. Bachman, L. F. , ( I 99 O). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[3]. Bailey, K. , Cl 985). If I had known then what I know now: Performance testing of foreign teaching assistants. In R Hauptman, R. LeBlanc, & M. Wesche (Eds.), Second language performance tesHng (pp. 153-180). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

[4]. Brualdi, A. C., (2001). Implementing performance assessment. Ed at a Distance Journal, 15(4). http./. /www.usdla.org/html/journal/APROI_Issue/index.htm I, retrieved on May 10, 2008.

[5]. Canale, M., & Swain, M., (19 80). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 6, 67-84.

[6]. Carroll, B. J. , & Hall, R , (I 985). Make your own languagetests. Oxford: Pergamon.

[7]. Clark, J. L. D., Cl 975). Direct testing of speaking proficiency: Theory and practice. Princeton, NJ: EducationalTestingService.

[8]. Deno, S. L., (2003). Developments in Curriculum- Based Measurement. Journal of Special Education 37(3), 184-192.

[9]. Emmett, A., (1985). The Associated Examining Board's Test in English for Educational Purposes (TEEP) In P C, Hauptman, R. LeBlanc, & M. B. Wesche (Eds. ), Second Language performance testing (pp. 131-151). Ottawa:OttawaUniversity Press.

[I 0]. Flynn, L. A , (2008). In Praise of Performance-Based Assessments. Scienceand Children, 45(8), 32-35.

[11]. Hamilton, J., Lopes, M. , McNamara, T. F., & Sheridan,E. , CI 993). Rating scales and native speaker performance on a communicatively oriented EAP test. Me/bourne Papers in LanguageTesting, 2, 1-24.

[ I 2]. Jones, R. L., C I 9 77). Testing a vital connection. In J. Phillips (Ed.), The language connection: From the classroom to the world (pp. 237-265). Skokie, IL: National TextbookCompany.

[ I 3]. Jones, R. L., C I 9 85). Second language performance testing. In P. C. Hauptman, R. LeBlanc & M. B. Wesche (Eds.), Second language performance testing (pp. 15- 24) . Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. 15- 24.

[I 4]. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. , & Dunbar, S. B. , C I 991). Complex performance-based assessment: expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15- 24 .

[I 5]. McNamara, T. F., (19 96). Measuring second language performance. London: Longman.

[I 6]. Morrow, K , CI 9 7 7). Authentic tests and ESP. In S. Holden (Ed.), English for specific purposes. London: Modem English Publications.

[I 7]. Niemi, D., Baker, E. L., & Sylvester, R. M., (2007). Scaling up, scaling down: Seven years of performance assessment development in the nation's second largest school district, Educationa/Assessmenf, 12C3-4), I 95-214,

[I 8]. Sajavaara, K , (19 92). Designing tests to match the needs of the workplace. In E. Shohamy, & A. Walton (Eds. ), Language assessment for feedback: Testing and other strafegies CPD, I 23- I 44), Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt,

[ I 9]. Verhoeven, R , & Verloop, N. , (2002). Identifying changes in teaching practice: Innovative curricular objectives in classical languages and the taught curriculum, Journa/ of Curricu/um Studies, 34C1 ), 9 1-102 ,

[20]. Wesche, M. , (19 92). Performance testing for work- [related second language assessment, In E, Shohamy & R. Walton CEds.), Language assessment for feedback: Testing and other strategies C103-122). Kendall/Hunt PublishingCompany.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Article

Information Technologies and Globalization: New Perspectives of Teaching Learning Process

Irshad Husain*

* Assistant Professor, Department of Education, lnternational lslamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Irshad Hussain (2008). Information Technologies and Globalization: New Perspective of Teaching Learning Process. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.642

Abstract

This article discusses how information technologies and globalization have opened new avenues and horizons for educators and learners. It discusses different experiences of using information and communication technologies (ICTs) in teaching learning process the world over in the age of globalization. It focuses on the ways these new trends have promoted opportunities of flexible learning; possible at any time and any place in any discipline and a shift from teacher centered teaching to student centered learning. Presently accumulated knowledge and experience occupies central place and students have direct access to it. They can develop collaboration to work in groups. Teachers have to work in preparing and evaluating instructional materials and spend most of their time in coaching students how to retrieve and process information.

References

[1]. Alonso, D, L., (2005). lnnovacion en la formacion de tutores: Planteamientos desde el e-learning. Dissertation obtained from the Department of Education of the University of Extremadura, Badaioz, Spain.

[2]. Blézquez, F., (2004, November). Organizacién de Espacios Virtuales deensenanza. Paper presented at the VIII Congreso Interuniversifario de Organizacién de Instituciones Educativas, Sevilla, Spain.

[3]. Blézquez, F. y Alonso, L., (2005). Apuntes para la formacién del docente de e—learning. Enserianza: Anuario interuniversitario de didactica, 23, 65-86

[4]. Bonk, C. & Dennen, V. (2003). Frameworks for research, design, benchmarks, training. and pedagogy in web-based distance education. En M. Moorey W. Anderson (Eds.) Handbook of distance education (pp. 245-260). NewJersey: L. Erlbaum Associates.

[5]. Branson, R. K., (1991). The School Year 2000 Concept. Address atNorthwestern March 7.

[6]. Buthun, G.D., (1998). Distance Education: Effective Learning or Content Free Credit, Boulder, USA, Cuasel Effect, 21 (2).

[7]. Cabero, J., (2006). Bases pedagogicas del e- learning. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 3 (1 ).

[8]. Carnoy, M., (2000). Globalization and Education Reform. In Stromquist, N. R & Monkman, K. (Eds.). (2000). Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestanion Across Cutures, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers [43-62).

[9]. DAAD, German Academic Exchange Service (2003). Wissenschaft WeItoffen—Facts and Figures on the International Nature of Studies and Research in Germany. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann

[10]. Edelson, R & Pitman, V. (2001). E- Learning in the United States: New Directions and Opportunities for University Continuing Education. Indian Journal of Open Learning 10(2)

[11]. Eisenberg, E. (2005, March 3). The Online Teacher. Elearningeuropa.info. Retrieved March 30, 2005 from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/index.php?page=doc & doc_id=6066&doclng=6&menuzone=1 .

[12]. Field, M. H. & Fegan, J., (2005). Globalization and Across—Border Education: Paradims and Challenges. In Field, M. H. & Fegan, J. (eds.). Education Across Borders: Philosophy, Policy and Pedagogy-New Paradigms and Challenges. Tokyo: Waseda University Media—Mix Co. Ltd.

[13]. Frohriep, S., (2005). Internationalization and Globalization—University Policy in Germany. In Field, M. H. & Fegan, J. (eds.). Education Across Borders: Philosophy, Policy and Pedagogy-New Paradigms and Challenges. Tokyo; Waseda University Media—Mix Co. Ltd.

[14]. Gallo, M. A. & Neno, R. B., (1985). Computers and Society with Basic and Pascal. Boston. Massachusetts, DWS Publishers

[15]. Gonzalez, J., (1998). The 21^st Century Intranet. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

[16]. Gray, D., Ryan, M. &Coulon, A., (2004). The Training of Teachers and Trainers: Innovative Practices, Skills and Competencies in the use of e-Learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-learning. 2004/ ll

[17]. Haag, Cummings and Dawkins (1998). Management Information Systems for the Information age, McGraw Hill USA.

[18]. Ham, V. & Davey, R. (2005). Our First Time: Two Higher Education Tutors Reflect on Becoming a "Virtual Teacher". Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42 (3), 257-264.

[19]. Hitlz, S.R., (1990). Collaborative Learning: The Virtual Classroom Approach. Technological Horizons in Education, June.

[20]. Hussain, I. (2005). A Study of Emerging Technologies and their Impact on Teaching Learning Process, un- published Ph.D thesis, Islamabad: Allama Iqbal Open University, Pakistan

[21]. Kennedy, D. and Agnew, D. (1998). Utilizing Industry Experts and Interactive Video to Teach a Poultry Science Course. NACTA.

[22]. Lentell, H., (2003). The importance of the tutor in open and distance learning. In A.Tait & R. Mills (Eds.) Re- thinking Learner Support in Distance Education: Change and Continuity in an International Context (pp. 64-76). London: Routledge Falmer.

[23]. Marga, A., (2005). Academic Consequences of Globalization: Open markets, autonomous organizations, creative minds. In Field, M. H. & Fegan, J. (eds.). Education Across Borders: Philosophy, Policy and Pedagogy-New Paradigms and Challenges. Tokyo: Waseda University Media—Mix Co. Ltd.

[24]. Martinez, C. M., (2004, November). El tutor una de las claves de la formacion online. Paper presented at the II Congreso del Observatorio para la Cibersociedad. Retrieved March 20,2005 From http://www.cibersociedad. net/congres2004/index_es.html

[25]. Menges, Robert J., (1994). Teaching in the age of Electronic Information: in Wilbert J. Mckeachie (Eds), Teaching Tips: 9^th ed. U.S.A.

[26]. Moore. D., (1996). New Pedagogy and New Content: The Case Study of Statistics. International Statistical Review 65(2).

[27]. Murphy, K.; Mahoney, S.: Chen. C. Y.: Mendoza- Diaz, N. & Yang, X., (2005). Constructivist Model of Mentoring, Coaching, and Facilitating Online Discussions. Distance Education, 26 (3), 341-366.

[28]. Ping, C. J. (1998). Educational imperatives for a new era. In Roning, A. H. & Kearney, M. L., (Eds.). Graduate Prospects in Changing Society, UNESCO Publishing, (77- 95).

[29]. Rashid, M.. (1998). Educational Technology: National Book Foundation; Islamabad.

[30]. Rovai, A., (2003). A constructivist approach to online college learning; Internet and Higher education, 7 (pp. 79-93).

[31].Salmon, G., (2004). E—moderating.' The Key to Teaching and Learning Online (2^nd edition). London: Routledge Falmer.

[32]. Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in Distance Learning: International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 1 (4).

[33]. Stigmar, M.. (2005). Interplay between pedagogy and media technology when planning e-learning illustrated in the Virtual Glass Academy. European Journal of Open, Distance and E—learning, 2005, ll.

[34]. Stromquist, N. R, (2002). Education in a Globalized World: the connectivity of economic power, technology, and knowledge; Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

[35]. Teichler, U., (2002). “Das Hochschulwesen in Deutschland Diskussionen und Reformen.” Beitrag zut Tagung des DAAD in Tokyo, unpublished manuscript.

[36]. Volman, M.. (2005). Avariety of roles fora newtype of teacher - Educational technology and the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 1 (pp. 15-31).

[37]. Wong, A., Quek, C.L., Divaharan,S., Liu, W.C., Peer, J. and Williams, M.. (2006). Singapore Students‘ and Teachers‘ Perceptions of Computer-Supported Project Work Classroom Learning Environments. Journal of Research on Technologyin Education, 38 (4), 449-479.

[38]. Yang, A. A., (2005). Preface: Education Without Borders? In Field, M. H. & Fegan, J. (eds.) Education Across Borders: Philosophy, Policy and Pedagogy-New Paradigms and Challenges. Tokyo: Waseda University Media-MixCo. Ltd.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

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

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

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.

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.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Technology in Mathematics Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis of the Recent Literature

Qing Li* , Xin Ma**

*Associate Professor ,Faculty of Education ,University of Calgory

**Professor ,Department of Curriculum and instruction,University of Kentucky

Qing Li and Xin Ma (2008). Technology in Mathematics Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis of the Recent Literature.i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 34-54. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.701

Abstract

The increasingly use of technology in education does set off a flurry of research studies that focus on the successfulness and effectiveness of technology in elementary and secondary education. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of research literature on technology in relation to mathematics teaching and learning. Particularly, the following main research questions were addressed in our meta-analysis:

1. What is the magnitude of the effects of technology on schooling outcomes concerning mathematics education?

2. How does the magnitude of the effects of technology fluctuate in response to various study features (e.g., gender, age, race) and design features (e.g., randomization, sample size, instruments)?

Based on a total of 81independent findings extracted from 39studies involving a total of 59,147 learners, the results of the series of meta-analyses conducted in this review indicate that technology can affect mathematics teaching and learning.

References

[1]. Albright, M., & Graf, D. (1992). Teaching in the Information Age: The Role of Educational Technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

[2]. Bali, S. (1988). Computers, concrete materials and teaching fractions. School science and mathematics., 88,470-475.

[3]. Braden, J. R, Show, S. R., & Grecko, L. (1991). An Evaluation of a Computer—Assisted instructional Program for Elementary Hearing-Impaired Students. The Volta Review, 93(6), 247-252.

[4]. Brush, T. A. (1997). The effects of group composition on achievement and time on task for students completing ILS activities in cooperative pairs. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(1 ), 2- I 7.

[5]. Char, C. (1989). Computer graphics feltboards.' New software approaches for young children's mathematical exploration. San Francisco: American Educational Research Associatlon.

[6]. Christmann, E., Badgett, J., &: Lucking, R. (1997). Microcomputer—Based Computer—Assisted Instruction within Differing Subject Areas: A Statistical Deduction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 281 - 296.

[7]. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of educational research, 53, 445- 460.

[8]. Clements, D. (1998). /Young Children and Techno|ogy./ Paper presented at the Forum on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education, Washington, DC.

[9]. Coley, R., Cradleer, J., & Engel, p. (2000). Computers and the Classroom: The Status of Technology in US Schools. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.

[10]. Connell, M. L. (1998). Technology in Constructivist Mathematics Classrooms. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 17(4), 311 -338.

[11]. Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (1987). Applied BehaviorAnalysis. Columbus: Merrill.

[12]. Dusek, J. B., & Joseph, G. (1983). The bases of teacher expectancies: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 327-346.

[13]. Farrell, A. M. (1996). Roles and Behaviors in Technology-Integrated Precalculus Classrooms. Journal ofMathematicalBehavior, '15, 35-53.

[14]. Funkhouser, C. (1993). The Influence of Problem- Solving Software on Student Attitudes about Mathematics. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(3), 339-346.

[15]. Glass, G.V., McGaw, B., &Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta- analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

[16]. Hecht, J. B., Roberts, N. K., Schoon, P L., & Fansler, G. (1995). Teacher Teams and Computer Technology. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

[17]. Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analyses. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

[18]. Hembree, R., & Dessart, D. J. (1986). Effects of hand held calculators in precollege mathematics education: A meta-analysis. /Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, I7/, 83-99.

[19]. Hunter, E., & Schmidt, F. (1990). Methods of meta- analysis.' correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

[20]. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, I 39-155.

[21]. Irish, C. (2002). Using Peg- and Keyword Mnemonics and Computer—Assisted Instruction to Enhance Basic Multiplication Performance in Elementary Students with Learning and Cognitive Disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 29-40.

[22]. Jones, K. (2005). Graphing calculators in the teaching and learning of mathematics: A research bibliography. Micromath, Summer, 31 -33.

[23]. Kieran, C., & Hillel, J. (1990). It's tough when you have to make the triangles angles: Insights from a computer-based geometry environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 9, 99-127.

[24]. Kim, S. (1993). The relative effectiveness of hands-on and computer-simulated manipulative in teaching seriation, classification, geometric, and arithmetic concepts to kindergarten children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(09), 3319.

[25]. Kulik, K. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say (Research Report No. SRI Project Number PI0446.003). Arlington, VA: SRI International.

[26]. Kulik, K., Schwalb, B., & Kulik, J. (1982). Programmed instruction in secondary education: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. Journal of Educational Research, 75(3), 133-138.

[27]. Li, Q. (2004). Technology and mathematics education: Any impact? Paper presented at the the Eleventh International Literacy and Education Research Network Conference on Learning, La Havana.

[28]. Li, Q. (2005). Gender and CMC: A review on conflict and harassment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 382-406.

[29]. Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta- analysis (Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

[30]. Lou, Y., Abrami, R C., & d'Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta- analysis. Review of educational research, 71 (3), 449-521 .

[31]. Mac Iver, D. J., Balfanz, R., & Plank, S. B. (1998). The Talent Development Middle School. An Elective Replacement Approach to Providing Extra Help in Math - The CATAMA Program (Computer— and Team—Assisted Mathematics Acceleration). Report No. 21/. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

[32]. Ma, X. (1999). Anxiety and Achievement. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education.

[33]. Merriweather, M., & Tharp, M. L. (1999). The Effect of Instruction with Graphing Calculators on How General Mathematics Students Naturalistically Solve Algebraic Problems. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(1 ), 7-22.

[34]. Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. (2002). Exploring representation in the middle grades: Investigations in geometry with virtual manipulatives. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 58(1 ], 19-25.

[35]. Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J., &Spikell, M. (2002). Whatare virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372-377.

[36]. Mullany, L. (2000). The application of current language and gender theory to managerial meeting discourse. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 15, 1 -16.

[37]. Mushi, S. (2000). Use of Interactive Video Technology to Teach Middle School Mathematics in Chicago. Chicago: Northeastern Illinois Univ., Chicago, Dept. of Teacher Education.

[38]. Nute, N. (1997). The impact of engagement activity and manipulatives presentation on intermediate mathematics achievement, time-on-task, learning efficiency and attitude. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(08), 2988.

[39]. Parr, J. (2003). A review of the literature on computer-assisted learning, particularly integrated learning systems and outcomes with respect to literacy and numeracy. Auckland, New Zealand: M. O. Education. The University of Auckland.

[40]. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-Graders Learn About Fractions Using Virtual Manipulatives: A Classroom Study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24[1), 5-25.

[41]. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Vol. 6]. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

[42]. Royer, J. M., Greene, B. A., &AnzaIone, S. J. (1994). Can U.S. developed CAI work effectively in a developing country? Journal of Educational Computing Research, '10(1),41-61.

[43]. Salerno, C. A. (1995). The Effect of Time on Computer-Assisted Instruction for At-Risk Students. Journal ofResearch on Computing in Education, 28(1 ), 85-97.

[44]. Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Lingenfelter, D. (1996b). Gender and group composition in small task groups using computer-mediated communication. Computers in human behavior, 12(2), 209-224.

[45]. Schram, C. M. (1996). A meta-analysis of gender differences in applied statistics achievement. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21 (55- 70).

[46]. Shyu, H. Y. (1999). Effects of Media Attributes in Anchored Instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(2), 119-139.

[47]. Shyu, H. Y. (2000). Using video—based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan's experience. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 31(1), 57-69.

[48]. Suh, J., Moyer, P. S., & Heo, H. (2005). Examining technology uses in the classroom: Developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4), 1 -21 .

[49]. Terry, M. (1996). An investigation of differences in cognition when utilizing math manipulatives and math Appendix "I . Effect Sizes for Studies of Technology manipulative software. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(7), 26-50.

[50]. Thompson, P. (1992). Notations, conventions, and constraints: Contributions to effective uses of concrete materials in elementary mathematics. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 123-147.

[51]. Willett, JB, & Singer, JD. (1991). From whether to when: New methods for studying student dropout and teacher attrition. /Review of Educational Research/, 61, 407-450.

[52]. Wilson, D. (2001). Effect Size Determination Program. Maryland: University of Maryland.

[53]. Woodward, J. (1995). Technology-Based Research in Mathematics for Special Education. /Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17/(2), 3-23.

[54]. Xin, J. F. (1999). Computer-Assisted Cooperative Learning in Integrated Classrooms for Students With and Without Disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education, 61 -78.

[55]. Ysseldyke, J., Spicuzza, R., Kosciolek, S., & Boys, C. (2003). Effects of a Learning Information System on Mathematics Achievement and Classroom Structure. The Journal of Educational Research (Washington, D.C.], 96(3), 163-173.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Computer Use in Diverse Learning Contexts in ELS 2002: Gender, Race and Learner-Centeredness Effects and Implications

Sunha Kim* , Mido Chang**

*Research Scholar ,Instructional Design and Technology ,Virginia Tech USA.

**Assistant Professor ,Department of EDucational Leadership and Policy studies ,Virginia Tech USA.

Sunha Kim and Mido Chang (2008). Computer Use in Diverse Learning Contexts in ELS 2002: Gender, Race and Learner-Centeredness Effects and Implications. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.702

Abstract

This paper examines the relation between computer use in diverse learning contexts and math achievement, and the gender and ethnicity-based differences in that relation. The study selected learner centeredness as a meaningful pedagogy in using computers because of its importance in technology-based learning. Along with the emerging notion of the importance of learner control in learning environments, technology has been expected to enable learner-centered learning environments. Moreover, learning models (including learner centeredness) suggest an important framework for successful integration of technology into teaching and learning. The study employs multiple regression models to 15,430 10th grade students from the Education Longitudinal Study 2002 (ELS: 2002), a US nationally representative database. The results confirm the significant effects of computer use in diverse contexts on student academic performance and its differential effects for gender and race. In particular, computer use for schoolwork was a significant predictor of math achievement for 10th graders, especially for Caucasian students. The effects of female students’ computer use for their own learning in math were lower than those for males; these effects were pronounced in the Hispanic and Asian groups. The study results have implications for the theory and practice of computer use.

References

[1]. Barron, B. , Martin, C. K. , & Roberts, E. , (2007). &parking self-sustained learning: report on a design experiment to build technological fluency and bridge divides. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17( I ), 75-105.

[2]. BebeII, D., O'Dwyer, L., Russell, M., & 5eeley, K., (2004). Estimating the effect of computer use at home and in school on student achievement, Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference 2004 (NECC 2004), New Orleans, LA.

[3]. Chisholm, I. M. , C I 995). Computer use In a multicultural classroom~ Journal of Research on ComputinglnEducation,28(2), 162-178.

[4]. Cohen, J., (2005). Am 5tatistical 5oftware (Version 0.06.00 ). [Computer 5oftware]. Washington, DC: The American Institute for Research.

[5]. Cummins, J., & 5ayers, D. , (1995). Brave new schools.' Challeng\ng cultural illiferacy through global learnlng networks, NewYork: 5t. Martin's Press.

[6]. DeBell, M., & Chapman, C., (2006). Computer and Internet use by studenfs in 2003. Washington, DC: NationalCenterforEducation5tatistics.

[7]. Driessen, G. W. J., (2001). Ethnicity, forms of capital, and educational achievement. /nternational Rev/ew of Education, 47(6), 513-538.

[8]. Duncan, G. J., & Aber, J. L., (1997). Neighborhood models and measures. In J. Brooks-Gunn, J. G~ Duncan & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for ch/\dren (VOL I ). NewYork: Russell 5age Foundation.

[9]. Erstad, O., (2006). A new direction? Educat\on and lnformationTechnolog\es, 11(3), 415-429,technology (pp~ 355-396). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,

[10]. Freedman, K. , & Liu, M. , ( I 996). The importance of computer experience, learning processes, and communication patterns in multicultural networking. Educational Technology Research and Deve\opment, 44(1), 43-59.

[1 I ]. Fuchs, T., & W"6ssmann, L., (2004). Computers and student learning .. bivariate and mulflvarlate evldence on the availability and use of computers at home and at school. Munich: CES: CESifo working papers, No. 1321 : Category 4, Labour markets.

[12]. Gerhard, F., (2001). User modeling in human- computer interaction. User Modellng and User- Adapted Interactlon, 11( I ), 65-86.

[13]. Gorski, R C., (2003). Privilege and repression in the digital era: rethinking the sociopolitics of the digital divide, Race,Gender & Class, 10(4), I 45- I 76.

[14]. Gunawardena, C. N., & Mclsaac, M. S., (2003 ). Distance education Handbook of research for educational communlcatiMahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, ons technology (pp~ 355-396).

[15]. Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M., (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments, Instructional Sc/ence, 25(3), I 67-202,

[I 6]. Heemskerk, I. , 8rink, A., Volman, M. , & ten Dam, G . , (2005). Inclusiveness and ICT in education: a focus on gender, ethnicity and social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21( I ), I - I 6.

[17]. Hess, F. M., & Leai, D. L., (2001). A shrinking "Digital Divide"? The provision of classroom computers across urban school systems. Socia/ Sc/ence Quarterly, 82(4), 765-778.

[18]. Hill, J. R., Wiley, D., Nelson, L. M., & Han, S., (2003 ). Exploring research on Internet-based learning: from infrastructure to interactions, In D, H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communicatlons and technology (pp. 433-460). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,<

[I 9]. Kerr, S. T., (2003). Toward a sociology of educational technology, in D. H, Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communicatlons and technology (pp. I I 3- I 42), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[20]. Koohang, A., (2004). Students' perceptions toward the use of the digital library in weekly web-based distance

[2 I ]. Messineo, M. , & DeOllos, I. Y., (2005). Are we assuming too much? Exploring students' perceptions of their computer competence. Co//ege Teaching, 53(2), 50-55.

[22]. Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., & Shemla, A., (2001). information and communication technologies usage by students in an Israeli high school: Equity, gender, and inside/outside school learning issues. Educatlon and InformatlonTechnologies, 6( I ), 43-53.

[23]. NCES. (2004). English language learner students In Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of U.S. public schools: 1994 and 2000. Jessup, MD: National

[24]. Cry, J., 8ullock, C., & 8umaska, K., (1997). Gender similarity in the use of computers and attitudes about ALN in a university setting, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1( I ), 39-5 I .

[25]. Romiszowski, A., & Maso, R., (2003). Computer- mediated communication. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed,), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 397-432)~ Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

[26]. Volman, M., & Van Eck, E., (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: the Second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 6 1 3- 634.

[27]. Warschauer, M., (2000). Technology & school reform: a view from both sides of the tracks. [Electronic Version]~ Educatlon po/icy analysis archives, 8 . Retrieved June 28, 2007 from htfp: //Epaa~asu.edu/Epaa/v8n4. html.

[28]. Weaver, G. C., (2000). An examination of the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS:88) database to probe the correlation between computer use in school and improvement in test scores, Journal of Sclence Education andTechnology 9(2), I 2 I - I 33.

[ 2 9 ] . Wenglinsky, H. , (200 6) . Technology and achievement: the bottom line Educatlonal Leadership, 63(4), 29-32.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Preparing Teachers to use Technology: Effects of Training Experience on Confidence and Knowledge

Michele Alfieri* , Jeremy I. Tutty**

* Doctoral Student, Educational Technology Northcentral University

**AssistantProfessor, Educational Technology, Boise State University

Michele Alfieri and Jeremy I. Tutty (2008). Preparing Teachers to use Technology: Effects of Training Experience on Confidence and Knowledge. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.714

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between computer technology training experiences and pre-service teachers’ confidence and knowledge. Participants enrolled in one of four distinct training experiences at two universities (computer literacy only, computer integration only, separate integration and literacy, combined integration and literacy) completed a survey developed to measure their confidence and knowledge of computer skills and integration. Findings revealed that pre-service teachers whose experience included both computer literacy and computer integration training had more confidence for computer skills and integration than when the training experience included only one of the two. Results also indicated that participants who completed computer literacy training by itself or in combination with integration training had significantly more knowledge than those who did not complete the literacy course. Implications for training pre-service teachers on how to integrate technology are provided.

References

[1]. Anderson, S. & Maninger, R. [2007]. Preservice teachers‘ abilities, beliefs, and intention regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Compufing Research, 37(2) 151 -172

[2]. Bitner, N. & Bitner J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 10(1), 95-100.

[3]. Brush, T. A. (1998). Teaching preservice teachers to use technology in the classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Educafion, 6(4), 243-258.

[4]. Collier, S., Weinburgh. M. & Rivera, M. [2004]. Infusing technology skills into a teacher education program: Change in students‘ knowledge about technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,12(3). 447-468.

[5]. Dexter, S., Doering, A. & Riedel, E. (2006). Content area specific technology integration: A model for educating teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 14 (2), 325-345.

[6]. Dugger, W. E. (2001). Standard for technological literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 513-517.

[7]. Ertmer, R A. (1994). Enhancing self-efficacy for computer technologies through the use of positive classroom experiences. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(3), 45-62.

[8]. Ellington, A.J. (2007). A capstone course for preservice mathematics and teachers which uses technology as its unifying theme, Mathematics and Computer Education, 41 (1), 55-66.

[9]. Fleming, L., Motamedi, V, & May, L. (2007). Predicting preservice teacher competence in computer technology: Modeling and application in training environments. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 207-231 .

[10]. Fox, L., Thompson, D., & Chan, C. (1996). Computers and curriculum integration in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 17(4), 64-73.

[11]. Hall, L. (2006). Modeling technology integration for preservice teachers: A PT3 case study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 6 (4), 436- 455.

[12]. International Society for Technology in Education, & Milken Family Foundation (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a computer age? Santa Monica. CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

[13]. International Society for Technology in Education (2000). NETS for teachers 2000. Retrieved April 26, 2008. from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu /ETS/ForTeachers/2000Standards/NETS_for_Teachers_ 2000.htm

[14]. Leh, A. (1998). Design of a computer literacy course in teacher education. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 220-223. Retrieved November 12. 2004, from ERIC database(ED 421111).

[15]. Mullen, L. (2001). Beyond Infusion: Preservice students‘ understandings about educational technologies for teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 447-466.

[16]. Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2005). Technology use in student teaching: A case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 573-618.

[17]. Rowley, J., Dysard, G., & Arnold, J. (2005). Developing a new technology infusion program for preparing tomorrow's teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 105-123.

[18]. Savenye, W. C. (1993, February). Measuring teacher attitudes toward interactive computer technologies. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. New Orleans, LA.

[19]. Simonson, M. R., & Thompson, A. (Eds.). (1997). Educational computing foundations. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prince Hall.

[20]. Tutty, J. l., Klein, J. D., &Sullivan, H. (2006). Effects of computer integration training and computer literacy training on preservice teachers‘ confidence and proficiency related to technology use. Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology conference. Orlando, FL.

[21]. U.S. Department of Education (2000). Progress report on educational technology: state by state profiles (3671). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

[22]. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology. Retrieved October 16, 2004, from http://www.pt3.org

[23]. Wetzel, K. (1993). Teacher educator's use of computers in education. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 407-410.

[24]. Willis, E. M., & Sujo de Montes, L. (2002). Does requiring a technology course in preservice teacher education affect student teacher's technology use in the classroom? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(3), 76-80.

[25]. Wright, J. L., & Shade, D. D. (1994). Young children: active learners in a technological age. Washington, D.C.: NAEYC.

[26]. Wright, V.H. & Wilson, E.K. (2007). A partnership of educators to promote technology integration: Designing a master Technology teacher program.Education. 128 (1), 80-86.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

The Ideology of Innovation Education and its Emergence as a New subject in Compulsory Schools

Svanborg R Jonsdottir* , Gisli Thorsteinsson, Tom Page*

* Chair of the lcelandicTeachersAssociation for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education.

Assistant Professor, Department of Design and Craft, Iceland UnNersify of Educatlon, Research Scholar, Loughborough University

* Lecturer of Electronic Product Design,Department of Design andTechnology LoughboroughUniversitY,England.

Svanborg R Jonsdottir and Gisli Thorsteinsson, Tom Page (2008 The Ideology of Innovation Education and its Emergence as a New subject in Compulsory Schools. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.715

Abstract

Innovation Education and Practical Use of Knowledge was introduced into the Icelandic National Curriculum for compulsory schools in 1999, where it is defined by the curriculum writers as a “school subject” but is not allocated any direct time in the recommended guidelines for subjects. This paper describes a master’s research project from the University of Iceland, Faculty of Pedagogy and Education which focuses on how Innovation Education emerged in Iceland and how the subject has developed; what makes the subject special; and what factors, internal and external, have influenced its dissemination. The paper will include an overview of the data collection and analysis methods and an overview of the findings.

References

[1]. Aéalnamskra grunnskéla. Upplysinga- og tceknimennt. (1999). Reykjavik: Menntamalaraouneyti.

[2]. Bjarnadéttir, R., (1993). Leiosogn - liour istarfsmenntun kennara. Reykjavik: Rannsoknarstofnun Kennarahaskola islands.

[3]. Creswell, J. W., (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing Among Five Traditions. London: Sage Publications.

[4]. Dewey, J., (2000). Hugsun og menntun (Gunnar Ragnarsson, Trans.). Reykjavik: Rannsoknarstofnun Kennarahaskéla islands.

[5]. Eisner, E. W., (2002). The Educational Imagination. On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. New York: Macmillan.

[6]. Fullan, M., (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change (3. ed.). NewYork: RoutledgeFalmer.

[7]. Geirsdottir, G., (1997). Namskrérgero, namskrarfraeoi og kennarar. Uppeldi og menntun - Timarit Kennarahaskola islands, 6.argangur, 109-119.

[8]. Geirsdottir, G., (1998). Groska i namskrarumraeou. Ny menntamdl, 16[1 ), 6-12.

[9]. Goodlad, J. l., (1984). A Place Called School. Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

[10]. Goodlad, J. l., Ammons, M. P, Buchanan, E. A., Griffin, G. A., Hill, H. W, lwanska, A., et al., (1979). Curriculum Inquiry The Study of Curriculum Practice. NewYork: McGraw-Hill BookCompany.

[11]. Goodson, I. F., (1993). School Subjects and Curriculum Change. Studies in Curriculum History (3. ed.). London: The Falmer Press.

[12]. Gunnarsdottir, R., (2001). Innovation Education: Defining the Phenomenon. Unpublished Ph.D. ritgero, The University of Leeds, Leeds.

[13]. Hamilton, D., (1993). Ao froeoast um uppeldi og menntun (Bjarni Bjarnason & Olafur Proppé, Trans.). Reykjavik: Rannsoknarstofnun Kennarahaskola islands.

[14]. isaksson, A., (1983). Namskrargero og namskrarfraeoi. In Sigurjén Bjornsson [Ed.), Athofn og oro (pp. 25-44). Reykjavik: Mal og menning.

[15]. Johannsson, P, (2003). NKG - Nysképunarkeppni grunskolanemenda. Greinargero yfir starfio 2003 (Greinargero). Kopavogur: Nyskopunarkeppni grunnskolanemenda.

[16]. Jénsdéttir. S. R., (2004). Nyskopun i grunnskola. Skapandi skoli i tengslum vio raunveruleikann. Netla. Veftimarit um uppeldi og menntun, soft 04.04. 2004 a.

[17]. Markmid upplysinga- og taaknimennta i grunnskélum og framhaldsskélum. Skyrsla forvinnuhéps a namssvidi upplysinga- og taeknimennta. (Endurskoéun adalnémskréa 1996-1998)(1997). Endurskooun aoalnamskraa 1996-1998). Reykjavik: Menntamalaraouneyti.

[18]. Néms- og kennsluskré Kennarahérskéla islands. Héskélaérié 2003-2004.,(2003). Reykjavik: Kennarahaskoli islands.

[19]. Sarason, S. B., (1971). The Culture ofthe School and the Problem of Change (5. ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

[20]. Sergiovanni, T. J., (1995). The Principalship. A Reflective Practice Perspective (3. ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

[21]. Shaugnessy, J. J., & Zechmeister, E. B., (1990). Reserarch Methods in Psychology (2. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

[22]. Sigpérsson, R., Hansen, B., Hannesson, J. B., Jéhannsson, (O. H., Eggertsdottir, R., & West, M., (1999). Aukin gceoi nams. Skolaproun lpdgu nemenda. Reykjavik: Rannsoknarstofnun Kennarahaskola islands.

[23]. Sveinbjarnardottir, S., (2004). lodttur skolastjornenda i umbétum og nybreytnistarfi. Unpublished M.A. ritgero i uppeldis- og menntunarfrwoi, Haskoli islands, Reykjavik.

[24]. Traustadottir, R., (1993). Konnun a’ atvinnuhogum nemenda brautskraoum fra starfsdeild Oskjuhlioarskola. Reykjavik: Landssamtokin Proskahjalp.

[25]. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L.. [200]]. Tinkering Toward Utopia. A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.

[26]. Tyler, R. W., (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

[27]. Vigborsson, B., (2003). Bot eoa Dot? Hugleioingar um Aoalnamskra grunnskola 199.Netla.Veftimarit um uppeldi og menntun.

[28]. Walker, D., (1990]. Fundamentals ofCurricuium. Fort Worth, London: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

[29]. Thorsteinsson, G., (2002). Innovation education On Educational video about Innovation Education in the conventional Icelandschool context. Reykjavik: inet.is

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Role of Educational Technology in Distance Teacher Training Programme

Aijaz Ahmed Gujjar* , Bushra Naoreen Choudhry**

* Lecturer, Federal College of Education, Islamabad, Pakistan.

** Lecturer, GC University, FaisaIabad Pakistan., Research Scholar, Department of Education, The lslamia College.

Dr. Aijaz Ahmed Gujjar and Dr.Bushra Naoreen Choudhry (2008 Role of Educational Technology in Distance Teacher Training Programme. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 85-92. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.717

Abstract

Educational technology is the development, application and evaluation of systems, techniques and aids to improve the process of human learning. In almost all the important activities engaged in the name of teaching, training or instructions the possibility of using educational technology has been explored and is being explored, even today. Educational technology is a matter of making education more meaningful or a question of improving its quality or even the issue of making it accessible to more children. One thing that always prominently matters is the teacher, the quality of his preparation and his maintenance as a professional. His/her performance is the most crucial input in the field of education. So their training with special linkage with technology is one of the most essential needs. The use of educational technology is an innovative practice, which needs to be adopted by every teacher. The present study was undertaken with a view to evaluate the quality of educational technology used in teacher training, to specify the advantages of educational technology in teacher training and to identify the problems in the use of educational technology in teacher training. To achieve the desire end, data was collected from 200 student teachers/prospective teachers enrolled in B.Ed course of Allama Iqbal Open University in the semester spring 2006 from Multan region through a thirty one items questionnaire on likert scale. The study reports that use of educational technology does not get its due status in the Pakistani settings. The major findings are the course does not include all the essential components of educational technology, attitude towards usefulness of educational technology is not positive, teacher training programme is not supported by the use of mass media, the teacher training programme is not supported by models and display cards, teacher training programme is not supported by use of computers, teacher training programme is not supported by micro teaching. Besides it very interesting findings were found. It is recommended that computer must be provided during training, Internet facilities should be provided during training session and teacher training programme can be improved by the effective use of educational technology.

References

[1]. Ahluwalia, S.R & Bais, H.S. (1992). Education: Issues and Challenges. New Delhi: A.P.H Publishing Corporation.

[2]. Bates, A.W. (1984). The Role of Technology in Distance Education. Great Britain: Croom Helm Ltd.

[3]. Commission on Instructional Technology. (1970). To improve learning. A report to the President and the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC. Commission on Instructional Technology.

[4]. Fred Percival and Henry Ellington (1984). A Handbook of Educational Technology. Worcester: Billings & Sons Ltd.

[5]. Hawkridge. (1983). New Information in Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopiuns University Press.

[6]. Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review, 42, 449-96.

[7]. Ministary of Education, (1990). Teacher Education in Pakistan. Islamabad: Government of Pakistan.

[8]. Peers R. (1972). Adult Education: A Comparative Study. New York: Routedge & Kegn Paull.

[9]. Rashid, M. (2006). Effectiveness of Non-Formal Education through the use of Instructional Media. Pakistan Journal of Education, VoI.XXIlI, No.l. Islamabad. Allama Iqbal Open University.

[10]. Rowntree, D. (2003). Assessing Students, How shall we know them? New Dehli: Crest Publishing House.

[11]. Schramm, W. (1967). The new Media, Memo to Educational Planners. UNESCO: International Institute for Planning.

[12]. Siddiqui. A.M. (1991). ln—service Teacher Education. New Delhi: Ashish Publishing House.

[13]. Singh, Y.K. (2005). Instructional Technology in Education. New Dehli: A.RH Publishing Corporation.

[14]. Srinivasan, T.M.(2005). Instructional Technology Jaipur: Pointer Publishers.

[15]. The third Regional conference on ministers of education on Asian countries 1976. (1976).

[16]. UNESCO, (1981). World Guide to Higher Education: A Comparative Study of System, Degrees and Qualifications. NewYork: UNESCO.

[17]. Uzma. E.[2001]. Role of Educational Technology in Teacher Training. Islamabad: Allama Iqbal Open University.

[18]. Whitehead, [1967]. Process and Reality New York: Macmillan.

i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology (JSCH)

Current Issue Vol. 20 Issue 1

Most Read

Most Cited

Volume 3 Issue 4 March - May 2008

Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan*

* Assistant Professor of TEFL, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan (2008). Performance Assessment In Language Testing. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.640

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Irshad Husain*

* Assistant Professor, Department of Education, lnternational lslamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Irshad Hussain (2008). Information Technologies and Globalization: New Perspective of Teaching Learning Process. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.642

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Linda Cole Atkinson* , Mary John O'hair**, H. Dan O'hair***, Leslie Ann Williams****

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

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Qing Li* , Xin Ma**

*Associate Professor ,Faculty of Education ,University of Calgory **Professor ,Department of Curriculum and instruction,University of Kentucky

Qing Li and Xin Ma (2008). Technology in Mathematics Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis of the Recent Literature.i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 34-54. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.701

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Sunha Kim* , Mido Chang**

*Research Scholar ,Instructional Design and Technology ,Virginia Tech USA. **Assistant Professor ,Department of EDucational Leadership and Policy studies ,Virginia Tech USA.

Sunha Kim and Mido Chang (2008). Computer Use in Diverse Learning Contexts in ELS 2002: Gender, Race and Learner-Centeredness Effects and Implications. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.702

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Michele Alfieri* , Jeremy I. Tutty**

* Doctoral Student, Educational Technology Northcentral University **AssistantProfessor, Educational Technology, Boise State University

Michele Alfieri and Jeremy I. Tutty (2008). Preparing Teachers to use Technology: Effects of Training Experience on Confidence and Knowledge. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.714

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Svanborg R Jonsdottir* , Gisli Thorsteinsson**, Tom Page***

Svanborg R Jonsdottir and Gisli Thorsteinsson, Tom Page (2008 The Ideology of Innovation Education and its Emergence as a New subject in Compulsory Schools. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.715

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Aijaz Ahmed Gujjar* , Bushra Naoreen Choudhry**

* Lecturer, Federal College of Education, Islamabad, Pakistan. ** Lecturer, GC University, FaisaIabad Pakistan., Research Scholar, Department of Education, The lslamia College.

Dr. Aijaz Ahmed Gujjar and Dr.Bushra Naoreen Choudhry (2008 Role of Educational Technology in Distance Teacher Training Programme. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 3(4), 85-92. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.3.4.717

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Linda Cole Atkinson* , Mary John O'hair, H. Dan O'hair*, Leslie Ann Williams****

*Associate Professor ,Faculty of Education ,University of Calgory

**Professor ,Department of Curriculum and instruction,University of Kentucky

*Research Scholar ,Instructional Design and Technology ,Virginia Tech USA.

**Assistant Professor ,Department of EDucational Leadership and Policy studies ,Virginia Tech USA.

* Doctoral Student, Educational Technology Northcentral University

**AssistantProfessor, Educational Technology, Boise State University

Svanborg R Jonsdottir* , Gisli Thorsteinsson, Tom Page*

* Lecturer, Federal College of Education, Islamabad, Pakistan.

** Lecturer, GC University, FaisaIabad Pakistan., Research Scholar, Department of Education, The lslamia College.