Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 68–92 | Cite as

Exploring the role of instructional technology in course planning and classroom teaching: implications for pedagogical reform

Article

Abstract

Instructional technology plays a key role in many teaching reform efforts at the postsecondary level, yet evidence suggests that faculty adopt these technology-based innovations in a slow and inconsistent fashion. A key to improving these efforts is to understand local practice and use these insights to design more locally attuned interventions. This exploratory study draws on systems-of-practice theory from distributed cognition research to provide a framework for producing comprehensive accounts of technology use. This account includes three components: (a) awareness of the local resource base for instructional technology, (b) decision-making processes regarding tool use, and (c) actual classroom use of technology. Interviews and classroom observations of 40 faculty in math, physics, and biology departments at three research universities in the U.S. were analyzed using thematic and causal network analysis. Results indicate that faculty have both a shared and discipline-specific resource base for instructional technology. The adoption, adaptation, or rejection of technology-based innovations is influenced by the alignment among pre-existing beliefs and goals, prior experiences, perceived affordances of particular tools, and cultural conventions of the disciplines. Classroom use of technology varied across disciplinary groups, with mathematicians and biologists exhibiting relatively limited repertoires of tool use while physicists used a larger variety of tools. Additionally, different tools were associated with different teaching methods and types of student cognitive engagement. Policymakers and instructional designers can use these insights to inform the design and implementation of technology-based initiatives, especially in ensuring that innovations resonate with existing belief systems and practices.

Keywords

Instructional technology Adoption of innovations Decision-making Perceived affordances Math and science education Teaching 

References

  1. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2002). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, G., & Bakhtar, M. (1987). Styles of lecturing: A study and its implications. Research Papers in Education, 3(2), 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  6. Chi, M. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, R. (2009). Translating research into new instructional technologies for higher education: The active ingredient process. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobb, P., Zhao, Q., & Dean, C. (2009). Conducting design experiments to support teachers’ learning: A reflection from the field. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2), 165–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Consortium for Policy Research in Education Rep. No. RR-43. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Crandall, B., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education: A status report. Commissioned Paper for the Board of Science Education Workshop, Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education.Google Scholar
  17. Fishman, B. (2005). Adapting innovations to particular contexts of use: A collaborative framework. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation (pp. 48–66). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. Garrison, D., & Akyol, Z. (2009). Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wledenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  23. Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 236–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Halverson, R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(37), 1–35.Google Scholar
  25. Halverson, R. R., & Clifford, M. A. (2006). Evaluation in the wild: A distributed cognition perspective on teacher assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 578–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hativa, N. (1995). What is taught in an undergraduate lecture? Differences between a matched pair of pure and applied disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 64, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hativa, N., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2002). Teacher thinking, beliefs, and knowledge in higher education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. (2008). Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Physics (Physics Education Research Section), 76(1), 79–91.Google Scholar
  29. Hora, M. T. (2012). Organizational factors and instructional decision-making: A cognitive perspective. The Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 207–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lane, C. A., & Lyle, H. F. (2011). Obstacles and supports related to the use of educational technologies: The role of technological expertise, gender, and age. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(1), 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lazerson, M., Wagener, U., & Shumanis, N. (2000). What makes a revolution? Teaching and learning in higher education, 1980–2000. Change, 32(3), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martinko, M. J., Henry, J. W., & Zmud, R. W. (1996). An attributional explanation of individual resistance to the introduction of information technologies in the workplace. Behaviour & Information Technology, 15(5), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marrs, K. A., & Novak, G. (2004). Just-in-time teaching in biology: Creating an active learner classroom using the Internet. Cell Biology Education, 3, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323, 50–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meltzer, D. E., & Manivannan, K. (2002). Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture. American Journal of Physics, 70(6), 639–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Molenda, M., & Bichelmeyer, B. (2006). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Slow growth as economy recovers. In M. Orey, J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 31, pp. 3–32). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  44. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). Engagement in a profession: The case of undergraduate teaching. Daedalus, 134(3), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  46. National Research Council. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  47. Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Norman, D. (1998). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  49. Osthoff, E., Clune, W., Ferrare, J., Kretchmar, K., & White, P. (2009). Implementing immersion: Design, professional development, classroom enactment and learning effects of an extended science inquiry unit in an urban district. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  50. Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794.Google Scholar
  51. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for American’s future. Washington, DC: White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.Google Scholar
  53. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.Google Scholar
  54. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2000). Models of the teaching process. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1995). Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 64, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smeby, J. C. (1996). Disciplinary differences in university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  59. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Spotts, T. H., Bowman, M. A., & Mertz, C. (1997). Gender and use of instructional technologies: A study of university faculty. Higher Education, 34(4), 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stark, J. S. (2000). Planning introductory college courses: Content, context and form. Instructional Science, 28, 413–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of “peer instruction”. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020101-1–020101-18.Google Scholar
  64. Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty cultures and college teaching. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wisconsin Center for Education ResearchUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations