Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology and educational empowerment: Students' perspectives

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As part of a two-year investigation of technological innovation in one secondary school, nine senior students participated in one-hour interviews that explored their perceptions of the proper role of technology in their schooling. Student responses were analyzed and compared to those of their teachers for similarities and differences in perceptions about desirable uses and goals for technology. Like their teachers, a majority preferred to adapt technology to support traditional, teacher-centered instruction. A minority valued technology as a facilitator of student-centered inquiry and appeared to differ from the majority in beliefs about schooling and in dispositional tolerances for uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Becker, H. (1991). When powerful tools meet conventional beliefs and institutional constraints.Computing Teacher, 18(8), 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, J., Chandra, P., & Cox, M. (1986). The introduction of computers into a school.Computers and Education.10(1), 49–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, R., & Barth, J. (1992). Social studies standards that effectively integrate technology.Social Education, 56(1), 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993).The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt, R., Raymond, D., McCue, G., & Yamagishi, L. (1992). Collaborative autobiography and the teacher's voice. In I.I. Goodson (Ed.),Studying teachers' lives (pp. 51–98). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Research, 19(6), 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991). Technology and the design of generative learning environments.Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D.K. (1988a). Educational technology & school organization. In R. Nikerson & P. Zodhiates (Eds.),Technology in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 231–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D.K. (1988b). Teaching practice: Plus que ca change. In P. Jackson (Ed.)Contributing to educational change (pp. 27–84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1990). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. In K. Sheingold & M. Tucker (Eds.),Restructuring for learning with technology (pp. 29–46). New York: Center for Technology in Education and the National Center on Education and the Economy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1984).How teachers taught. New York: Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1986).Teachers and machines: Classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938).Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work.Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What we've learned.Educational Leadership, 51(7), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. (1991). Changes in teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms.Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, L. (1992). Moving your district toward technology: It's a bit easier now that we know many of the don'ts! In J. Hirschbuhl and L. Wilkinson (Eds.),Computers in Education (pp. 130–131). Guilford, CN: Dushkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1984).Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1984).Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, R., & Sullivan, H. (1995). Learner control in full and lean CAI programs.Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, G., Kell, D., & Drexler, N. (1990). Implementing technology in the classroom: Paths to success and failure. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

  • Hawkins, J., & Sheingold K. (1986). The beginning of the story: Computers and the organization of learning in classrooms. In J.A. Culbertson & L.L. Cunningham (Eds.),Microcomputers and education (pp 40–58). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, J. (1994). Evaluating the effects of technology in school reform. In Means, B. (Ed.),Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise (pp. 133–167). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., & Moeller, B. (1990).Teachers' beliefs and technology integration: Different values, different understandings, Technical report no. 60. New York: Center for Technology in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, E. (1979). Technology versus craft: A ten year perspective on innovation.Journal of curriculum studies, 11(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. (1991). Lever and fulcrum: Educational technology in teachers' thought and practice.Teacher College Record, 93(1), 115–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinzie, M., Sullivan, H., & Burdel, R. (1988). Learner control and achievement in science computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 299–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinzie, M., & Sullivan, H. (1989). Continuing motivation, learner control, and CAI.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1991).Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S., & Hannafin, M. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-inaction with open-ended learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lortie, D. (1975).School-teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, S. (1986).Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G., Ross, S., & Baldwin, W. (1992). Learner control of context and instructional support in learning elementary school mathematics.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D. (1990). Opportunities for research on the organizational impact of school computers.Educational Researcher, 19(3), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmann, F. (1991). Higher order thinking in the teaching of social studies: Connections between theory and practice. In J. Voss, D. Perkins & J. Segal (Eds.),Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nias, J. (1985). The life cycle of the teacher. In S. Ball & I Goodson (Eds.),Teachers' lives and careers (pp. 27–60). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J. (1992).Understanding teaching. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J., & Sullivan, H. (1990). Practice mode and learner control in computer-based instruction.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, A., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. (1985).The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringstaff, C., Sandholtz, J., & Dwyer, D. (1991). Trading places: When teachers utilize student expertise in technology-intensive classrooms. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Ross, S., Morrison, G., & O'Dell, J. (1989). Uses and effects of learner control of context and instructional support in computer-based instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(4), 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S., & Rakow, E. (1981). Learner control versus program control as adaptive strategies for selection of instructional support on math rules.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 745–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saye, J. (1994).Teachers, technology, and the acceptance of innovation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

  • Saye, J. (1995).Technology in the classroom: The role of dispositions in teacher gatekeeping. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Shin, C., Schallert, D., & Savenye, W. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students; learning in a hypertext environment.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shao, M., Carey, J., & Ehrlich, E. (1992). Computers in school: A loser? Or a lost opportunity? In J. Hirshbuhl & L. Wilkinson (Eds.),Computers in education (pp. 6–8). Guilford, CN: Dushkin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheingold, K., Hawkins, J., & Char, C. (1990). ‘I'm the thinkist, you're the typist’: The interaction of technology and the social life of classrooms. In O. Boyd-Barret & E. Scanlon (Eds.),Computers and learning (pp. 174–185). Workingham, England: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, I. (1993). An investigation into students' perceptions of the learning environment provided by hypermedia tools in an interdisciplinary high school course of studies. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED367292

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L., Kleine, P., Prunty, J., & Dwyer, D. (1992). School improvement and educator personality: stages, types, traits or processes? In I.I. Goodson (Ed.),Studying teachers' lives (pp. 153–166). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swann, K., & Mitriani, M. (1993). The changing nature of teaching and leaning in computer-based classrooms.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(1), 40–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, A. (1985).The accidental tourist. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Horn, R. (1991). Educational power tools: New instructional delivery systems.Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 527–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B., Hamilton, R., Teslow, J., & Cyr, T. (1994). Technology making a difference: The Peakview Elementary School study. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolcott, H. (1977).Teachers vs. technocrats: An educational innovation in anthropological perspective. Eugene, OR, University of Oregon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelman, S. (1985).Individual differences in the computer learning environment: Motivational constraints to learning LOGO. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. ED258548

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 5040 Haley Center, Auburn University, 36849-5212, AL

    John W. Saye (assistant professor)

Authors
  1. John W. Saye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John W. Saye.

Additional information

This paper is based on work done as part of the author's doctoral dissertation at the University of Georgia. Portions of the paper were presented at the 9th Annual International Qualitative Research in Education Conference, Athens, GA, January, 1996.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saye, J.W. Technology and educational empowerment: Students' perspectives. ETR&D 45, 5–25 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299522

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299522

Keywords

Search

Navigation