Advertisement

THE PRACTICALITY OF IMPLEMENTING CONNECTED CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY IN SECONDARY MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

  • Melissa L. ShirleyEmail author
  • Karen E. Irving
  • Vehbi A. Sanalan
  • Stephen J. Pape
  • Douglas T. Owens
Article

ABSTRACT

Connected classroom technology (CCT) is a member of a broad class of interactive assessment devices that facilitate communication between students and teachers and allow for the rapid aggregation and display of student learning data. Technology innovations such as CCT have been demonstrated to positively impact student achievement when integrated into a variety of classroom contexts. However, teachers are unlikely to implement a new instructional practice unless they perceive the practical value of the reform. Practicality consists of three constructs: congruence with teacher’s values and practice; instrumentality—compatibility with the existing school structures; and cost/benefits—whether the reward is worth the effort. This study uses practicality as a framework for understanding CCT implementation in secondary classrooms. The experiences of three science teachers in their first year implementing CCT are compared with matched-pair mathematics teachers. Findings suggest that despite some differences in specific uses and purposes for CCT, the integration of CCT into regular classroom practice is quite similar in mathematics and science classrooms. These findings highlight important considerations for the implementation of educational technology.

KEY WORDS

audience response system connected classroom technology educational innovation educational technology mathematics education practicality index science education technology implementation technology integration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. PL 111-5.—FEB. 17, 2009 123 STAT. 521, Washington DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  2. Ash, K. (2009). Guidance issued for technology funds in stimulus. Education Week, 28(37), 19.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). Retrieved 17 December 2009 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51.
  4. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment in classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453–477.Google Scholar
  6. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H. & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doyle, W. & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durndell, A. & Thomson, K. (1997). Gender and computing: A decade of change. Computers & Education, 28(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Education Week (2005). Technology counts 2005, 24(35).Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fies, C. & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fox, R. & Henri, J. (2005). Understanding teacher mind sets: IT and change in Hong Kong schools. Educational Technology and Society, 8(2), 161–169.Google Scholar
  14. Goodson, I. F. & Mangan, J. M. (1995). Subject cultures and the introduction of classroom computers. British Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 613–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K. & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hew, K. F. & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hopkins, P. D. (1998). Sex/machine: Readings in culture, gender and technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277–302.Google Scholar
  19. Irving, K. E., Pape, S. J., Owens, D. T., Abrahamson, L., Silver, D. & Sanalan, V. (2010). Longitudinal study of classroom connectivity in promoting mathematics and science achievement: Years 1–3. A paper presented at the 2010 AERA Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  20. Irving, K. E., Sanalan, V. A. & Shirley, M. L. (2009). Physical science connected classrooms: Case studies. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(3), 247–275.Google Scholar
  21. Karagiorgi, Y. (2005). Throwing light into the black box of implementation: ICT in Cyprus elementary schools. Educational Media International, 42(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerka, S. (1995). Access to information: To have and have not. Ohio: ERIC Clearing House (ED 382821).Google Scholar
  23. Lim, C. P., Teo, Y. H., Wong, P., Khine, M. S., Chai, C. S. & Divaharan, S. (2003). Creating a conducive learning environment for the effective integration of ICT: Classroom management issues. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(4), 405–423.Google Scholar
  24. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J. & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  25. Neiderhauser, D. S. & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M. & Bebell, D. J. (2004). Identifying teacher, school, district characteristics associated with elementary teachers’ use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48). Retrieved 17 December 2009 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n48.
  27. Owens, D. T., Pape, S. L., Irving, K. E., Sanalan, V. A., Boscardin, C. K., Abrahamson, L. (2008). The connected algebra classroom: A randomized control trial. Research Paper. Proceedings of the International Congress on Mathematics Education, July 6–13, 2008, Monterrey, Mexico, 7 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Pape, S. J., Irving, K. E., Owens, D. T., Boscardin, C. K., Sanalan, V. A., Abrahamson, L., Kaya, S., et al. (2008). The impact of classroom connectivity in promoting Algebra I achievement: Results of a randomized control trial. Paper presented at the 2008 AERA Annual Meeting, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  29. PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world: Executive summary. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  30. Quality Education Data (QED) Report (2004). 2004–2005 Technology purchasing forecast (10th ed.). New York: Scholastic Company.Google Scholar
  31. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R. & Abrahamson, L. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 50–54.Google Scholar
  32. Ruthven, K. (2008). Mathematical technologies as a vehicle for intuition and experiment: A foundational theme of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction, and a continuing preoccupation. International Journal for the History of Mathematics Education, 3(2), 91–102.Google Scholar
  33. Selwyn, N. (1999). Differences in educational computer use: The influences of subject cultures. The Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 29–48.Google Scholar
  34. Shirley, M. L. (2009). A model of formative assessment practice in secondary science classrooms using an audience response system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  35. Siskin, L. S. (1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject culture in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17, 134–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Snoeyink, R. & Ertmer, P. A. (2001–2002). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Sutton, R. E. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 475–503.Google Scholar
  39. Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trotter, A. (2007). Getting up to speed. Education Week, 26(30), 10–12.Google Scholar
  41. Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11(3/4), 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S. & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104, 482–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melissa L. Shirley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karen E. Irving
    • 2
  • Vehbi A. Sanalan
    • 3
  • Stephen J. Pape
    • 4
  • Douglas T. Owens
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Education and Human Development, Department of Teaching and LearningUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  3. 3.Erzincan UniversityErzincanTurkey
  4. 4.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations