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

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.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    By faculty, we mean all people, including graduate students, who hold undergraduate teaching positions (excluding TA’s)—whether full- or part-time, tenured or untenured—in postsecondary institutions, except for emeritus instructors and postdoctoral researchers.

  2. 2.

    This means that, at least initially, each instructor has multiple rows of data, one for each 5-min interval that was observed.

  3. 3.

    A typical 50-min class would have ten 5-min intervals worth of data per respondent.

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75–95.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2000). Models of the teaching process. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 243–261.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Smeby, J. C. (1996). Disciplinary differences in university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 69–79.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Stark, J. S. (2000). Planning introductory college courses: Content, context and form. Instructional Science, 28, 413–438.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew T. Hora.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hora, M.T., Holden, J. Exploring the role of instructional technology in course planning and classroom teaching: implications for pedagogical reform. J Comput High Educ 25, 68–92 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9068-4

Download citation

Keywords

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