Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology for Learning and Teaching

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Self-organizing University

  • 376 Accesses

Abstract

In the preceding chapters, we have shown why a university needs to know what professionally controlled learning and teaching means at a whole-of-organization level if it is to exert an influence on student learning at scale. In this chapter, we demonstrate how and why an effort chain approach in the pre-contextual university limits the role of technology rendering it a distal influence unable to produce the transformational benefits achieved in fields capable of professionally controlled practice (Bowker and Star 2000).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Web 2.0 is a second iteration of the World Wide Web that focuses on the ability of people to collaborate and share information online (Webopedia, 2014).

  2. 2.

    While this quote is important in its conceptualization of technology and for the purposes of this chapter we wish to note that we disagree with the representation of Down syndrome as a disease.

  3. 3.

    A virtual location for group work common to learning management systems.

References

  • Bain, A. (2012). Smart Tools (Versions1.0 and 2.0) Computer Software. Bathurst, NSW: Charles Sturt University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, A., & Drengenberg, N. (2016). Transforming the measurement of learning and teaching in higher education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, A., & Weston, M. E. (2011). The learning edge: What technology can do to educate all children. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. New York: Perseus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M., & Reeves, T. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G., & Star, S. (2000). Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, M. E. (1968). How do committees invent. Datamation, 14(5), 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drengenberg, N., & Bain, A. (2016). If all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail—How wicked is the problem of measuring productivity in higher education? Higher Education Research & Development. doi:10.1080/07294360.2016.1208640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. (Publication No. 2007–4005). Retrieved April 27, 2007, from Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Web site: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20074005.pdf

  • Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (2009). The next 25 years? Future scenarios and future directions for education and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26, 74–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guri-Rosenbilt, S., & Gros, B. (2011). E-Learning, confusing terminology, research gaps and inherent challenges. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, 25(1). Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/729/1206.

  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmons, R. (2015). Online system adoptions and K-12 academic outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 31(4), 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation: Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, P. (2001). Cyberculture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning online: What research tells us about whether, when and how. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, A. (2012, January 3). 10 Educational Technology Quotes. Retrieved from http://teachbytes.com/2012/03/01/10-educational-technology-quotes/.

  • Santoro, L., & Bishop, M. (2010). Selecting software with caution: an empirical evaluation of popular beginning reading software for children with early literacy difficulties. Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Huntsberger, B., & Maloney, C. (2009). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Final outcomes for a four-year study (2004–05 to 2007–08). Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvernail, D. (2007). The impact of the Maine Learning Technology Initiative on teachers, students, and learning. Retrieved from http://usm.maine.edu/cepare/mlti.htm.

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. (2005). A synthesis of new research on K–12 online learning. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 331–347. doi:10.1037/a0034752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge maps: ICTs in education. Washington D.C.: InfoDev, The Information for Development Program. Retrieved from http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.8.html.

  • Verbeek, P. P. (2006). ‘Materializing Morality—Design ethics and technological mediation. Retrieved from https://www.utwente.nl/bms/wijsb/organization/verbeek/materializing-morality.pdf.

  • Webopedia. (2016). Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/Web_2_point_0.html.

  • Weston, M., & Bain, A. (2014). Bridging the research-to-practice gap in education: A software-mediated approach for improving classroom instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/bjet.12157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, M., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(6), 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing Teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youssef, A., & Dahmani, M. (2010). The impact of ICT on student performance in higher education: Direct effects, indirect effects and organisational change. Paper Presented at The First International Conference on e-Learning for All, Hammamet, Tunisia. Retrieved from http://pf-mh.uvt.rnu.tn/45/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Arts and Education, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia

    Alan Bain & Lucia Zundans-Fraser

Authors
  1. Alan Bain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lucia Zundans-Fraser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan Bain .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bain, A., Zundans-Fraser, L. (2017). Technology for Learning and Teaching. In: The Self-organizing University. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4917-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4917-0_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4916-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4917-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation