...

technology use for teaching and learning usos de la tecnología para

by user

on
Category:

education

44

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

technology use for teaching and learning usos de la tecnología para
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
TECHNOLOGY USE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
USOS DE LA TECNOLOGÍA PARA ENSEÑAR Y APRENDER
Dr. Antoni Badia Garganté1
[email protected]
Dr. Julio MenesesNaranjo1
[email protected]
Consuelo Garcia Tamarit2
[email protected]
(1)
eLearn Center. Open University of Catalonia. C/ Roc Boronat, nº 117 - Planta 6, 08018,
Barcelona (España)
(2)
Department of Psychology and Education. Open University of Catalonia
Rambla del Poblenou, nº 156, 08018, Barcelona (España)
The article main objective is to categorise the different uses teachers and students make of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) as a teaching and learning tool in
technology-rich classrooms. A questionnaire about possible uses was developed following
the guidelines provided by the literature review. A sample of teachers (n=278) who teach in
highly technological classrooms participated in the study. Four types of educational ICT
uses in the classroom turned out of the exploratory factor analysis, technology usage for:
teachers' content generation and interaction, and students' content generation and
interaction. Useful ideas for researchers and teachers are provided.
Keywords: Learning tool, educational innovation and ICT, technology-rich learning
environments, ICT and teaching.
El principal objetivo de este artículo es clasificar los diversos usos que los docentes y los
alumnos hacen de las Tecnologías de la Comunicación y la Información (TIC) como
herramienta de enseñanza y aprendizaje en aulas altamente dotadas de tecnología. Se
desarrolló un cuestionario sobre los posibles usos siguiendo las directrices proporcionadas
por la revisión de la literatura. Participaron en el estudio una muestra de profesores (n =
278) que enseñan en aulas altamente dotadas de tecnología. El análisis factorial exploratorio
muestra la existencia de cuatro tipos de uso educativo de las TIC en las aulas: el profesor usa
la tecnología para el contenido, el profesor usa la tecnología para la interacción, los alumnos
usan la tecnología para el contenido, y los alumnos usan la tecnología para la interacción.
Finalmente, se proporcionan ideas útiles para investigadores y profesores.
Palabras clave: Herramienta de aprendizaje, innovación educativa y TIC, entornos de
aprendizaje ricos en tecnología, enseñanza.
-9Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
1. Introduction.
According to Van Braak, Tondeur and
Valcke (2004), teachers use computers mainly
for two types of professional activity, referred
to as «supportive use of computers» and «use
of computers in the classroom». Computers
are used as a support when they are
incorporated into the teacher’s professional
practice outside the classroom (Meneses,
Fàbregues, Rodríguez-Gómez & Ion, 2012),
providing assistance to classroom teaching.
Several authors (Bebell, Russell & O’Dwyer,
2004; Hsu, 2010; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer &
O’Connor, 2003; Ward & Parr, 2009) include
in this category computer uses for the
professional development of teachers,
administrative tasks, the design and planning
of instruction, and personal use. The use of
computers in the classroom involves the use
of ICT during the lessons, as an integral part
of the teacher’s teaching and student’s
learning.
Several authors (Tondeur, Van Braak
&Valcke, 2007; Twining, 2002) distinguish
between three types of computer use in the
classroom: as content (learning basic
computer skills), as an information tool, and
as a learning tool. The first type of use relates to acquiring «computer literacy». ICT is a
specific school subject designed to teach
students the basic technical skills to use
computers, use keyboards and mice, and to
learn the basic concepts and procedures of
operating systems. The second type of use
refers to the concept of computers as
information tools, which includes this use to
select, retrieve, store, access, view, display
and send information. Finally, the view of
computers as learning tools, according to
Ainley, Banks and Fleming (2002), is related
to the role of technology in mediating the
educational interaction that students can
establish with the syllabus content and their
peers.
We consider that there are two important
limitations concerning these categories. First,
all existing classifications are biased towards
students’ learning activity and do not
incorporate the teacher’s activity as a
criterion. Furthermore, the third category that
considers ICT as a learning tool is too broad
to be useful to characterize technology as a
support for teaching and learning.
Accordingly, it is necessary to go deeper into
this topic in order to have a new and integrated
overall classification that helps researchers
and teachers, as a starting point for a
reasonable and good use of ICT in the
classroom, not only from the technological
point of view but also from the point of view
of teaching and learning specific curriculum
content.
2. Technology use as a teaching and
learning tool.
To achieve such a classification proposal
it is necessary to take into account the
technological, instructional and educational
issues that may influence the use of ICT as a
learning tool. The Squires and McDougall
(1994) approach meets this challenge as it
proposes three different criteria for identifying
and classifying the use of educational
computers in the classroom: software use,
instructional role of the software, and software relationship with educational rationales.
Categories of software use have a twentyyear tradition (Khan, 1989; Rutven &
Hennessy, 2002; Selwyn, Potter & Cranmer,
2009; Waite, 2004). Currently, software
possibilities are often analysed as ICT
affordances. For instance, Conole and Dyke
- 10 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
(2004) propose a taxonomy of ICT
affordances that includes categories such as
information accessibility and immediacy, fast
information exchange, diversity of learning
experiences, extensive communication and
collaboration technologies, reflection by
means of written discourse analysis, and
multimodal or non-linear access to
information. This type of classification
highlights the technological influences on
managing information and communication in
educational contexts, but do not provide
information about the teaching and learning
processes that occur in the classrooms.
There is also an extensive bibliography on
frameworks focused on the instructional role
of the software (Ainley, Banks & Fleming,
2002; Duffy & McMahon, 1999; Inan,
Lowther, Ross & Strahl, 2010; Jonassen, 1995;
Lim & Tay, 2003; Passey, 2006; Ruthven,
Hennessy & Deaney, 2005). The educational
intentions of the teacher are taken as core
classification criteria.Two types of
educational uses of ICT can be distinguished:
computer-based instruction (Martin, Klein &
Sullivan, 2007), and technology supported
learning (Jonassen, 1995). From a learningbased classification, three broad ICT uses
have been identified: technology as tool for
information management (information
resources, information access, representation
of ideas, communication with others, product
generation), technology as an intellectual
partner or mind tool (to support student
thinking when expressing ideas, reflecting on
what they have learned, or building
representations of knowledge), and
technology as a learning context (for example,
to represent and simulate significant realworld problems or to support discourse
among students through knowledge building
communities).
Significant literature can also be found on
classifications of educational uses of ICT
based on educational rationales, often related
to teachers’ beliefs about teaching and
learning (Hermans, Tondeur, Van Braak &
Valcke, 2008; Levin & Wadmany, 2006; Palak
& Walls, 2009; Tondeur, Hermans, Van Braak
& Valcke, 2008). The distinguishing criterion
adopted is based on the educational
principles that underlie different educational
paradigms. The vast majority of these authors
distinguish between two different
educational perspectives: teacher-centred
teaching, and student-centred learning. In the
first case, the teacher uses ICT to promote
direct instruction and the transmission of
contents. One example is the use of
information presentation software to transmit
content. In the second case, ICT is used to
help students’ knowledge acquisition,
whether individually or through collaborative
learning among peers. One example of this is
the use of online forums to encourage
students to develop the necessary
educational interaction for building shared
meanings on a syllabus topic. Some authors
(Levin & Wadmany, 2006) argue that studentcentred teachers use more open
constructivist software that engage students
in complex learning tasks, work with specific
contents, and are based on problems whose
resolution requires multiple points of view.
By contrast, teachers who adopt direct
instruction approaches use skill-based software, computer-assisted learning, and
learning with technical tools. It may be
important to identify the educational
paradigm that underlies the use of ICT, but
often does not provide useful knowledge to
be used at the pedagogical level.
The three criteria used by Squires and
McDougall (1994) are relevant, but it would
- 11 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
be useful to interrelate them to have an
integrated approach that would help to
provide a broad vision and higher
understanding of how ICT can be used by
teachers and students, as a teaching and
learning tool, in classrooms. An integrated
analytical model also is needed in order to
decide how educational software can be
useful to teaching and learning, whatthe
instructional roles that can be developed by
educational software are, and what the
educational rationales that provide a
theoretical framework for an educational
useare.
3. Technology-rich classrooms.
A more specific categorization of the
educational uses of ICT would be very useful
especially for technology-rich classrooms
(Craig, Ault & Niileksela, 2011; Levin &
Wadmany, 2006; Palak &Walls, 2009).These
types of classrooms are characterised by a
high level of access, both by teachers and
students, to a wide variety of technologies
that can help teaching and learning, and by a
high level of skills in the educational uses of
these technologies.
The research presented here is based on
data collected from eight schools that joined
the project for «Advanced ICT Integration»
(In Catalonian: Integració Avançada de les
TIC, IA-TIC), run by the Department of
Education of the Catalonia Government (20042007), with the aim of fostering the integration
of ICT in schools. Eight public schools (five
Kindergartens and Primary schools, and three
Secondary schools) were selected to
participate in this innovative teaching
experience.
IA-TIC project provided the best possible
technological conditions of that time to these
eight schools - for example, availability of
Internet and computer infrastructure,
educational software and educational
platforms
for
synchronous
and
asynchronous communication, teacher
training and technical support to solve needs
or problems - with the idea that teachers and
students would teach and learn through ICT
without technological or skills and working
conditions barriers. More specifically, the
INDICATORS
Mean of the total number of computers
Mean of the total number of computers used by teachers for
educational purposes
Mean of the total number of computers used by students for
educational purposes
Mean of the total number of computers with Internet access
%of schools with web page
% of schools with intranet
%of schools with Wi-Fi connection
% of schools with Wi-Fi access in the classrooms
% of schools that use laptops in the classrooms
%of schools that provide technical support to teachers
% of schools that provide pedagogical support to teachers
DATA FROM
SCHOOLS IN
SPAIN
DATA FROM
IATIC
CENTERS
55.7
10.6
197.50
15.33
43.20
176.83
49.90
67.0%
58.5%
49.8%
34.8%
70.3%
73.4%
57.2%
197.50
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Table 1.Comparison of the IATIC centers infrastructure with general schools in Spain.
- 12 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
eight schools maintained a full ICT
infrastructure, consisting of complete
Internet access anywhere through Wi-Fi,
private educational Intranet, a mean of 42.9
computers connected to Internet per 100
pupils, plenty of educational software in all
curricular areas, and enough technical and
pedagogical human support for the teachers
in their own centre. Table 1 compares some
data of the ICT infrastructure available in the
IE-TIC centers (with high technological
equipment) with data from a sample of
conventional schools, representative of the
Spanish educational system (Sigalés,
Mominó, Meneses & Badia, 2009).
According to the information presented in
the theoretical background, the analysis
performed during the study has, as main
objectives:
a) To figure outnew categories that can
be useful to classify the possible educational
uses of ICT for teaching and learning in
classrooms.
b) To identify the use of the software by
teachers and students in each category.
c) To examine the differences in the types
of ICT educational uses between
Kindergarten,Primary education, and
Secondary education.
schools (in Catalonian: Integració Escolar
de les TIC, IE-TIC), funded by the
Department of Education of the Catalonia
Government, and carried out between 2006
and 2009. The main aim of this research
project was to study the issues directly related
to the integration of ICT in school classrooms,
namely, approaches to teaching and learning
with ICT, educational uses of ICT by teachers
and students inside and outside the
classroom, and the obstacles, supports and
incentives touse ICT by teachers.
4.1. Participants.
Teachers belonging to the eight schools
that participated in the IA-TIC project fulfilled
a questionnaire specially designed to study
ICT integration in schools. They were 278
teachers (74 from Kindergarten,108 from
Primary education and 96 from Secondary
education). Teachers’distribution among the
three educational levels is shown in Table 2.
The sample of participants consisted of
72.1% of women and 27.9% men. The average age of participants was 41 (SD = 9.83);
46.9% of teachers had a three-year Diploma,
39.9% had a Bachelor’s degree, and 13.3%
held a Master’s or Doctoral degree; 89.6% of
them were civil servants, with an average
experience of 16.45 years (SD = 10.62) as
teachers.
4. Method.
This research paper is part of a larger
research project called ICT integration in
SCHOOL
1
2
3
4
5
8
TOTAL
Kindergarten
11
24
16
12
11
6
74
Primary education
Secondary education
TOTAL
12
25
26
26
23
49
42
38
19
13
43
34
34
108
96
278
19
19
7
30
30
Table 2. Sample distribution.
- 13 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
When this research was carried out, 70.3%
of teachers considered that they had
integrated ICT in their classroom because it
was a shared priority in their schools, 84.2%
of teachers were Internet users for more than
3 years, 84.2% had received training on ICT
educational uses in the last three years, 86.4%
gave high value to the training, and 87% had
a minimum connection of 2-3 timesper week
to Internet.
4.2. Measures.
The three theoretical frameworks described
above, based on categories of software use,
on the instructional role of the software, and
on the relation between software and
educational rationales, were taken into
account to develop the two scales of the
questionnaire. Table 3 shows how we
incorporated these three contributions.
Among other measurements, two ad-hoc
scales, with eight items each, were drawn up
to analyse ICT uses in lessons (Sigalés,
Mominó, Meneses & Badia, 2009). The items
were selected to show prototypical
educational uses of ICT in technology-rich
classrooms (Craig, Ault & Niileksela, 2011;
Levin & Wadmany, 2006; Palak & Walls, 2009).
The first scale relates to the activity carried
out by teachers when giving lessons on their
subject and describes the frequency with
which they use technological media such as
computers, computers with an Internet
connection or digital whiteboards for a series of educational aims. The second scale
explores the uses that teachers encourage
among their students while teaching the
subject and assesses the frequency with
which students use ICT in the teaching and
learning process. All the items (you can see
all of them in tables from 4 to 7) use the same
answer scale: «I do not use them» (1),
«Occasionally» (2), «Frequently» (3), and «I
always use them» (4). Personal and
professional background information was
also collected, including age, sex, education
and qualification level, teaching experience,
current teaching level and subjects.
4.3. Data collection.
Data of the two scales were collected
between March and June 2008. The
researchers provided the questionnaires on
paper to the headmaster of each school, and
each school organized to collect the
questionnaires completed by the teachers and
students. Overall, between 40% and 60% of
teachers in schools answered the
questionnaire. Later, data were recorded in a
computer file to be processed using SPSSversion 17.
METHODOLOGICAL DECISIONS
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
We created two different questionnaires: one for
teachers-ICT users, and another for students-ICT
users
We developed a list of items related to different
instructional aims and according to different
instructional roles
We included different prototypical uses of
software to each item
Software rationales from both educational
perspectives: teacher-centred teaching, and
student-centred learning
Instructional role of the software
Categories of software use
Table 3. Relationship between methodological decisions and theoretical frameworks.
- 14 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
FACTORS
EXPLAINED
VARIANCE
CRONBACH'S
ALPHA
TEUCT
TEUIT
Total scale
SEUCT
SEUIT
Total scale
43.597
14.482
58.079
47.907
14.983
62.890
0.722
0.764
0.813
0.829
0.733
0.841
Table 4. Explained variance and Cronbach’s alpha of Teachers’ and Students’ ICT use.
5. Results.
Firstly, we applied an exploratory factor
analysis to the two scales. Principal
components analysis revealed two structures
of two factors, representing the uses by
teachers (KMO=0.821 and a significant
Bartlett test, p=0.000) and the uses by
students (KMO=0.839 and a significant
Bartlett test, p=0.000), reaching an acceptable
explained total variance of 62.89% and
58.08%, respectively. Two non-orthogonal
solutions with oblique rotation (Oblimin with
Kaiser normalisation) were calculated to examine potential correlations between factors.
Since they were significantly correlated (i.e. -
0.417 and 0.437, respectively), the
computation of two orthogonally rotated
solutions was not required.
5.1. Categories of technology use as a
teaching and learning tool.
We identified four new categories that can
be useful to classify the educational uses of
ICT for teaching and learning in school
classrooms. Based on the meaning of the items
with high factor loadings, these factors were
named «Teachers’ Educational Use of
Content Technologies (TEUCT)», «Teachers’
Educational Use of Interaction Technologies
(TEUIT)», «Students’ Educational Use of
MEAN
TEUCT
Support the oral presentation of content
Present contents through a multimedia or
hypermedia system
Support conversations with my students
Show examples of products that students are
required to develop
TEUIT
Extend classroom to virtual classroom
Communicate with students
Monitor the progress of the learning process
Provide guidance and guidelines to facilitate
learning
Total scale
SD
TEUIT
TEUCT
1,88
2.22
0.54
0.76
0.779
-0.362
1.85
0.72
0.749
-0.265
1.72
0.72
0.709
-0.236
1.75
0.75
0.704
-0.482
1.46
0.53
1.33
1.48
0.595
0.702
0.238
0.446
-0.788
-0.777
1.34
0.685
0.276
-0.767
1.68
0.760
0.570
-0.700
1.67
0.47
Table 5. Items including the educational uses of ICT by teachers.
- 15 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
MEAN
SD
SEUIT
SEUCT
2,11
0.66
Search for information for class assignments
2.34
0.823
0.850
0.360
Organise and classify content documents
Access information previously selected by the
teacher
Develop educational products
1.84
0.993
0.806
0.457
2.24
0.773
0.796
0.292
2.04
0.876
0.703
0.252
Obtain information relating to the real world
2.00
0.828
0.702
0.440
SEUIT
1.32
0.50
Use of ICT for collaborative work with other
students
Learn in complex learning environments
Communicate to exchange information with
other students
Total scale
1.28
0.624
0.430
0.866
1.28
0.596
0.255
0.805
1.40
0.646
0.483
0.740
1.80
0.54
SEUCT
Table 6. Items including the educational uses of ICT by students.
Content Technologies (SEUCT)» and
«Students’ Educational Use of Interaction
Technologies (SEUIT)». Table 4 shows
explained variance and Cronbach’s alpha of
each factor.
Reliability analysis revealed acceptable
Cronbach’s alpha, ranging from 0.722 to 0.841
both on the teachers’ and students’ global
scales and in relation to the specific factors.
Tables 5 and 6 show items included in each
of the four factors.
Four items form TEUCT factor. The mean
(1.88) appears slightly below thevalue 2
(occasionally), with a standard deviation of
0.54. So, the most common use is the oral
presentation of the content from the teacher.
TEUIT factor also consists of four items.
This factor includes the teaching tasks that
characterize the educational interactions
between teachers and students. The most
common use is to provide guidance for
students to learn the content. The mean (1.46)
appears in the midpoint between values such
as never (1) and 2 (occasionally), with a standard deviation of 0.53.
The SEUCT factor consists of five items.
Students use ICT to search, manage and
elaborate content information. The
relationship between students and content,
mainly for syllabus contents, characterizes
this type of ICT use. The mean of this factor
(2.11) appears a little above the value 2
(occasionally), with a standard deviation of
0.66.
Finally, the factor SEUIT involves three
items and includes learner ICT uses such as
collaborative work, complex environments for
learning, and communication among
students. It involves the learning tasks
characterized by educational interactions
among students in technology-rich
classrooms. The mean (1.32) appears close
to value 1 (never), with a standard deviation
of 0.54.
- 16 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
5.2. Computer resources and software
uses carried out by teachers and students.
Next we present the data on the percentage
of software use on each of the items,
presented as corresponding to each factor.
Table 7 shows the highest frequency of use
by teachers of three types of content
%
ALMOST
ALWAYS/
ALWAYS
Support the oral
presentation of
content
Present contents
through a
multimedia or
hypermedia system
Support
conversations with
my students
Show examples of
products that
students are required
to develop
31.8
14.2
12.9
13.4
technologies, which are based on the
principles of teacher-centered teaching and
developed using computer-based instruction:
a) technologies for accessing Internet
content, mainly from webpages or other
resources useful for teaching, b) technologies
for content editing documents in order to
present them to their students, and c)
SOFTWARE USE
%
SOFTWARE
USE
Presentation software
Word processor or spreadsheet software
Web pages
Web Authoring software
Video creating/editing software application
Video-sharing website or photo sharing website
36.9
6.8
56.3
9.0
47.0
44.0
Content edited by teacher himself
Web pages
Other online resources
Content edited by teacher himself
Office suite: Microsoft Office, OpenOffice or
similar
Web pages or documents from internet
16.0
23.3
60.7
41.3
11.9
46.9
Table 7. Frequency of teachers’ educational use of content technologies (TEUCT),
computer resources and software.
%
ALMOST
ALWAYS/
ALWAYS
SOFTWARE USE
%
SOFTWARE
USE
Extend classroom to
virtual classroom
5.9
E-learning software platform (e.g. Moodle)
Social bookmarking web service (e.g. Delicious)
64.6
3.1
Communicate with
students
7.7
Blog-publishing service (e.g. Blogger)
Asynchronous communication software (e-mail)
32.3
92.7
Synchronous
communication
software
(Messenger, Skype or similar)
E-portfolio
Computer monitoring and tracking software
Computer-based self-assessment software
Intelligent tutoring system
Software supporting problem based learning
Guideline made by teacher himself
7.3
Monitor the progress
of the learning
process
Provide guidance
and guidelines to
facilitate learning
7.9
16.2
3.8
15.1
81.1
5.4
49.5
45.0
Table 8. Frequency of teachers’ educational use of interaction technologies (TEUIT),
computer resources and software.
- 17 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
technologies to display the contents in the
classroom.
Table 8 reveals the highest frequency of
use by teachers of two types of Interaction
Technologies, which are based on the
principles of teacher-centered teaching and
developed using computer-based instruction:
a) technologies that promote teacher and
student interaction (by e-mail or e-learning
software platform), and b) technologies to
promote student learning, either by guiding
(for example, by supporting software specific
problem based learning, or also through
guidelines), or by developing formative
assessment or self-assessment.
Table 9 shows the most frequent use of
three types of content technologies, based
on the student-centered learning perspective
and developed though technology
supported learning : a) technologies to obtain
content information (from web pages or real
life) b) technologies to organize this
%
ALMOST
ALWAYS/
ALWAYS
Search for
information for
class assignments
37.3
Organise and
classify content
documents
Access information
previously selected
by the teacher
25.8
34.1
Develop educational
products
28.9
Obtain information
relating to the real
world
23.9
information, and c) technologies to transform
the information into a learning product
(mainly word processors).
Table 10 discloses the two most frequent
uses of interaction technologies based on the
student-centered learning perspective and
developed through technology supported
learning: a) Technologies to exchange of
information among students (mainly, e-mail)
and b) Technologies tolearn in collaboration
in complex environments.
5.3. Differences in the types of educational
use of ICT between educational levels.
Additionally, a series of ANOVA analyses
(F test) were carried out to assess the
differences among uses of ICT of teachers
and students from Kindergarten,Primary and
Secondary education. Levene’s test of
homogeneity of variance was applied to test
the ANOVA assumption that each group had
SOFTWARE USE
%
SOFTWARE
USE
Internet search engine
Digital or Internet Encyclopaedia (e.g. Encarta or
Wikipedia)
Educational website for kids
Off-line folders
Online shared folders
35.3
9.3
Educational website for kids
Digital or Internet Encyclopaedia (e.g. Encarta or
Wikipedia)
Other websites (e.g. virtual museums, online
newspaper)
Word processor or presentation software
Web Authoring software
3D computer graphics software
Digital camera
Digital audio recorder
Online questionnaire
63.5
15.2
55.3
65.5
34.5
21.3
91.8
5.3
2.9
51.2
10.4
38.4
Table 9. Frequency of students’ educational use of content technologies (SEUCT),
computer resources and software.
- 18 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
%
ALMOST
ALWAYS/
ALWAYS
SOFTWARE USE
Use of ICT for
collaborative work
with other students
4.8
Wiki page
Virtual discussion forum
Social bookmarking web service (e.g. Delicious)
40.4
55.3
4.3
Learn in complex
learning
environments
4.0
Computer learning environment to promote
critical thinking
Computer learning environment to promote
problem based learning
Computer learning environment to promote
authentic assessment
Asynchronous communication software (e-mail)
Distribution list
Synchronous communication software
(Messenger, Skype or similar)
26.4
Communicate to
exchange
information with
other students
7.4
%
SOFTWARE
USE
50.9
22.6
81.5
6.2
12.3
Table 10. Frequency of students’ educational use of interaction technologies (SEUIT),
computer resources and software.
the same variance in scale and factor scores.
A significant Levene’s test suggests
heterogeneous variances between groups, so
this assumption is not adequately met and
an alternative procedure must be developed.
Accordingly, the researchers computed a
more robust test, Welch’s variance-weighted
ANOVA, which also adequately deals with
unequal group sample sizes.
FACTORS
Table 11 shows that the four factors that
classify ICT use in technology-rich
classrooms have significant mean differences
according to the educational level: Kindergarten, Primary educationand Secondary
education.
Overall, findings showthat the frequency
distribution of technology uses for teaching
KINDERGART
PRIMARY
EN
EDUCATION
SECONDARY
EDUCATION
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Levene's test
ANOVA
Teachers' ICT use
TEUCT
TEUIT
Scale total
1.80 (0.50)
1.24 (0.34)
1.51 (0.37)
1.80 (0.52)
1.38 (0.43)
1.58 (0.42)
2.03 (0.57)
1.72 (0.62)
1.88 (0.51)
0.792
12.059c
6.747b
F=5.205b
W=19.074c
W=14.155c
Students' ICT use
SEUCT
SEUIT
Scale total
1.87 (0.57)
1.16 (0.33)
1.60 (0.42)
2.14 (0.63)
1.29 (0.41)
1.80 (0.48)
2.27 (0.71)
1.48 (0.63)
1.98 (0.61)
3.403a
11.485c
5.883b
W=8.676c
W=8.668c
W=11.292c
a, p<0.050, b, p<0.010, c, p=0.000
Table 11. Differences in educational uses of content and interaction technologies of
teachers and students, from Kindergarten, Primary and Secondary education.
- 19 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
and learning is significantly different in each
level: a) in relation to the use of technologies
made by teachers (Kindergarten: M=1.51,
SD=0.37; Primary education: M=1.58,
SD=0.42; Secondary education: M=1.88,
SD=0.51); b) in relation to the use of
technologies made by students (Kindergarten: M=1.60, SD=0.42; Primary education:
M=1.80, SD=0.48; Secondary education:
M=1.98, SD=0.61); c) in each of the specific
uses of Content technologies and Interaction
technologies.
6. Discussion.
The classification of educational uses of
ICT as a teaching and learning tool, just
characterized, should be understood under
an integrated framework.This classification
has three advantages in relation to previous
classifications of ICT as a learning tool,
presented in the theoretical framework. First,
it is more comprehensive and complete, while
taking into account the use of ICT for
students’ learning and also how the teacher
can teach using technology. Second, it is a
more integrated classification at the theoretical
level, as it involves both the two traditional
frameworks of educational rationales
(teacher-centered and student-centered), and
the two possible roles of instructional
technology (computer-based instruction and
technology-supported learning). Third, the
classification follows an educational criterion,
since the software is used in each category
in a different way, in each case for a specific
educational purpose.
TEUCT category refers to the research and
educational practice related to what the
teacher does in relation to the content.
Currently, there are two lines of relevant
research on the topic: the presentation of
content through hypermedia technology, and
through the use of smart boards in the
classroom. There is a substantial body of
knowledge about the use of hypermedia
(Gerjets & Kirschner, 2009); however, more
research is needed on the use of smart boards
in class, even though there is already some
research on how their use can impact
classroom dialogue (Mercer, Hennessy &
Warwick, 2010).Both types of content
technologies are used extensively in the
classroom, although there is evidence that
the use of hypermedia does not always have
a positive impact on student learning.
TEUIT category accounts for how the
teacher uses technology to establish
educational interaction with students. There
are two well-known education research lines:
the use of virtual classrooms, based on
asynchronous and written communication,
and the provision of educational and
evaluative aids to facilitate content learning.
Educational aids can be provided via content
scripts (see e.g. Weinberger, Ertl, Fischer &
Mandl, 2005), while formative feedback (Fitch,
2004) can provide evaluative aids. While there
has been a lot of educational research in this
area in recent years, yet there is little
widespread of the use of these technologies
in educational practice.
SEUCT category refers to the way in which
students manage content using computers.
Two of the fields that are related to this subject
are access to Internet content, and the use of
technology to help students manage the
content. To get access to open content of
quality published in the Internet and use it
for educational purposes is one of the
challenges of the schools for the next three
years, according to the preliminary report
NMC Horizon Project (2013). Content
management with the support of technology
- 20 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
has been a field of study in the last forty years
(Monereo & Romero, 2008), but with few
results. There has only been an advance in
the study of how students use some
technological systems, such as intelligent
tutoring systems. Since these technological
systems have had a very limited expansion,
much of the research has focused on studying
how students use the technologies currently
available (not designed specifically for
education) to manage content, and what
possible problems can appear in this process
(Monereo & Badia, 2012). This lack of research
and in the design of this type of technology
has led students not to use a technology
specially designed from an educational point
of view for this purpose.
Finally, SEUIT category includes two types
of technology uses: collaborative learning,
and learning in complex technological
environments. Collaborative learning through
ICT (CSCL: Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning) has been the field
most researched of all, and also has had more
impact on school educational practice (Stahl,
Koschmann & Suthers, 2006). Nevertheless,
it is a complex educational practice where it is
often difficult to achieve high levels of quality
of social interaction between peers (Kreijns,
Kirschner & Jochems, 2003). Difficulties also
arise in learning in complex technological
environments (Puntambekar & Hubscher,
2005), both from the point of view of design
and implementation in the classroom. The
main challenge is to know what kind of
educational aids are necessary to meet the
diverse needs of students’ learning, and
when it is needed to remove them because
they are not necessary. It is an emerging field,
very little implemented in the classrooms.
All four categories are useful to highlight
differences in the frequency of use of ICT
among Kindergarten, Primary and Secondary
teachers and students, probably due to the
characteristics of each level of education.
This fact points tothe two main limitations of
this research:first, the limited sample of
schools and teachers, and second, the global
perspective adopted for the analysis of the
educational uses of ICT. More research with
other schools, perhaps even with greater
technological resources, would be necessary
to provide a wider empirical basis to these
four categories. And it would also be
necessary to determine whether these
categories are useful to characterize specific
uses of ICT in specific educational levels and
in particular curriculum areas.
Despite these limitations, we believe that
we provide an ever-lasting categorization of
educational uses of ICT, which is not
dependent on technological changes that
may occur in the present or in the future.
7. Acknowledgements.
This project was supported by a grant from
the Department of Education of Catalonia
Government (2006-2008). The authors would
like to thank all administrators and teachers
of the schools who participated in this project.
8. References.
Ainley, J., Banks, D. & Fleming, M. (2002).
The influences of IT: Perspectives from five
Australian schools. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 18 (4), 395-404. doi:
10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00251.x
Bebell, D., Russell, M. & O’Dwyer, L. (2004).
Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why
multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 37
(1), 45-63. doi:10.1080/15391523.2004.10782425
- 21 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the
affordances of Information and
Communication Technologies, ALT-J, 12 (2),
113-124. doi: 10.1080/0968776042000216183
Craig, J., Ault, M. & Niileksela, C. (2011).
The Influence of Technology Rich Learning
Environments: A Classroom-based
Observational Study. In M. Koehler & P.
Mishra (eds). Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology& Teacher
Education International Conference 2011
(pp. 4304-4311). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Duffy, T. M. & McMahon, T. A. (1999).
Linking homes and elementary schools with
computers: The impact on pedagogy
(Technical Report 9-99). Center for Research
on Learning and Teaching. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University.
Fitch, J. L. (2004). Student feedback in the
college classroom: A technology solution.
Educational Technology Research and
Development, 52 (1), 71-77. doi: 10.1007/
BF02504773
Gerjets, P. & Kirschner, P. (2009) Learning
from Multimedia and Hypermedia. In N.
Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A. Lazonder
& S. Barnes (Eds.) Technology-Enhanced
Learning(pp. 251-272). Netherlands: Springer.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J. &
Valcke, M. (2008). The impact f primary school
teachers’ educational beliefs on the
classroom use of computers. Computers &
Education, 51 (4), 1499-1509. doi: 10.1016/
j.compedu.2008.02.001
Hsu, S. (2010). Developing a scale for
teacher integration of information and
communication technology in grades 1-9.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26
(3), 175-189. doi: 10.1111/j.13652729.2010.00348.x
Inan, F. A., Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M. &
Strahl, D. (2010). Pattern of classroom
activities during students’ use of computers:
Relations between instructional strategies
and computer applications. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 540-546. doi:10.1016/
j.tate.2009.06.017.
Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Supporting
communities of learners with technology: a
vision for integrating technology with
learning in schools. Educational Technology,
35 (4), 60-63.
Khan, E. H. (1989). The use of computerassisted learning in a primary school.
Computers & Education, 13 (4), 355-362.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A. & Jochems, W.
(2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social
interaction in computer-supported
collaborative learning environments: a review
of the research. Computers in Human
Behavior, 19 (3), 335-353.
Levin, T. & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’
beliefs and practices in technology-based
classrooms: A developmental view. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 39
(3), 157-181. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2006.
10782478
Lim, C. P. & Tay, L. Y. (2003). Information
and communication technologies (ICT) in an
elementary school: Students’ engagement in
higher order thinking. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia,12 (4), 425-451.
Martin, F., Klein, J.D. & Sullivan, H. (2007).
The Impact of Instructional Elements in
Computer-Based Instruction. British Journal
of Educational Technology,38 (4), 623-636.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00670.x
Meneses, J., Fàbregues, S., RodríguezGómez, D. & Ion, G. (2012).Internet in
teachers’ professional practice outside the
classroom: Examining supportive and
management uses in primary and secondary
schools. Computers & Education, 59 (3),
915-924. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.011
- 22 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
Mercer, N., Hennessy, S. & Warwick, P.
(2010). Using interactive whiteboards to
orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 19 (2), 195-209.
doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.491230
Monereo, C. & Badia, A. (2012). La competencia informacional desde una perspectiva
psicoeducativa: enseñanza basada en la resolución de problemas prototípicos y emergentes. Revista española de Documentación
Científica, 35 (Monográfico), 75-99.
Monereo, C. & Romero, M. (2008). Los
entornos virtuales de aprendizaje basados en
sistemas de emulación socio-cognitiva. In C.
Coll & C. Monereo (Eds.) Psicología de la
educación virtual (pp. 194-212). Madrid: Editorial Morata.
NMC HORIZON (2013). Project Preview
K-12 edition. Available:www.nmc.org/
publications/2013-horizon-report-k12 [26-042013].
Palak, D. & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’
Beliefs and Technology Practices: A Mixedmethods Approach. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 41 (4), 417-441. doi:
10.1080/15391523.2009.10782537
Passey, D. (2006).Technology enhancing
learning: analyzing uses of information and
communication technologies by primary and
secondary school pupils with learning
frameworks. The Curriculum Journal, 17 (2),
139-166. doi:10.1080/09585170600792761
Puntambekar, S. & Hubscher, R. (2005).
Tools for scaffolding students in a complex
learning environment: What have we gained
and what have we missed?. Educational
psychologist, 40 (1), 1-12. doi:10.1207/
s15326985ep4001_1
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L. &
O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher
technology use. Implications for pre-service
and in-service teacher preparation. Journal
of Teacher Education, 54 (4), 297-310.doi:
10.1177/0022487103255985
Ruthven, K. & Hennessy, S. (2002). A
practitioner model of the use of computerbased tools and resources to support
mathematics teaching and learning.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49 (1),
47-88. Doi: 10.1023 / A: 1016052130572
Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S. &Deaney, R.
(2005). Incorporating Internet resources into
classroom practice: pedagogical perspectives
and strategies of secondary-school subject
teachers. Computers & Education, 44 (1), 134.
Selwyn, N., Potter, J. & Cranmer, S. (2009).
Primary pupils’ use of information and
communication technologies at school and
home. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40 (5), 919-932. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8535.2008.00876.x
Sigalés, C., Mominó, J. M., Meneses, J. &
Badia, A. (2009). La integración de internet
en la educación escolar española. Situación
actual y perspectivas de futuro. Madrid:
Ariel/Fundación Telefónica.
Squires, D. & McDougall, A. (1994).
Choosing and using educational software:
A teachers’ guide. London: The Falmer Press.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. & Suthers, D.
(2006). Computer-supported collaborative
learning: A historical perspective. In R. K.
Sawyer (Ed.). Cambridge Handbook of the
Learning Sciences (pp. 406-427).Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., Van Braak, J. &
Valcke, M. (2008). Exploring the link between
teachers’ educational belief profiles and
different types of computer use in the
classroom. Computers in Human Behavior,
24 (6), 2541-2553.doi: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.020
- 23 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C.
Páginas 9 a 24
Tondeur, J., Vann Braak, J. & Valcke, M.
(2007). Towards a typology of computer use
in primary education. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 23 (3), 197-206. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00205.x
Twining, P. (2002). Conceptualising
computer use in education: introducing the
Computer Practice Framework (CPF). British
Educational Research Journal, 28 (1), 95110.
Van Braak, J., Tondeur, J. & Valcke, M.
(2004). Explaining different types of computer
use among primary school teachers.
European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 19 (4), 407-422. doi: 10.1007/
BF03173218
Waite, S. (2004). Tools for the job: a report
of two surveys of information and
communications technology training and use
for literacy in primary schools in the West of
England. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 20 (1), 11-20. doi: 10.1111/j.13652729.2004.00043.x
Ward, L. & Parr, J. (2010). Revisiting and
reframing use: Implications for the integration
of ICT. Computers & Education, 54 (1), 113122. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2009.07.011
Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F. & Mandl,
H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in
computer–supported collaborative learning.
Instructional Science, 33 (1), 1-30. doi:
10.1007/s11251-004-2322-4
Fecha de recepción: 28-02-2014
Fecha de evaluación: 25-04-2014
Fecha de aceptación: 01-06-2014
- 24 Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
Fly UP