Research Article

The Role of Teaching Goals and Instructional Technology Perceptions in Faculty Members’ Technology Use

Trang Phan 1 * , Mary Paul 1 , Meina Zhu 2
More Detail
1 California State University Fresno, Fresno, CA, USA2 Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(3), July 2021, ep307, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/10885
OPEN ACCESS   3108 Views   1358 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study portrays profile uses of technology in the classroom by faculty at a school of education at a university in Central California (N = 47). First, it describes their professional uses of certain technology on a frequency scale. Second, it reports the effects of faculty’s teaching philosophy and perceptions of instructional technology (IT) in their teaching practice with regards to use of technology. This study employed quantitative data analysis. The findings indicate that faculty’s teaching goals and perception of the learning environment play an important role in determining their uses of technology. Third, it reveals faculty’s motivation and challenges to use certain technological tools in their teaching. Specifically, the participants reported high levels of motivation for using various new technologies, minimal challenges to IT use in their classroom and their actual uses of such technology being unknown. Given the faculty’s high motivation (or absence of barriers) of using various innovative technology, one of the suggestions for future professional development programs is to offer training which moves beyond understanding how to use technology, and addresses the effectiveness and efficiency of teaching with technology.
Keywords: technological practice, perceptions, teaching philosophy, instructional technology, professional development

CITATION (APA)

Phan, T., Paul, M., & Zhu, M. (2021). The Role of Teaching Goals and Instructional Technology Perceptions in Faculty Members’ Technology Use. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(3), ep307. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/10885

REFERENCES

  1. Almasi, J. F., McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1996). The nature of engaged reading in classroom discussions of literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(1), 107-146. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10862969609547913
  2. Almasi, J. F., Palmer, B. M., Garas, K., Cho, H., Ma, W., Sanan, L., & Augustino, A. (2004, April). A longitudinal investigation of the influence of peer discussion of text on reading development in grades K-3. Field initiated studies program report. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
  3. Alper, L. (1996). Problem-Based Mathematics--Not Just for the College-Bound. Educational Leadership, 53(8), 18-21.
  4. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  6. Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. Duffy and D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  7. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the Knowledge Age: Design-Centered Models of Teaching and Instruction.
  8. Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105
  9. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Artistry, choice, & leadership: Reframing organizations.
  10. Bond, T. (2001). Giving them free rein: Connections in student-led book groups. The Reading Teacher, 54(6), 574-584.
  11. Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse (pp. 25-50). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  12. Boyle, J. T., & Nicol, D. J. (2003). Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. ALT-J, 11(3), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v11i3.11284
  13. Bridges, D. (1988). Education, democracy, and discussion. University Press of America.
  14. Brower, H. H. (2003). On emulating classroom discussion in a distance-delivered OBHR course: Creating an on-line learning community. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(1), 22-36. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2003.9324013
  15. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X018001032
  16. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319859
  17. Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for space: The effect of learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/29.1.02
  18. ChanLin, L. J. (2017). Analysis of Teachers’ Tablet Teaching Adoption Process. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(6), 1935-1958. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.6.0436
  19. Cheng, C. K., Paré, D. E., Collimore, L.-M., & Joordens, S. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of a voluntary online discussion forum on improving students’ course performance. Computers & Education, 56(1), 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.024
  20. Cheng, Y. C., & Yeh, H. T. (2009). From concepts of motivation to its application in instructional design: Reconsidering motivation from an instructional design perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 597-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00857.x
  21. Chiu, T. K., & Churchill, D. (2016). Adoption of mobile devices in teaching: changes in teacher beliefs, attitudes and anxiety. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 317-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1113709
  22. Conley, D. T., & French, E. M. (2014). Student ownership of learning as a key component of college readiness. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(8), 1018-1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213515232
  23. Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695949993026
  24. Davis, G. A. (1989). Objectives and Activities for Teaching Creative Thinking 1. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(2), 81-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628903300208
  25. Dovros, N., & Makrakis, V. (2012). Transforming the classroom into a reflective community: A blended learning instructional approach. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 14(2), 73-88. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10099-012-0010-z
  26. Doyle, T. (2008). Helping students learn in a learner-centered environment: A guide to facilitating learning in higher education. Stylus Publishing: LLC.
  27. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  28. Eliason, S., & Holmes, C. L. (2012). A course redesign project to change faculty orientation toward teaching. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 36-48.
  29. Ferreira, M. J. M. (2012). Intelligent classrooms and smart software: Teaching and learning in today’s university. Education and Information Technologies, 17(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-010-9134-8
  30. Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1
  31. Froyd, J., & Simpson, N. (2008, August). Student-centered learning addressing faculty questions about student centered learning. In Course, Curriculum, Labor, and Improvement Conference, Washington DC (Vol. 30, No. 11, pp. 1-11).
  32. Gallagher, S. A., & Stepien, W. J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American studies. Talents and Gifts, 19(3), 257-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329601900302
  33. Hagenson, L., & Castle, K. (2003). The integration of technology into teaching by university college of education faculty. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 947-952). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  34. Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25(3), 167-202. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002997414652
  35. Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Land, S. M., & Lee, E. (2014). Student-centered, open learning environments: Research, theory, and practice. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 641-651). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_51
  36. Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Re-examining cognition during student-centered, Web-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(6), 767-785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9117-x
  37. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (vol. 2, pp. 115-140). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  38. Hannafin, R. D., & Foshay, W. R. (2008). Computer-based instruction’s (CBI) rediscovered role in K-12: An evaluation case study of one high school’s use of CBI to improve pass rates on high-stakes tests. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9007-4
  39. Hawe, E. (2007). Student teachers’ discourse on assessment: Form and substance. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701278666
  40. Hulan, N. (2010). What the Students Will Say While the Teacher is Away: An Investigation into Student-Led and Teacher-Led Discussion Within Guided Reading Groups. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 14, 41-64.
  41. Insorio, A. O. (2021). Technological and operational mobile learning readiness of secondary teachers. International Journal of Pedagogical Development and Lifelong Learning, 2(1), ep2103. http://doi.org?10.30935/ijpdll/9362
  42. Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Evaluating constructivist learning. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 137-148). Routledge.
  43. Kavanagh, M. H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). The impact of leadership and change management strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger. British journal of management, 17(S1), S81-S103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00480.x
  44. Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53-81. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1801_03
  45. Keengwe, J., Kidd, T., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009). Faculty and Technology: Implications for Faculty Training and Technology Leadership. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(1), 23-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9126-2
  46. Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2003.10782399
  47. Kulasegaram, K., & Rangachari, P. K. (2018). Beyond “formative”: assessments to enrich student learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 42(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00122.2017
  48. Lai, Y. H. (2019). The Application of Meta-Analytic SEM on Exploring Factors That Influence Teachers’ Usage of Interactive Whiteboard. Pedagogical Research, 4(3), em0038. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/5854
  49. Leal, D. (1993). The power of literary peer-group discussions: How children collaboratively negotiate meaning. The Reading Teacher, 47(2), 114-120.
  50. Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 707-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5
  51. Lee, W., & Reeve, J. (2012). Teachers’ estimates of their students’ motivation and engagement: Being in synch with students. Educational Psychology, 32(6), 727-747. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.732385
  52. Lee, Y. H., Waxman, H., Wu, J. Y., Michko, G., & Lin, G. (2013). Revisit the effect of teaching and learning with technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 133-146.
  53. Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2012). Numbers are not enough. Why e-learning analytics failed to inform an institutional strategic plan. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 149-163.
  54. Maloch, B. (1999). Shifting to Student-Centered, Collaborative Classrooms: Implementing Student-Led Discussion Groups [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19-23.
  55. McWilliam, E., Sweet, C., & Blythe, H. (2013). Re/membering pedagogical spaces. In Cases on higher education spaces: Innovation, collaboration, and technology (pp. 1-13). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2673-7.ch001
  56. Means, B. (1994). Introduction: Using technology to advance educational goals. In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  57. Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49-69. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1026
  58. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  59. Moats, J. (2015). Influences on the acceptance of innovative technologies used in learning opportunities: A theoretical perspective. In Handbook of research on innovative technology integration in higher education (pp. 262-281). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8170-5.ch013
  60. Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523-1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003
  61. Nichols, S. L., & Dawson, H. S. (2012). Assessment as a context for student engagement. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 457-477). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_22
  62. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
  63. Nordquist, J., & Laing, A. (2015). Designing spaces for the networked learning landscape. Medical Teacher, 37(4), 337-343. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.1001349
  64. Onurkan Aliusta, Gülen, & Özer, Bekir. (2017). Student-centred learning (SCL): Roles changed? Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 23(4), 422-435.
  65. Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2009, June). From meaning making to joint construction of knowledge practices and artefacts: a trialogical approach to CSCL. In CSCL (1) (pp. 83-92).
  66. Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of Teacher Efficacy on Computer Skills and Computer Cognitions of Canadian Students in Grades K-3. The Elementary School Journal., 102(2), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1086/499697
  67. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104
  68. Salas-Rueda, R. A. (2018). Analysis on the Use of Continuous Improvement, Technology and Flipped Classroom in the Teaching-Learning Process by means of Data Science. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 8(4), 325-343. https://doi.org/10.12973/ojcmt/3955
  69. Seminoff, N. E., & Wepner, S. B. (1997). What should we know about technology-based projects for tenure and promotion? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(1), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1997.10782214
  70. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  71. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
  72. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In Development of Achievement Motivation (pp. 91-120). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50006-1
  73. Wood, E., Mueller, J., Willoughby, T., Specht, J., & Deyoung, T. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions: Barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 183-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636310500186214
  74. Worthy, J., & Beck, I. (1995). On the road from recitation to discussion in large-group dialogue about literature. In K. Hinchman, D. Leu, & C. Kinzer (Eds), Perspectives on Literacy Research and Practice: Forty fourth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. NRC.
  75. Yim, J. S. C., Moses, P., & Azalea, A. (2018). Effects of psychological ownership on teachers’ beliefs about a cloud-based virtual learning environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0081-0
  76. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029003663