| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
TC = teacher candidate FAC = faculty
NCATE http://www.sfasu.edu/education/about/accreditationsorganizations.asp
NCATE accreditation standards re knowledge & use of technology:
NAS - 1C1 = TC CONTENT - completes courses & experiences - understanding & use, technology in subjects they will teach
NAS - 1.D.2 = TC USE - use computer technology
NAS - III A = FAC intergrate tech in teaching & scholarship
NAS - IV.B = RESOURCES for teaching & scholarship / TC & FAC - training & access / systematically reviewed
NAS IV.C = RESOURCES - operating unit / functional & well maintained to level of other SFA depts
How do the standards reflect emerging technologies that are changing teaching and learning in our schools? http://www.ncate.org/boe/faqStandards.asp#faq4
NCATE says:
COE = education unit’s conceptual framework include a commitment to preparing candidates who are able to use educational technology to help all students learn
Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions - candidates use technology in their practice and facilitate student learning through the integration of technology. (integrate tech in teaching & impact stud lng.)
Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practices expects that candidates have the opportunity in their field and clinical experiences to use technology to support teaching and learning. (opor to use tech to teach)
Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development expects that faculty integrate technology into their teaching.
Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources expects the unit to have adequate information technology resources to support faculty and candidates.
Program Accreditations http://www.sfasu.edu/education/about/accreditationsorganizations.asp
SACS - SFA Accredited http://www.sacscoc.org/details.asp?instid=70160
Title II - SFA has 100% passrate http://www.sfasu.edu/education/docs/titleii/2006report.pdf
Instructions for BOE (Board of Examiners) for NCATE infuse technology throughout this doc:
http://www.ncate.org/documents/boeUpdates/boe_updates_spring2003.pdf
see page 5 of l9 pages, for instance.
update - 2004 http://www.ncate.org/documents/boeUpdates/boe_updates_spring2004.pdf
update spring 2005 http://www.ncate.org/documents/boeUpdates/boe_updates_spring2005.pdf
update spring 2006
http://www.ncate.org/documents/boeUpdates/BOE_Update_S06.pdf
NCATE - new (4-16-07 update / this link can no longer be found on the NCATE site)
New link http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/edlite-default.html
National Education Technology Plan 2004
http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/
New link http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/edlite-default.html
Worth your time:
Powerpoint presentation
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/index.html
http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/docs_and_pdf/NETP2005.ppt
(4-16-07 update / this link can no longer be located on the NCATE site)
How do the standards reflect emerging technologies that are changing teaching and learning in our schools? http://www.ncate.org/boe/faqStandards.asp#faq4
Use of technology for instruction and assessment has been recognized as a vital component of teacher preparation in the standards. NCATE expects that the education unit’s conceptual framework include a commitment to preparing candidates who are able to use educational technology to help all students learn. The rubrics for Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions expect that candidates use technology in their practice and facilitate student learning through the integration of technology. Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practices expects that candidates have the opportunity in their field and clinical experiences to use technology to support teaching and learning. Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance and Development expects that faculty integrate technology into their teaching. Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources expects the unit to have adequate information technology resources to support faculty and candidates.
NCATE has engaged in several technology projects to enhance the use of technology in teaching and learning, so that institutions will have more opportunities in this area.
Teen opinion
NCATE - What do today's teens think?
http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/
Vision 2020 - asked a lot of teens for their views & wishes
http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/documents/visions_20202.pdf
(4-16-07 update / this link can no longer be located on the NCATE site)
Technology for Teachers & their students
http://www.tcet.unt.edu/weblibrary/overview/?id=45
Curriculum connections w Technology (Texas Teachers & Students)
http://www.tcet.unt.edu/START/instruct/ccindex.htm
Office of Technology http://www.ed.gov/technology/
Government Study - Integration or Transformation
Cross-national study of technology in education
http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/afluck/thesis/html/refs.htm
Findings http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/afluck/thesis/html/discuss.htm
5.2.1.6 General trend is towards integration & innovation / time, ownership of computers, and quick moving target are cited as the problems / personal self-study seems to work
Click here to read a more detail compiled/summarized by Abel.
ISTE National Educational Technology Standards
Detailed Rubric, Tech Facilitator http://cnets.iste.org/ncate/msword/tech_fac_S.doc
Rubrics & Info http://cnets.iste.org/ncate/
NCATE Iste/Nets http://cnets.iste.org/ncate/n_new.html
NETS - Standards for Teachers http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/
Alignment Rubric: ISTE and NETS-T and INTASCNETS - Standards for Students http://cnets.iste.org/students/
http://cnets.iste.org/ncate/msword/NETST_INTASC_S.doc
ISTE Program standards
http://www.ncate.org/documents/ProgramStandards/iste_lead_fac_2003.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/theplan/edlite-Recommendations.html
New link http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/edlite-default.html
National Technology Plan based on ISTE
http://www.nationaledtechplan.org
Our government's vision regarding technology
Vision 2020 - talking with the students who are way ahead of us!
http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/documents/visions_20202.pdf
New link http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/documents/visions_20202.pdf
NCATE's Task Force Recommendations for Stimulating Effective Use of Technology in Teacher Education http://www.ncate.org/public/technology21.asp?ch=113
accreditation at SFA's COE http://www.sfasu.edu/education/about/accreditationsorganizations.asp
accreditation standards with expectations for knowledge and use of technology:
http://www.ncate.org/institutions/techCurrent.asp?ch=113
Standard 6 - resource requirements for NCATE
http://www.ncate.org/boe/faqStandards.asp#faq10
What are NCATE’s resource requirements for the education unit?
Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources expects the unit to have the budget, personnel and facilities, including information technology resources to prepare candidates to meet professional, state and institutional standards. The rubrics expect that the budget allocations are at least proportional to other units on campus, that there are sufficient numbers of full-time faculty and support personnel to support programs, that faculty workloads allow faculty to be effectively engaged in teaching, scholarship, and service. It is also expected that facilities support the use of information technology by candidates and faculty, and that faculty and candidates have access to current and sufficient curricular and library resources and electronic information.
NCATE standards on technologyNCES Study - use of computers / internet by children in schools and at home 2003
http://www.ncate.org/states/techcurrent.asp?ch=113
NCATE
Technology and the New Professional Teacher:
Preparing for the 21st Century Classroom (1997)
Task Force on Technology and Teacher Education
HTTP://www.ncate.org/public/technology21.asp?ch=113
NCATE - Keeping Pace with Technology
Recommended sites and readings for Professors and Educator Candidates
http://www.fordham.edu/gse/kpking/journey/
NCLB - Tear Down Those Walls: The Revolution is Underway http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/theplan/edlite-TearDownThoseWalls.html
International Survey - online learning K-12 2006
http://www.nacol.org/docs/InternationalSurveyResultsSummaries.pdf
State Level Policy & Practice - Online K-12 learning
http://www.nacol.org/docs/Keeping%20Pace%20with%20K-12%20Online%20Learning%202006.pdf
Dept of Education / Quality - Evidence of http://www.itcnetwork.org/Accreditation-EvidenceofQualityinDEPrograms.pdf
Nets for Teachers (copied for all) http://www.ncrel.org/tech/nets/nets-t-rubric.pdf
Nets for Students (link only) http://www.ncrel.org/tech/nets/p-12rubric.pdf
NCATE DRAFT - rubric (3-18-05)
NCATE provides examplesStandards - Technology
SAMPLE REPORT - 2006
http://www.ncate.org/boeTraining/mod1_boeroles/docs/sample_boe.pdf
Wichita - Technology (sample)
Home page - http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=coetech&p=/index/
Technology Committee - http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=coetech&p=/tech_committee/committee_home
Technology Plan - http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=coetech&p=tech_vision_and_mission
NCATE charts - http://education.wichita.edu/m3/models/teachered/tech_integration_plan.pdf
Vanderbilt’s Peabody College
http://www.ncate.org/boe/ci4.asp?ch=113
Six TC's participated in an experimental course that brought together biology, teaching methods, and technology. They designed & created an interactive multimedia program that they later used in student teaching. The course was jointly taught by a science education professor and a biology professor.
Texas example
http://www.ncate.org/boe/ci3.asp?ch=113
Professors use email and computer tech to stay in contact with students in field - comment on lesson plans, discuss teaching situations, etc.
The Houston Consortium is among many beneficiaries of the Texas Legislature’s investment of more than $25 million over the past several years to encourage teacher education institutions to make their preparation programs more field-based and technology-intensive.
They have studied impact - Preliminary data indicate that pupils in these schools show increased achievement on statewide tests in mathematics, reading, and writing - and that 43% of the experienced teachers in these schools report changing their teaching practices because of involvement in the program.
Another impressive example - a narrative about tech in this university
http://www.ncate.org/boe/technology21.asp?ch=113
"Before going to class, I access my e-mail to read responses from two instructors to questions I had, as well as four messages from fellow students. I get to my classes five minutes early to plug in my notebook computer and get organized. All our classrooms are linked to the Internet...I’m working on a portfolio project in the Language Arts class, and I’m in the process of scanning pictures into my Powerpoint presentation. We’ve all had the opportunity to develop electronic portfolios this semester and are getting ready to turn them into CD-ROMs."
Does this sound like the teacher preparation that you know? Does it sound like the teacher preparation of the future? Actually it is a chronicle of a day in the life of a current teacher candidate at Valley City State University in North Dakota. The university requires its students to own a notebook computer, and models the integration of technology into instruction....
Irving Independent School District
Irving, TX http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/stories/irving2.asp
Developed out of a need to talk with other districts about challenges with one-to-one initiatives, Irving Independent School District organized a learning community made up of districts from across the nation and invited them to come and exchange dialogue with colleagues in a symposium format. Read more about District Learning Community.
What other schools are doing
http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/stories/leadership.asp
http://www.tcet.unt.edu/weblibrary/overview/?id=45
Curriculum connections w Technology (Texas Teachers & Students)
http://www.tcet.unt.edu/START/instruct/ccindex.htm
Our government's vision regarding technology
Vision 2020 - talking with the students who are way ahead of us!
http://www.nationaledtechplan.org/documents/visions_20202.pdf
Government Study - Integration or Transformation
Cross-national study of technology in education
http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/afluck/thesis/html/refs.htm
Findings http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/afluck/thesis/html/discuss.htm
5.2.1.6 General trend is towards integration & innovation / time, ownership of computers, and quick moving target are cited as the problems / personal self-study seems to workNCES Study - use of computers / internet by children in schools and at home 2003
Click here to read a more detail compiled/summarized by Abel.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006065
Survey for collecting data (for all SPA pgms) draft 10-19-05
(to be added to SPA pgm data) draft 02-06-06
(aligned / revised again) draft 02-09-06
Final Decision see final report
Survey Software
www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/standtest/standards/techapps_allbegtch.pdf
Matrix of SBEC Standards http://www.teachereducation.com/demo/teks.htmSPA
SAMPLE - links to "evidence" standards are met
http://class.sprnet.org/target/sbec_standards.htm
Technology for Teachers & their students
http://www.tcet.unt.edu/weblibrary/overview/?id=45
Curriculum connections w Technology (Texas Teachers & Students)
http://www.tcet.unt.edu/START/instruct/ccindex.htm
NCATE on Technology & Teacher Education - July 2001
http://www.education.sfasu.edu/ele/classes/abel/ncate_technology_direction.html
Technology for Teachers & their students
http://www.tcet.unt.edu/weblibrary/overview/?id=45
Curriculum connections w Technology (Texas Teachers & Students)
http://www.tcet.unt.edu/START/instruct/ccindex.htm
Abel's Resources / includes technology ideas for teachingTechnology
http://www.education.sfasu.edu/ele/classes/abel/abel_resources.html
Direct link to TEKS, TAKS, TA TEKS and NCLB
http://www.education.sfasu.edu/ele/classes/abel/318teks.html
Commitment - Task Force on Technology and Teacher Ed (creating a vision)
http://www.ncate.org/states/technology21.asp?ch=113
Commitment to - 2006 checklist and samples - NCATE http://www.ncate.org/boeTraining/mod4_concept_frame/index.asp
Computer Education Association (TCEA) Research Symposium
http://www.tcea.org/symposium/
TCEA http://www.tcea.org/
THECB - TX Higher Education Coordinating Board
P.2 http://www.sfasu.edu/education/about/accreditations/ncate/docs/institutionalreport.pdf
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/
University Coordinating Board for Texas http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/
Vision 2020 - student views on transforming technology and training http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/documents/visions_20202.pdf
Standard I. (TC dev knowledge, skills, dispositions / knows "how")
All teachers use technology-related terms, concepts, data input strategies, and ethical practices to make informed decisions aboutcurrent technologies and their applications.
Standard II. (TC "uses" technology effectively & responsibly to access info)
All teachers identify task requirements, apply search strategies, and use current technology to efficiently acquire, analyze, and evaluate a variety of electronic information.
Standard III. (TC plan, chart, edit, assess / tool)
All teachers use task-appropriate tools to synthesize knowledge, create and modify solutions, and evaluate results in a way that supports the work of individuals and groups in problem-solving situations.
Standard IV. (diversity /multi media /distance learning)
All teachers communicate information in different formats and for diverse audiences.
Standard V. (plan instruction, collaborate, integrate TEKS)
All teachers know how to plan, organize, deliver, and evaluate instruction for all students that incorporates the effective use ofcurrent technology for teaching and integrating the Technology Applications Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) into thecurriculum
return
The communication of policy is an essential part of implementation (NM198; Adamo, 2002, p. iv). There was a considerable lag between the development of policy in the USA and its adoption by schools and districts (Russell, 2000) as well as other examples where linkage to national policy was weak or unacknowledged (as in Theodore Roosevelt Middle, USA).....analysis of policy documents confirmed previous literature that the general nature of policies for ICT in school education has been predominantly focused upon integration of ICT into current classroom practice (Plomp et al., 1996; Bingham, 2000) (in U.S., see 4.2.1.3 on p. 96). Those involved in the development of policy (the expert panel) and others (Knezek, Miyashita & Sakmoto, 1994; Plomp et al., 1996) were critical of the poor current use of ICT in schools, and indicated that much more could be achieved, particularly through the development of new subjects and the use of ICT to cross disciplinary boundaries.
The choice of integrative or transformative approaches may be a matter of timescale. Selwyn counselled policy makers to address “the quality, not the quantity, of the integration of computers into the school curriculum” (p. 87). Some people believe such an integrative emphasis will eventually transform the curriculum (BM 75) and “help solve inter-disciplinary problems” (DM 81). Other members of the expert panel asserted this transformation was already evident (KB 195). The implication is that successful adoption will depend upon all the critical success factors previously identified for ICT in education, as well as a policy view which embraces a transformative rather than an integrative perspective.
Ineffective use - There was a considerable shortfall in expectations, as found in a doctoral study in the USA, with students using some word processing or rewarded for good behaviour with computer games (DM60). Because they had more flexible timetabling and fewer accountability requirements, primary schools were more able to exploit ICT (TE128). This was in contradiction to the finding in the literature that ICT can increase learner autonomy where this is a pre-existing part of classroom practice (IAEEA, 1999).
Positive outlook for personal self-study benefits - Individual schools were introducing ways of using ICT in new ways unsupported by policy guidance. These approaches included greater authenticity in teaching materials through the use of contemporary images in student project work (WL at Applecross Senior High), the incorporation of self-paced interactive tutorials (HB at Applecross Senior High and KF at Theodore Roosevelt Middle), and student collaboration in international problem solving activities (DM2 at Theodore Roosevelt Middle, USA). These new approaches agreed with the finding from the literature that ICT can increase student-directed learning (Woodrow, 1999).
Student equity issues cited as reasons teachers were reluctant to incorporate tech into homework - Reasons given by teachers for not incorporating home ICT into their practice included equipment incompatibilities and the perceived inequities of student access to computers and the internet at home (SS20; BJ34; SP58). As the digital divide has rapidly diminished for families with children (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000d), the equity argument has become increasingly untenable (CI65), but teachers in the case study schools have yet to be convinced... (CI63), the difficulty of accessing one in a public setting, and incompatibilities of equipment as reasons to continue to ignore them outside school.
Community - Online offers extra courses for students but rewards for teachers are limited - ...provided a greater range of curriculum opportunities for students without having to leave their neighbourhood school (Layton, 1999). Such ICT-mediated communication deriving from online learning materials has benefits for students by allowing them to access a wider range of courses than would be possible with limited staff numbers and timetabling viability restrictions within a single institution......Many schools are implementing government supported ICT programs with difficulty. Equipment sufficiency, conflict with other priorities and lack of extrinsic rewards for teachers were all found to have a bearing on the way in which computers were used in schools. In a growing number of cases there are non-school based government programs to expand ICT in k-12 education.
Need to OWN a computer first - The literature had identified ownership and relative advantage as the most significant factors for innovation adoption (Clayton, 1993; Parker & Sarvary, 1994).... However, the expert panel members considered that there was a considerable lag between technological advancement, student uptake of ICT skills, and teacher readiness to utilise these (EM1).
Time is critical factor - The amount of time teachers need to become familiar with ICT in the literature was estimated at nine hours per year (Smerdon et al. 2000) and should take about 30 percent of the ICT budget (Byrom, 1997). This was confirmed in the study where 40-50 hours of initial training were expected (see p. 309 in section 6.10.6), and the expert panel deemed 12 hours of professional development required per year to maintain currency in the face of continuous software upgrades, taking 15-30 percent of state ICT funds allocated to ICT (DM84)....(this is) compounded by the frequent emergence of additional innovative equipment. To extend teacher knowledge to subject-specific innovations requires yet more teacher time. Training in the application of subject-specific software, which has a range of non-standardised controls, makes the whole area highly problematic. This is a very different situation to most business applications of ICT which expect the user to operate one program for considerable periods. By contrast, teachers and students normally expect to cover a wide range of curriculum areas and content over a 12 week period. One emerging solution is to package access to a catalogue of ‘learning objects’ accessible through a standard web-browser, which minimises the training required for individual teachers (The Le@rning Federation, 2001; Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2003).
Assessment of Teacher Candidate (and teacher) use - Several ways of assessing the effectiveness of ICT professional development have been proposed. One metric in the previous research observes actual teacher use of ICT in classrooms (Bender, 2000). The expert panel suggested the criterion for successful ICT professional development is the subsequent quality of teacher decision-making (KB137), and that it should be done using authentic situations (TE148). Another way to evaluate this is to look at subsequent curriculum changes (EM89). This method opens up a whole raft of important issues because it suggests the traditional curriculum cannot be used as the yardstick of successful teaching with ICT. There are several accepted ways to assess student learning outcomes in respect of ICT use, and these are now examined.
ISTE develops Teacher Candidate skills but we must wait for transfer into classroom /schools are behind (prof developmt offered in schools might be temp sollution) ...lack of inter-departmental liaison did not apply in the USA since the ISTE organisation was the proponent of both student and teacher standards (International Society for Technology in Education, 1996 & 1998); but nonetheless teacher ICT skills appeared to have been considered independently of student ICT skills and many teachers cannot themselves achieve the student standards (DM17-18).... It also explains the crucial nature of individual change agents, most of whom are teachers (see for example VT in Pärnu Nüdupargi Gùmnaasium, Estonia).
Assessment of Impact on PK-12 - Curriculum in place seems resistant to change / check impact of technology by comparing schools integrating it vs those not - money remains the problem since changes are not occurring w/n schools to permit the expensive use of technology as an alternative: Another way to assess student learning is to use non-ICT specific curriculum frameworks as in the literature on ICT effectiveness which uses meta-studies to compare learning outcomes with, and without, ICT (Sinko & Lehitenin, 1999). Perhaps the most important point to make here is that ICT appears to be flexible enough to support these existing curriculum frameworks about as well as other innovations (Parr, 2000). ICT also appears from the descriptive research (McDougall, 2001) to be able to foster new ways of learning about new topics, but there is insufficient literature exploring this idea (OECD, 2001; Venezeky & Davis, 2002, p. 35). Therefore the pedagogical rationale examined in Research Question 1 stands upon a base which assumes a curriculum which has not changed to accommodate new learnings and new ways of learning. Furthermore, there are implicit resourcing issues here because the cost of providing and maintaining the currency of ICT infrastructure in schools appears to be a major factor inhibiting good use (OECD, 2001, pp. 16 & 93; Eurydice, 2001, pp. vii & 17). This would appear to be supported by the discrepancy between home and school equipment levels (see Table 14 in section 4.4.1).
Lack of alignment in many schools (not here, of course!)- The response to Research Question 3 is therefore one which identifies existing ICT professional development as focused on operational skills for integration, with some examples stimulating teacher computer ownership. Relative advantage of ICT is about as good as other innovation in education, but there is a lack of alignment between teacher ICT professional development, national strategic purposes and ICT standards for students.
Government funding for school computers has made little impact - Whereas national and local policies focus on integration, schools are comparative computer deserts compared to students’ homes, despite considerable government ICT funding of £2.7 billion per annum in England for example (Department for Education and Skills, 2002). This disparity in equipment was rarely recognised in school policies or by teachers. In addition, some experts were critical of the relatively low expectations of ICT in schools, comparing current activities such as word processing with the capacities of equipment to predict weather for large geographical areas (DM82). Once again, this is despite considerable government resources being put into teacher professional development (New Opportunities Fund, 2002; BM27).
Integration of Technology or Transforming Education (changing it) w Technology - Merits of each:
The integrative proposition reflects the current policy thrust (Plomp et al., 1996; Bingham, 2000)....this proposition stems from a focus on the economic rationales and is synonymous with a focus on generic office applications and teacher professional development aimed at operational skills. The sustainability of this integrative state therefore depends upon continued satisfaction of its resourcing requirements and lasting policy commitment to the supporting rationale.
The transformative proposition has been considered in the light of evolutionary and revolutionary transitions (Nichols & Watson, 2003, p. 133). There is policy pressure for such an approach from the members of the expert panel in this study, who regarded current use of ICT as “mundane” (see for example DM20, DM46). Additional support derives from the case studies... which demonstrates the use of ICT to enhance off-campus learning. The transformative proposition suggests that standardised tests using tradition measures may be inappropriate when ICT is a significant feature of learning (Fouts, 2000, p. 27).
These could interact w each other, as well (see 5.2.4.5 Connecting the categories )
Give teachers good computers - it begins here
The strategy of facilitating teacher computer ownership appears to be a cost-effective way to maximise training opportunities. Teachers need to examine the evidence of ICT efficacy to assess ‘relative advantage’ (Clayton, 1993; Parker & Sarvary, 1994; Rogers, 1995), by visiting local centres of excellence, and having the time to become confident in their own skills.
The model of stages of development for ICT in school education developed in this thesis has, like all good research, raised as many questions as it answers. In particular there are matters of generalisation, verification and greater discrimination to be explored. (see 5.3.4 Recommendations for future research)
Source: The main sources of data in this study have been national policy documents, and expert panel and school case studies
Ideas:
Student-directed study - broader outcomes learning THROUGH Tech (not WITH)
...there would be a good case for students to spend some of this time working in independent teams on projects seen as more relevant to themselves, where teacher leadership was expressed in a less-directive way. For example, West (2000) Further investigation into a similar educational concept is being undertaken by Jolly (2002)....This line of inquiry can be seen as a section of social informatics research which has previously been scattered in journals of several different fields (Kling, 2000)...When learning through ICT (as opposed to learning with ICT), outcomes were broader than those specified in current curriculum frameworks. This debate about social and curriculum outcomes needs to be extended to examine the opportunities and difficulties for younger students, particularly when handheld wireless ICT increases mobility and convenience (Atputhasamy, Wong, Phillip & Chun, 2000).
Think outside the box - we are fitting tech to OLD systems and ways of assessing students,etc.
R4: Research is needed into the future implication of ICT for curriculum reform.
The importance of the link between student outcomes and substantiation of the pedagogical rationale was identified in the current study. This link is subject to constant change because of the high rate of change of ICT (Moore, 1997). For instance, voice recognition systems deployed with common generic office products (Microsoft, 2003) could fundamentally alter concepts of literacy by increasing student writing speeds by a factor of ten (Fluck, 2000b). Speech activated language translation systems could have similar implications for foreign language teaching (Universal Translator, 2001). Yelland (2001) noted the need for curriculum reform in the light of ICT, supported by comments such as: “we are fitting new technologies into old curricula which were developed prior to their existence” (Kozma, 1994, p. 8) and “if technology makes it possible to teach difficult central concepts earlier and with greater understanding, then the traditional sequence of topics needs a complete overhaul” (Tinker, 1999, p. 2). This research could proceed through experimental studies following product-specific teacher professional development.
5.4 Endnote
The field of ICT in school education is maturing rapidly, and in the time of this study from 1999 to 2003 many changes have taken place. Virtual schooling has grown rapidly, becoming part of mainstream school education in many cases (Annells, 2000; The Le@rning Federation, 2001; Thomas, 2002) and a research topic in its own right (Clark, 2001). There is an urgent need to examine the effect of autonomous learning mediated through ICT using metrics of learning success that are not limited to conventional learning outcomes. The interaction between these two aspects may require a methodological innovation which it is hoped the model proposed in this thesis may facilitate.
NCES Study - use of computers / internet by children in schools and at home 2003
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006065
back