2022年2022年计算机英文文献 .pdf
Patternof classroomactivitiesduringstudents use of computers:Relationsbetweeninstructionalstrategiesand computerapplicationsFethiA. Inana,*, DeborahL. Lowtherb, StevenM. Rossc, Dan StrahlcaInstructionalTechnology,Texas Tech University,College of Education,Room #267,Box 41071, Lubbock,TX 79409,USAbThe Universityof Memphis,USAcCenter for Research in EducationalPolicy, The Universityof Memphis,USAa rt i c lei n f oArticlehistory:Received13 November2007Receivedin revisedform2 January2009Accepted16 June 2009Keywords:Computeruses in educationTechnologyintegrationInstructionaltechnologyTeachingmethodsComputer-assistedinstructionEducationalsoftwarea b s t ra c tThe purposeof this studywas to identifyinstructionalstrategiesused by teachersto supporttechnologyintegration.Inaddition,relationsbetweentypesofcomputerapplicationsandteachers classroompracticeswereexamined.Data weredirectobservationresultsfrom143 integrationlessonsimplementedin schoolsreceivingfederaltechnologygrants.Resultsre?ectuse of student-centeredpracticessuch asteacheras afacilitator,project-basedlearning,andindependentinquiry.Furthermore,thisstudyrevealedthatclassroompracticestendto be morestudent-centeredwhenstudentsuse the computerasa learningtoolsuch as theInternet,wordprocessing,and presentationsoftware.Conversely,drillandpracticesoftwareshoweda dissimilarpattern. 2009ElsevierLtd. All rightsreserved.Technologyimplementationin schoolshas been a majorfocus ofeducationalreformand policiesfor severaldecades(Culp,Honey,&Mandinach,2003;Web-BasedEducationCommission,2000 ).Withinthelastdecade,over$40billionwasspenttoplacecomputersinschoolsandprovideInternetconnectionstoeachschool(CEOForum,2001;Dickard,2003 ).Consequently,thestudent-to-Internet-connectedcomputerratiohasimproved;today,almosteveryschoolhasInternetaccessandaboutonecomputerpereveryfourstudents(Bausell,2008;NationalCenterfor EducationStatisticsNCES,2004 ).Unfortunately,increasedavailabilityof technologyin the schoolhas not leadto overallimprovementin classroomteachingprac-tices( Cuban,2001;Cuban,Kirkpatrick,& Peck, 2001;Rutherford,2004;Windschitl& Sahl,2002 ). The computersare rarelyusedaslearningtools,whichwouldnotonlyextendstudentabilitiestosolveproblems,createproducts,communicateandsharetheirperspectiveswithothers,butalsobuild21stCenturyknowledgeand skills( Jonassen,Howland,Marra,& Crismond,2008;Morrison& Lowther,2010;Partnershipfor21stCenturySkills,2004;Ton-deur, van Braak,& Valcke,2007 ). Teachersmainlyuse computersasdeliverytoolstopresentinstructionalcontentortoengagestudentsin the use of computer-assistedlearningapplicationssuchas drilland practice,tutorials,and simulations( Hohlfeld,Ritzhaupt,Barron,& Kemker,2008;Moursund& Bielefeldt,1999;O Dwyer,Russell,& Bebel,2004;Smeets,2005 ).The use of computersas a deliverytoolhas been thetrendformorethana decade,as a 1994reportby Becker(1994)revealedthatstudentsat theelementarylevelusedcomputersextensivelytododrillsorplayeducationalgamesratherthanas learningtools.An earlystudyby Rakes, Flowers,Casey, and Santana(1999)foundthatapproximatelyone-third(66.4%)ofthe435teacherssurveyedreportedthattheirstudentsuseddrilland practicetypesoftwareintheclassroomas a regularpartoftheircurriculum,however,74.7% reportedthattheirstudentsdidnotusebasicdesktoppublishingsoftware.Morerecentstudieshavefoundthatlittlehas changedsinceBecker s 1994?ndings.A studybyRoss,Smith,Alberg,andLowther(2004), whichpresented?ndingsfromalmost10,000classroomobservations,alsorevealedthattechnologywasusedinfrequentlyas a learningtool,butratherusedtodeliverinstructionsuchas drillandpractice.Relativelyfewteacherswhousedcomputersintheirclassroomhadstudentsuse analyticandproject-orientedsoftware,butinstead,theypersonallyusedcontentdeliverytoolstosupporttheirteaching(Smeets& Mooij,2001 ). This typeof use is not suf?cienttoprovidestudentswiththeessentialskillssuchascriticalthinkingandproblemsolvingforeconomicsurvivalina 21stCenturyworkenvironment(Casner-Lotto&Barrington,2006;Dickard,2002;CEO Forum,2001 ).* Correspondingauthor.E-mailaddress:fethi.inanttu.edu(F.A. Inan).Contentslistsavailableat ScienceDirectTeachingand TeacherEducationjournalhomepage: frontmatter 2009ElsevierLtd. All rightsreserved.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.017Teachingand Teacher Education26 (2010) 540546名师资料总结 - - -精品资料欢迎下载 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 名师精心整理 - - - - - - - 第 1 页，共 7 页 - - - - - - - - - Incontrasttotheaforementionedstudies,researchersshowevidencethatuse of computersas learningtoolscan improvethenatureof teaching,studentlearning,and problemsolving( Butzin,2001;Grant,Ross, Wang,& Potter,2005;Kozma,2003;Lowther,Ross, & Morrison,2003;Means& Golan,1998 ). Unfortunately,asmentionedtheuseoftechnologyas a learningtooltosupportstudentlearningin K-12 schoolshas not beena commonteachingpractice(Ertmer,Addison,Lane,Ross, & Woods,1999;Vannatta&Fordham,2004 ).Basedondatacollectedfromapproximately2156 K-12 teachers,Barron,Kemker,Harmes,and Kalaydjian(2003)foundlowuseoftechnologytosupportstudentproductivity,research,orproblemsolving.Teachersindicatedthatwhenthecomputerwas usedas a learningtool,the primarypurposewas tosearchforinformationor to writepapers(Wozney,Venkatesh,&Abrami,2006 ). Otherstudieshavefoundthatoneofthemostcommonlyused softwarein K-12 settingsis wordprocessingdue toteacherfamiliaritywiththesoftware,whichin turnreducestheneedof technicalsupport(Becker& Ravitz,2001;Ross & Lowther,2003 ). Notsurprisingly,the Internetis reportedas one of the mostcommonlyuseddigitaltoolsinK-12classrooms(Muir-Herzig,2004;Wozneyet al., 2006 ).1.RelationsbetweeninstructionalstrategiesandtypeofcomputersoftwareStudiesrelatedto K-12 technologyintegrationtypicallyprovideapro?leofcomputeravailability,Internetaccess,andtypeofsoftwareuse.However,theexaminationofrelationsbetweenteacherpedagogicalpracticesandtypeofcomputerapplicationgetslittleattention.Inmultiplestudies,teacherspedagogicalorientationand practicestowardtechnologyuse in the classroomweredifferentiatedintotwobroadcategories:teacher-centeredand studentor learner-centered(Becker,2000;Ertmeret al., 1999;Niederhauser&Stoddart,2001 ).Forexample,astudybyNiederhauserand Stoddart(2001)indicateda signi?cantrelation-shipbetweenteachers pedagogicalperspectivesandthetypeofsoftwareused by the studentsin the classroomThis studyshowedthatteacherswithlearner-centeredperspectivespreferredto havetheirstudentsuse open-ended software,whichallowsactivestudentparticipation,production,and constructionof knowledgewithtoolssuchas wordprocessingor presentationsoftware.Ontheotherhand,teacherswithtraditionalteacher-centeredorien-tationleanedtowardskilled-basedsoftwaresuch as tutorialsand/or drilland practice.These ?ndingssupportthoseof Becker(2000) ,whichindicatedthatteacherswithconstructivist-orientedpeda-gogiesfrequentlyassignstudentsto use digitallearningtoolssuchas presentation,spreadsheet,andwordprocessingthatrequireinputand analysisof information.Althoughpreviousstudiesexaminedtherelationbetweenteacherpedagogicalorientationandpracticesand studentuse ofcomputers,mostof thesestudiesreliedon self-reportdatafromteachers.As severalresearcherspointout,teachersusuallyhavesomenotionconcerningdesirableanswers,so thesetypesof datamaybeunreliableandbiasedorprovidelimitedandinvalidinformation(Hakkarainenet al., 2001;Kopcha& Sullivan,2007 ).Furthermore,Hakkarainenet al. (2001)indicatedthatthereis evena discrepancybetweenteachers pedagogicalperspectivesand theirreportedclassroompractices.Ertmer,Gopalakrishnan,andRoss(2001)suggestthatresearchersshouldfocuson whatteachersaredoingin termsof beliefsand practicesregardingcomputeruse intheclassrooms.Therefore,itis importantto observeandrecordtypeofcomputersoftwareandhowandtowhatextenttheseapplicationsareusedinactualclassroomsettings.Thisstudyexaminedthe patternbetweentypesof computerapplicationsandclassroompracticesbasedonrealisticdatagatheredbydirectclassroomobservations.Speci?cally,thefollowingresearchquestionswereaddressed:-Whattypeof classroomorientation,instructionalstrategies,and studentcomputeractivitiesare conductedin technology-integratedclassrooms?-Is thereanycommonpatternbetweentypesofcomputeractivities(productionsoftware,Internetand researchsoftware,and educationalsoftware)and classroompractices(classroomorientation,instructionalstrategies,and studentactivities)?2.Method2.1. ParticipantsThe 39 participatingschoolswerelocatedin Tennesseeand hadreceivedfederalfundingfromthe US Departmentof Educationtoimplementschool-widetechnologyinitiatives.Thirteenoftheschoolshad receivedTitleII PartD (EdTech)fundingfromthe NoChildLeft BehindAct and 26 receivedfundingfromthe TechnologyLiteracyChallengeFund(TLCF). Both grantsrequiredwhole-schoolprofessionaldevelopmentundertheguidanceof a fulltimetech-nologycoach.The datafromthisstudywerecollectedfrom143classroomobservationsoffull(45 60-min)pre-scheduledtech-nologyintegrationlessonsatbothEdTech(N?39)andTLCF(N ? 104)schools.2.2.DatacollectioninstrumentsTwoinstrumentswereusedto descriptively,not judgmentallyrecordobservedclassroompractices:theSchoolObservationMeasure(SOM) (Ross, Smith,& Alberg,1999 ) andtheSurveyofComputerUse (SCU) (Lowther& Ross,2000 ). Bothinstrumentshadbeenshowntobe reliableandvalid( Lewis,Ross, & Alberg,1999;Lowther& Ross, 1999;Lowtheret al., 2003;Ross et al., 2004;Sterbinsky&Burke,2004 ).Inaddition,trained,unbiasedsiteresearchersconductedall datacollectionprocedures.2.2.1.SOMTheSOMwasdevelopedtodeterminetheextenttowhichdifferentcommonandalternativeteachingpracticesareusedthroughoutan entireschoolor in a targeted1-hourlesson(Rosset al., 1999 ). The observerexaminesclassroomeventsand activitiesdescriptively,not judgmentally.Notes are takenrelativeto the useor nonuseof 24 targetstrategies.The targetstrategiesincludebothtraditionalpractices(e.g., directinstruction,independentseatwork,andtechnologyforinstructionaldelivery)andalternative,predominatelystudent-centeredmethodsassociatedwitheduca-tionalreforms(e.g., cooperativelearning,project-basedlearning,inquiry,discussion,usingtechnologyas a learningtool).An inter-raterreliabilitystudyof SOM withtrainedobserverswas conductedby Lewiset al. (1999) . The studyindicatedthatpairsof observersselectedthe identicalresponseon the ?ve-categoryrubricon 67%oftheobservationformitems.Agreementwithinonecategoryoccurs93.8 of the timeand withintwocategories100% of the time.A morerecentreliabilitystudy(Sterbinsky& Burke,2004 ) foundsimilarresultsin that observerratingswerewithinone categoryfor96% of the whole-schoolobservationsand for91% of the targetedobservations.2.2.2.SCUThe SCU is a companioninstrumentto theSOM andwasalsousedduringthe targetedobservations( Lowther& Ross, 1999 ). TheSCU was designedexclusivelyto capturestudentaccess to, abilitywith,and use of computers,ratherthanteacheruse of technology.F.A. Inan et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education26 (2010) 540546541名师资料总结 - - -精品资料欢迎下载 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 名师精心整理 - - - - - - - 第 2 页，共 7 页 - - - - - - - - - Observersrecordcomputeractivitiesbythesoftwarebeingused.Thecomputeractivitiesaredividedintothreecategoriesbasedon the typeof softwareused:(a) productionsoftware(wordprocessing,databases,spreadsheets,draw-paintgraphics,presen-tation,authoring,conceptmapping,and planning),(b) Internetorresearchsoftware(Internetbrowser,CD referencematerials,andcommunications),and(c)educationalsoftware(drill-practice-tutorial,problemsolving,andprocesssoftware).Earlyinterraterreliabilityof SCU was determinedin a studythatinvolvedpairsoftrainedobserverswhoconductedobservationsin 42 targetedvisitstoclassroomsthatwerescheduledtohavestudentsutilizingtechnology.Resultsfromthe studyrevealedthat overall,the pairedobserversselectedthe identicalSCU responseon 86% of the items,withallotherresponsesbeingonlyone ratingapart(Lowther&Ross, 1999 ). A morerecentreliabilitystudyfor the SCU (Sterbinsky& Burke,2004 ) showthatobserverratingswerewithinone cate-goryfor91% of the targetedobservations.2.3.ProceduresInthisstudy,theSOMandSCU wasusedduringtargetedobservationsto exploreclassroompracticesin prearranged1-hoursessionsin whichthe teacherswereaskedto integratetechnology.Observedstrategiesand studentcomputeractivitieswererecordedonSOMandSCU Notesformsthatrepresented15minutesofobservedtime.Attheconclusionofthevisit,theobserversummarized,on datasummaryforms,the frequencywithwhicheachof thestrategiesand thecomputeractivities/andsoftwarewereobserved.The frequencyforbothinstrumentswas recordedusinga ?ve-pointrubricthatrangesfrom(0) NotObservedto (4)Extensivelyobserved.To ensurethereliabilityof data,observersparticipatedina comprehensivetrainingsession.Anobserver smanualprovidedde?nitionof terms,examplesand explanationsofthetargetstrategies,andadescriptionofproceduresforcompletingtheinstrument.Afterthetrainingsession,eachobserveralsoparticipatedinsuf?cientpracticeexercisesinrealclassroomsettingstoensurethathis/herdatawerecomparablewiththoseof experiencedobservers.Observationdata fromTLCF and EdTechschoolswerecollectedby trainedobserversand bothSOM and SCU wereusedduringtheobservations.Fourtargetedobservationsforeachof the26 TLCFschoolsandthree-targetedobservationfor eachof the 13 EdTechschoolswereconducted.Teachersfromeachgrantschoolwererandomlyselectedandinformedpriortotheobservationtodemonstrateapreparedlessonusingtechnology.Observersworkedwiththe teachers,technologycoaches,and administratorsto scheduleall data collectionevents.2.4.Data analysisObservationdata wereanalyzedby descriptivestatisticaltech-niquesincludingfrequencies,percentages,meansandstandarddeviations.Furthermore,two-waycontingencytableanalyses(chi-squareforindependence)wereconductedtodetermineifrelationshipsexistedbetweenthe fourmostcommonlyusedsoft-wareapplicationsandthe17 mostfrequentlyobservedinstruc-tionalstrategies.The mostcommonlyusedsoftwareapplicationswereInternetbrowser,wordprocessing,drillandpractice,andpresentation.Theinstructionalstrategiesconsistedof fourorien-tations(directinstruction,team teaching,cooperativelearning,andindividualtutoring),sixinstructionalstrategies(higher-levelinstructionalfeedback,integrationof subjectareas,project-basedlearning,use of higher-levelquestioningstrategies,teacheractingas a coach/facilitator,parent/communityinvolvementinlearningactivities),andsevenstudentactivities(independentseatwork,experiential/hands-onlearning,systematicindividualinstruction,sustainedwriting/composition,sustainedreading,independentinquiry/researchon the partof students,studentdiscussion).Eachofthe variableswascodedas notobserved(rubriccategory?0)andobserved(categories14 combined).Resultsdidnotincludeanalysesthathad an expectedcountof less than?ve ( Huck,2008;Sheskin,2000 ).3.Results3.1. StudentcomputeractivitiesSCU resultsindicatethatthestudentswereusinga varietyofsoftwareapplicationsduringclassroomobservations.Internetbrowserwasthemostcommonlyobservedapplicationas it wasobservedbeingused by studentsrarelyto extensivelyin nearly60%oftheclassrooms.Innearly25% oftheclasses,othersoftwareobservedin the rangeof rarelyto extensivelywerewordprocessing(22.1%),drill/p
