You are here:

Planning for Integrating Teaching Technologies
ARTICLE

, , ,

CJLT Volume 30, Number 2, ISSN 1499-6677 e-ISSN 1499-6677 Publisher: Canadian Network for Innovation in Education

Full Text

Abstract

Teaching technologies offer pedagogical advantages which vary with specific contexts. Successfully integrating them hinges on clearly identifying pedagogical goals, then planning for the many decisions that technological change demands. In examining different ways of organizing this process, we have applied planning tools from other domains - Fault Tree Analysis and Capability Maturity Modeling- at the school and college levels. In another approach, we have examined attempts to broadly model the integration process at the university level. Our studies demonstrate that the use of a variety of tools and techniques can render the integration of teaching technologies more systematic.

Citation

Aaron, M., Dicks, D., Ives, C., Montgomery, B. & Montgomery, B. (2004). Planning for Integrating Teaching Technologies. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 30(2),. Canadian Network for Innovation in Education. Retrieved April 19, 2024 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ainley, J., Banks, D., & Fleming, M. (2002). The influence of IT: perspectives from five Australian schools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4) 395-404.
  2. Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing technological change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
  3. Becker, H.J., & Ravitz, J. (1999). The influence of computer and internet use on teachers' pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 141-157.
  4. Brown, D.G. (1999). Always in touch: A practical guide to ubiquitous computing. Winston-Salem, N.C.: Wake Forest University Press.
  5. Brush, T. (1999). Technology planning and implementation in public schools: A five-state comparison. Computers in Schools, 15(2), 11-23.
  6. Daniel, J.S. (1999). The mega-universities and knowledge media: Technology strategies for higher education (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
  7. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly,13, 319-340.
  8. Dexter, S., Anderson, R., & Becker, H. (1999). Teachers' views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education (3), 1-26.
  9. Dicks, D.J. (2000, November). Changing how we teach. Plenary presentation, Educational Technology Conference. Concordia University.
  10. Ertmer, P.A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
  11. Fuller, H.L. (2000). First teach the teachers: Technology support and computer use in academic subjects. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 511 _ 537.
  12. Goodhue, D., Littlefield, R., & Straub, D.W. (1997). The measurement of the impacts of the iic on the end-users: the survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(5), 454-465.
  13. Hall, G.E. (1976). The study of individual teacher and professor concerns about innovations. Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 22-23.
  14. Hall, G.E., George, A.A., & Rutherford, W.L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: a manual for the use of the SoC Questionnaire. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number ED 147 342).
  15. Hasselbring, T., Barron, L., & Risko, V. (2000). Literature review: Technology to support teacher development. Washington, D.C.: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching.
  16. Hooper, S., & Rieber, L.P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A.C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Indiana Department of Education, Office of Learning Resources (2002) Projects. Retrieved April 27, 2004 from http://doe.state.in.us/olr/projects.html
  17. Ives, C. (2002). Designing and developing an educational systems design model for technology integration in universities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia University, Montreal.
  18. Jonassen, D.H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W.H. (1999). Task analysis for instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  19. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A Conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London: Routledge Falmer.
  20. Leggett, W.P., & Persichitte, K.A. (1998). Blood, sweat, and TEARS: 50 years of technology
  21. Montgomery, B. (2003). Developing a technology integration capability maturity models for K-12 schools. Unpublished M.A, thesis. Concordia University, Montreal.
  22. Paquette, G., Ricciardi-Rigault, C., de la Teja, I., & Paquin, C. (1997). Le Campus virtuel: un réseau d'acteurs et de resources. Journal of Distance Education, XII(1-2), 85-101.
  23. Rogers, P.L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 455-472.
  24. Schrum, L. (1995). Educators and the Internet: A case study of professional development. Computers and Education, 24(3), 221-228.
  25. Sherry, L., Billig, S., Tavalin, F., & Gibson, D. (2000). New insights on technology adoption in schools. T.H.E. Journal, 27(7), 42-46.
  26. Stephens, K.G. (1972). A fault tree approach to analysis of educational systems as demonstrated in vocational education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
  27. Surry, D.W., & Ely, D.P. (1999). Adoption, diffusion and implementation and institutionalization of educational technology. Retrieved January 29, 2001, from http://www.coe.usouthal.edu/faculty/dsurry/papers/adoption/chap.htm
  28. Wood, R.K., Stephens, K.G., & Barker, B.O. (1979). Fault Tree Analysis: An emerging methodology for instructional science. Instructional Science, 8, 1-22.
  29. Wozney, L., Venkathes, V., Abrami, P.C. (2001). Technology implementation questionnaire (TIQ): Report on results. Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University. © Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections