You are here:

Impact of School Setting on Teacher Attitudes of Asynchronous Educational Communication Media
PROCEEDING

, Colegio Karl C. Parrish, Colombia ; , Universidad Simon Bolivar, Colombia

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Washington, D.C., United States ISBN 978-1-939797-32-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

This quantitative study investigated the impact of school setting on perceptions and attitudes of K-12 public school teachers related to asynchronous communication learning tools in rural, suburban, and urban environments A survey of 2,203 school teachers in a Mid-Atlantic state revealed significant differences of perceived effectiveness dependent upon geographic location In particular, urban teacher perceptions of effectiveness were significantly lower than rural and suburban schools for each technology measured In addition, statistically significant differences were uncovered between suburban and rural schools Current teachers, administrators, and teacher educators may benefit from this insight to identify the most effective technologies, as well as provide a platform to increase teacher perceptions, in particularly those in the urban classroom

Citation

Kormos, E. & Julio, L. (2018). Impact of School Setting on Teacher Attitudes of Asynchronous Educational Communication Media. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3755-3760). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 16, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Culp, K.M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-307.
  2. Gonzalez, A. (2014). Strategies to get started with blended learning. Voices from the Middle, 22(2), 34–38.
  3. Knoblauch, D., & Chase, M.A. (2015). Rural, suburban, and urban schools: The impact of school setting on the efficacy beliefs and attributions of student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 104-114.
  4. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: children in America's schools. New York: Harper Perennial.
  5. Lowe, J.M. (2006). Rural education: attracting and retaining teachers in small schools. The Rural Educator, 27(2), 28e32.
  6. Marshall, J. (2016). Quality teaching: Seven apps that will change the way you teach in the English Language Arts classroom. Voices from the Middle, 23(4), 66.
  7. Michie, G. (2005). See you when we get there: Teaching for change in urban schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
  8. National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). “Urban/Rural” classification of schools and local education agencies. Retrieved from: http://www.papartnerships.org/pdfs/methodology.pdf
  9. Redding, S., & Walberg, H.J. (2012). Promoting learning in rural schools. Center on Innovation& Improvement.
  10. Rutherford, S. (2014). Collaborative Learning: Theory, Strategies, and Educational Benefits. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
  11. Saavedra, A.R., & Opfer, V.D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13.
  12. Song, S., & Owens, E. (2011). Rethinking Technology Disparities and Instructional Practices within Urban Schools: Recommendations for school leadership and teacher training. Journal Of Technology Integration In The Classroom, 3(2), 23-36.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Slides