You are here:

The Impact of Ubiquitous Computing on a Teacher's Practice: Factors and Conditions Affecting the Operationalizing of a Constructivist Teaching Philosophy
PROCEEDINGS

, Mercyhurst College, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Phoenix, AZ, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-55-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of how ubiquitous computing would affect an elementary teacher's ability to more fully operationalize an existing constructivist teaching philosophy. Research on computing technologies in K-12 schools documents that new technologies can act as a catalyst toward teacher change of instructional practices over time when using such technologies for teaching and learning. The literature also suggests that a teacher's use of computing technologies may contribute to a shift toward more constructivist teaching practices. This qualitative single case study investigated the impact of full-time in-school computer ubiquity via wireless laptops for every student and the teacher in this fifth grade classroom during the 2002-2003 school year. Qualitative methods were used in the gathering and analysis multiple forms of data. Findings supported this study's questions related to computing ubiquity and operationalized constructivist philosophy.

Citation

Ransom, S. (2005). The Impact of Ubiquitous Computing on a Teacher's Practice: Factors and Conditions Affecting the Operationalizing of a Constructivist Teaching Philosophy. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1004-1012). Phoenix, AZ, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved April 11, 2021 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. ACOT. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching, learning, and technology: A report on 10 years of ACOT research. Cupertino: Apple Computers, Inc.
  2. Alessi, S.M., & Trollip, S.R. (2001). Multimedia for Learning: Methods and Development (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  3. Barab, S.A., Hay, K.E., & Duffy, T.M. (1998). Grounded constructions and how technology can help. TechTrends, 43 (2), 15-23.
  4. Becker, H.J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is larry cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51 [2002, January 15].
  5. Becker, H.J., & Ravitz, J.L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are cuban's predictions correct? Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Seattle. Available: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/conferences-pdf/aera_2001.pdf [2002, March 4].
  6. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (3rd ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
  7. Bruner, J.S. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  8. Byrom, E. (1996). Review of the professional literature on the integration of technology into educational programs. SERVE. Available: http://www.serve.org/technology/litreview.html[2001,October11].Byrom,E.,&Bingham,M.(2001).Factorsinfluencingtheeffectiveuseoftechnologyforteachingandlearning:LessonslearnedfromtheSEIR*TECintensivesiteschools(second).SERVE.Available:http://www.seirtec.org/leader.html [2001, October 20].
  9. Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 2129.
  10. Cuban, L. (1997). High-tech schools and low-tech teaching: A commentary. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14 (2), 6-7.
  11. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  12. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience& Education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi.
  13. Ely, D.P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39(6), 23-27.
  14. Ertmer, P.A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E.M. (2001). Technology-using teachers: Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5).
  15. Fouts, J.T. (2000). Research on computers and education: Past, present, and future. Seattle: Seattle Pacific University.
  16. Fouts, J.T., & Stuen, C. (1997). Copernicus project: Learning with laptops: Year 1 evaluation report (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 847).
  17. Fullan, M. (1994). Successful School Improvement: The Implementation Perspective and Beyond. Buckingham, Australia: Open University Press.
  18. Gardner, J., Morrison, H., Jarman, R., Reilly, C., & McNally, H. (1994). Learning with portable computers. Computers and Education, 22(1/2), 161-171.
  19. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
  20. Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers' integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101(3), 261-315.
  21. Hill, J.R., Reeves, T.C., Grant, M., & Wang, S.-K. (2000). The impact of portable technologies on teaching and learning: Year two report prepared for athens academy: University of Georgia, Department of Instructional Technology.
  22. Hill, J.R., Reeves, T.C., & Heidemeier, H. (2000). Ubiquitous computing for teaching, learning, and communicating: Trends, issues, and recommendations (White Paper). Athens: The University of Georgia, College of Education.
  23. Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  24. Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Transforming learning with technology: beyond modernism and post-modernism or whoever controls the technology creates the reality. Educational Technology, 40(2), 21-25.
  25. Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning With Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  26. LeCompte, M.D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.
  27. Lightfoot, J. (2000). Laptops in the classroom: A bad idea whose time has come. Available: http://www.homestead.com/judy_lightfoot/files/Laptops_in_the_Classroom.html [2002, January 19].
  28. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Marcinkiewicz, H.R. (1993-94). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220-237.
  29. McDonald, H., & Ingvarson, L. (1997). Technology: A catalyst for educational change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29 (5), 513-527.
  30. Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology's role in education reform: Findings from a national study of innovating schools (RR91172010). Washington, DC: SRI International.
  31. Merriam, S.B. (2001). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  32. Newhouse, P. (1999). Portable computers supporting secondary school learning. Proceedings Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum 1999: Curtin University of Technology. Available: http://education.curtin.edu.au/waier/forums/1999/newhouse.html[2002,February25].Pea,R.,&Cuban,L.(1998).Theprosandconsoftechnologyintheclassroom.SRIInternational:TAPPEDIN.Available:http://www.tappedin.org/info/teachers/debate.html [2002, April 14].
  33. Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books.Ravitz, J.L., & Becker, H.J. (20 00). Evidence for computer use being related to more constructivist practices and to changes in practice in a more constructivist-compatible direction. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
  34. Ravitz, J.L., Becker, H.J., & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist compatible beliefs and practices among U.S. Teachers (4). Irvine: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California.
  35. Reeves, T.C. (1998). 'Future schlock', 'the computer delusion', and 'the end of education': Responding to critics of educational technology. Educational Technology, 38(5), 49-53.
  36. Rockman, S., & Others. (2000). A more complex picture: Laptop use and impact in the context of changing home and school access, [Executive Summary]. Available: http://rockman.com/projects/laptop/laptop3exec.htm [2002, February
  37. 11].Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
  38. Spradley, J.P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
  39. Stager, G. (1995). In australia... Laptops lead the way in professional development. Educational Leadership.
  40. Stager, G. (2001). False profits: Expertise and educational computing. Hotsource. Available: http://www.stager.org/hotsource/hotsource2001.html [2001, October 31].
  41. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  42. Taylor, S.J., & Bodan, R. (1984). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

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

Suggest Corrections to References