You are here:

K-12 Teachers’ Pedagogical Reasoning in Planning Instruction with Technology Integration
PROCEEDINGS

, , Indiana University, 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), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

While technology is restructuring the U.S. K-12 educational landscape, it is generally reported in literature that the key to effective use of technology in schools depends on how teachers integrate technology into their curricula as thinking professionals. There have been scanty studies on teachers' thinking processes with regard to using technology for instruction. The purpose of this study is to examine how inservice teachers reason about technology integration into their daily curricula. In the case of lesson-planning, six processes are found: comprehension, interpretation, reflection, specification, selection of technology tools, and caution. We also note that the individual teachers did not necessarily go through the pedagogical reasoning processes strictly in a linear manner. Practical implications of the findings are also highlighted.

Citation

Feng, Y. & Hew, K. (2005). K-12 Teachers’ Pedagogical Reasoning in Planning Instruction with Technology Integration. 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. 3173-3180). Phoenix, AZ, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 20, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. AECT Definition and Terminology Committee. (2005). Stasis and change in the definition of educational technology: The rational and decision making process. TechTrends, 49(1).
  2. Atkins, N., & Vasu, E. (2000). Measuring knowledge of technology usage and stages of concern about computing: A study of middle school teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 279-302.
  3. Bonk, C.J., Daytner, K., Daytner, G., Dennen, V., & Malikowski, S. (2001). Using web-based cases to enhance, extend, and transform preservice teacher training: Two years in review. Computers in the Schools, 18(1), 189-211.
  4. Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
  6. Fernstermacher, G. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37-49). New York: Macmillan.
  7. Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N.E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education. (4 th ed.) Boston: McGraw-Hill Inc.
  8. Jonassen, D.J. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  9. Korthagen, F.A.J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77-97.
  10. Mehlinger, H.D., & Powers, S.M. (2002). Technology& Teacher education: A guide for educators and policymakers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  11. Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R.W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427-462.
  12. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  13. Nisan-Nelson, P. (2001). Technology integration: A case of professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 83-103.
  14. Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 57-76.
  15. Schwandt, T. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 221-259). London: Sage.
  16. Shavelson, R.J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teacher’s pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498.
  17. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 114-135.
  18. Smith, M.S. & Broom, M. (2003). The landscape and future of the use of technology in K-12 education. In H.F.O’Neil, Jr. & R.S. Perez (Eds.), Technology applications in education: A learning view (pp. 3-30). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
  19. U.S. Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved Jan. 15, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html #sec2403
  20. Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G.A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5-30.

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.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. If There’s TPACK, is There Technological Pedagogical Reasoning and Action?

    Judi Harris, William & Mary School of Education, United States; Michael Phillips, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2018 (Mar 26, 2018) pp. 2051–2061

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.