Technology in school classrooms how it can transform teaching and student learning today

Bausch 5 Assessment Technology as a Tool to Strengthen Teaching and Student Learning Michael Russell 6 Emerging Technologies and Changing Practices in Science Classrooms John A.. Yet tec

Technology in School Classrooms

How It Can Transform Teaching and

Student Learning Today

Edited by James G Cibulka and Bruce S Cooper

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Published by Rowman & Littlefield

A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706

www.rowman.com

Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26–34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB

Copyright © 2017 by James G Cibulka and Bruce S Cooper

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available

ISBN: 978-1-4758-3103-0 (cloth : alk paper)

ISBN: 978-1-4758-3104-7 (pbk : alk paper)

Foreword: Next Generation Learning in School

Chris Dede

Introduction to the Topic—and the Book

James G Cibulka and Bruce S Cooper

1 Technology’s Role and Place in Student Learning: What We Have Learned from

Research and Theories

Kui Xie and Nathan A Hawk

2 Teacher Professional Development in the Digital Age: Design and Implementation of

Learning without Limits

Stephanie Hirsh and Michelle Bowman King

3 The State of K–12 Online Learning

Michael K Barbour

4 Building Foundational Skills in Learners with Special Needs through the Use of

Technology

Ted S Hasselbring and Margaret E Bausch

5 Assessment Technology as a Tool to Strengthen Teaching and Student Learning

Michael Russell

6 Emerging Technologies and Changing Practices in Science Classrooms

John A Craven III and Tracy Hogan

7 Economic Effects of Technology: Costs and Distribution of Resources to Support

James G Cibulka

Index

About the Authors

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING IN SCHOOL

This book provides an excellent analysis of whether and how digital technologies cantransform teaching and learning in classroom settings The authors collectively provide amultidimensional perspective on how and under what conditions technology can beproductively employed by teachers to more effectively meet the challenges presented by

a rapidly evolving world

Civilization today presents a landscape deeply shaped by technologies—transportation,communications, and computing—that place new demands on schooling to preparetoday’s students with knowledge and skills not necessary for prior generations (Fishman &Dede, 2016) This challenge has profound implications for teachers and the work ofteaching, in terms of both what it means to teach and how one teaches

I agree with the editors’ stance that the important issue is not the value of digital toolsand media as an educational innovation for industrial-era schooling, but their potentialrole in the emergence of an alternative, next-generation educational model well suited topreparing students for a future quite different than the immediate past

Recently, in many types of work, advances in computing and in artificial intelligence(AI) have driven shifts in the “division of labor” between technology and people, as newtypes of tools have taken over the tasks people used to do (Levy & Murnane, 2013) Asthe chapters in Technology in School Classrooms discuss, these technological advancesprovide a useful lens for examining how job roles are changing in teaching, as well ashow teachers can model for students the division of intellectual labor with technologythat they, in turn, will experience when entering the workplace

The fundamental impact potentially is not technology taking over teaching via AI, butintelligence amplification: technology providing a classroom infrastructure that enablesteachers to direct their attention toward the students who need it the most, whilesupporting more proficient students to continue making progress on their own (Dede &Richards, 2012) Digital technologies can help teachers learn to shift their practice towardthis new division of labor, so their classrooms center on “deeper learning” that preparesstudents for a global, knowledge-based, innovation-centered civilization (NationalResearch Council, 2012; Dede, 2014)

Innovative approaches to teacher learning are important because the failure to provide

universal, high-quality professional development in education is in sharp contrast to otherprofessions, such as attorneys and physicians (Dede, Eisenkraft, Frumin, & Hartley,2016) This shortfall is, in part, responsible for continuing difficulties both in attractingstrong people to teaching and in keeping them in classroom instruction more than a fewyears (Mehta, 2013) Moreover, a few forms of professional development have beenstudied using strong methods of evaluation and research, so improvement is difficult,given a lack of findings about what strategies are working well and why (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009).

Technology in School Classrooms’ chapters highlight the central role of teachers inclassroom learning and also emphasize that using digital media to automate conventionalmodels of professional development cannot be successful in fostering transformations ininstruction Ultimately, shifts in teachers’ practice require professional capacity building inwhich participants not only learn new skills but also “unlearn” almost unconscious beliefs,assumptions, and values about the nature of teaching, learning, and schooling (Dede &Frumin, 2014)

Professional development that requires unlearning necessitates high levels ofemotional/social support in addition to mastering the intellectual/technical dimensionsinvolved In order for teachers of education to transform from presentational/assimilativeinstruction to active inquiry-based forms of student learning, teachers must unlearn theirown mental models, which include emotional investments developed through decades ofbeing a student receiving traditional instruction and further years of building skills inconventional instruction Without unlearning, teachers teach as they themselves weretaught

At this point in history, the primary barriers in transforming to a twenty-first-centuryeducational system are not conceptual, technical, or economic, but instead psychological,political, and cultural Some people oppose any form of educational change that is notfully understood, arguing that traditional schooling was effective for them and thatinnovators should not “experiment on children.” But the most dangerous experiment wecan perform is to keep our current systems of schooling in place, hoping that varioussmall changes and the introduction of new technologies will make up for theirshortcomings

Over time, the disconnect between what society needs and what industrial-ageeducational models can provide is widening, and cohort after cohort of students hasneedlessly high rates of failure, creating terrible consequences for those learners and ournation

Technology in School Classrooms describes how, with the right investment, we canhave the means necessary to implement technology-enhanced models of education thatprepare all students for a future very different from the immediate past Whether wehave the stakeholder commitment and societal will to actualize such a vision remains to

be seen

Chris Dede

REFERENCES

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S (2009) Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and Abroad [Monograph] Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Dede, C (2014) The role of digital technologies in deeper learning New York: Jobs for the Future Retrieved from

Levy, F., & Murnane, R (2013) Dancing with robots: Human skills for computerized work Cambridge, MA: Thirdway Publications Retrieved from http://content.thirdway.org/publications/714/Dancing-With-Robots.pdf

Mehta, J (2013) The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations, and the troubled quest to remake American schooling New York: Oxford University Press.

National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Introduction to the Topic— and the Book

James G Cibulka and Bruce S Cooper

This book addresses whether digital technologies can transform teaching and learning inAmerica’s P–12 classrooms Education technology expenditures in the United Statescontinue to grow each year and have now become a major investment for school systems(Schaffhauser, 2016) The federal government has made large investments in promotingeducation technology, such as through its Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to UseTechnology Program (PT3)

Yet technology proponents, as well as critics of public school spending and schoolperformance, point to little evidence that digital technologies as currently employed inour schools have met their promise of improving the quality of education in America’sclassrooms through new teaching practices and improved performance by students

Controversy about whether technology is being used effectively by teachers and schooladministrators is not new Debates on this question stretch back many decades, prior tothe invention of digital technology, but the question of technology’s effectiveness hastaken on a new complexion and urgency today When educational television made itsdebut in the 1950s, for example, and film and radio before it, these innovations had quitemodest objectives At that time, technologies were conceptualized as supplementingregular instruction (Cuban, 1986, 2001)

Similarly, when computers initially were introduced in classrooms beginning in the1980s, they were viewed as ancillary tools for teachers to use, often located in a separatelearning lab outside the regular classroom As new technologies were promoted by schoolboards and administrators, many teachers enthusiastically embraced them Despite thisfact, there have been continuing criticisms that too few teachers were adopting theinnovations or were not using them appropriately

Such concerns appear to have widespread credence Fishman and Dede (2016) arguethat most schools have not achieved a high level of technology integration These schoolsoperate at Level One (Minimal) or Level Two (Intermediate) rather than Level Three(Extensive)

They argue that at Level One, technology is used “to increase interest or motivation …

in whole group or large-group presentational styles of teaching” (p 1277) At theIntermediate Level, the technology is more widely available to individual students, whohave better access to computer networks, and perhaps there is some differentiation ofinstruction “for learners at various skill levels.”

Only at Level Three is the technology used by teachers to enable learning that reachesoutside the classroom, to “customiz(e) instructional conditions for learners, and topromote collaborative learning approaches.” They describe these classrooms and schools

The first dynamic operates at the societal level due to the emergence of a globaleconomy that is driven by technological changes These global economic forces are now

an important “exogenous” influence on the American school system

In The Race between Education and Technology , Goldin and Katz (2008) explain thattechnological change in our broader economy is proceeding faster than the Americanschool system’s ability to adapt This was not true in the last century, when the Americanpublic school system and our nation’s postsecondary system were developing to respond

to the challenges of rapid industrialization and mass immigration

While this educational system came to be regarded as the best in the world and waswidely emulated, Goldin and Katz argue that American schools have been unable torespond as effectively to today’s postindustrial global demands rooted in rapidtechnological change

They present convincing evidence that these exogenous influences on American schoolswill or can continue to create negative consequences for the American economy, jobs,and equality unless the American school system produces higher graduation rates, betterstudent outcomes, and more equality of outcomes across student demographic groups.Technology now necessitates better outcomes from our educational system, and the use

of digital technology tools in the classroom is one strategy for improving those outcomes.The excellence movement that evolved from the 1980s onward, with the publication of

A Nation at Risk (1983), certainly reflected concerns about the American school system’sability to compete in a global economy However, the emergence of the Internet in the1990s and the resulting digital revolution accelerated these global forces, exertingincreased political pressure on the American public school system to perform at higherlevels

If the global, technology-driven economy poses a new set of challenges for American

public education, digital technology is also viewed by many as a solution to these verysame challenges Dramatic developments within the field of educational technology areresponsible.

Various facets will be discussed in this book Hardware has evolved to include multipledevices such as laptops, iPhones, and iPads Education software has grown exponentially,particularly for use in wireless environments An amazing array of “apps,” producedcontinuously by tech developers working in a burgeoning tech industry, now purport toassist teachers and students in the classroom Online sites have been created to curateand rate the quality of these apps

The advent of digital technology also has spawned new kinds of schools that areentirely technology based, and others that employ “blended-learning” strategies Theseways of organizing learning also exist to some degree in bricks-and-mortar schools,including flipped classrooms

A growing number of online platforms provide educational content, some of which buildlessons based on videos and gaming “Adaptive” or “personalized learning” has beenmade possible by advances in education technology Many online platforms provide openaccess to specific fields of knowledge and research Online tools also now supportdifferent forms of assessment that can be accessed by students, teachers, and parents

Online education networks support communities of teachers, students, and parents andserve a variety of specific purposes For example, some support teacher professionaldevelopment In short, the field of education technology, like technology’s influence inbusiness, medicine, journalism, and many other institutions, appears to be growingexponentially

These advances in educational technology developments have shifted our perception ofits potential to drive innovations in the classroom Xie and Hawk in chapter 1 of thisvolume point out that the introduction of computers in schools did not begin with thisambitious goal Their role gradually shifted from emphasizing lower-level skills such asdrill and practice to helping students develop more cognitive-based skills

As these digital technology tools have become more sophisticated and more accessibleoutside of school, our expectations that they can drive improved schooling outcomes haveincreased Not surprisingly then, many education reformers now see technology as apotential solution to the overall failure of the excellence movement to improve theperformance of the American school system

A good example is Paul E Peterson’s (2010) embrace of technology as a disruptiveinnovation:

If technology is to pave the road ahead, it will come as a great relief to those who have led education’s excellence movement Progress toward excellence has been lurching slowly along a bumpy, bog-filled dirt road By the end of the twenty-first century’s first decade, it seemed to have reached a dead end, either of its own making or the result of a blockade constructed by school districts, teacher unions, and other vested interests… Still, choice and accountability,

if coupled with technology, have the potential to create a more productive educational system (p 231)

Critics also point to the lagging performance of American students on internationalachievement tests like PISA and TIMMS as prima facie evidence of underperformingschools.

Changing Expectations for Student Learning

In this volume, we examine the proposition that digital technology can transformteaching and student learning in American classrooms We need to think about studentlearning within an appropriate frame of reference, however We agree with Fishman andDede (2016) that a “techno-centric approach” defines technology as a “solution toproblems” too narrowly Student learning should be defined more broadly thanperformance on standardized tests The National Research Council’s (2012) consensusframework describes twenty-first-century learning skills as developing students’ advancedknowledge and skills across several dimensions: cognitive outcomes, intrapersonaloutcomes, and interpersonal outcomes

Working from this broader definition of student learning, Fishman and Dede adopt a

“socio-technical approach” to digital technology “that views the products of technologyuse as emerging from interactions among social and organizational structure, people, andtools” (p 1270) This approach can help us understand whether technology istransforming teaching and student learning It is also broad enough for us to ask whytransformation is, or is not, occurring

Changing Expectations for Students in Digital Literacy

In addition to the higher expectations for students just discussed, “digital literacy” is nowconsidered essential to their success in the global economy All students need thesetechnological skills for postsecondary education and to prepare them for whatever careersthey will enter, some of which have yet to be invented

These digital literacy skills fall into at least three areas (Bussert-Webb & Henry, 2016)

At the most basic level, students need keyboard skills to operate a computer or otherdigital device They also need to learn how to navigate various software apps on thedigital device they use This is a challenge, given the many different apps that developershave put on the market with different design features

At an intermediate-skill level, students must acquire proficiency in conducting digitalsearches on the Internet This includes finding information or researching conceptsassigned by the teacher as well as using the Internet to explore one’s interests At amore advanced level, digital literacy involves learning how to evaluate information foraccuracy and bias when critically reading on the Internet This aspect of digital literacyincorporates higher-order thinking skills that are part of the twenty-first-century learningframework that forty-two states have adopted as part of the common core standards (or

similar framework adopted by most other states) Digital literacy also includescollaborating with peers in online learning that requires accessing, evaluating, andpresenting information.

While today’s students are sometimes described as digital natives, it is not a foregoneconclusion that students possess all these skills There are a range of impediments Notall schools offer access to digital tools and wireless networks, which may consign somestudents to the lowest level of digital literacy Even if schools have digital hardware andsoftware, not all teachers explicitly develop students’ digital literacy in all three skillareas

Because the Internet is primarily conducted in English, English language learnersconfront additional challenges in acquiring digital literacy Students may not have equalaccess to digital devices and the Internet outside of school In other words, withoutexplicit school policies and classroom practices to counter these deficits, a “digital divide”may worsen existing inequalities in our current educational system

Changing Performance Expectations for Teachers

In recent decades, as the education reform movement has adopted more rigorouslearning goals for students, including common core standards, in most states,performance expectations for teachers also have been raised It is worth considering howthis context has increased expectations for teachers’ use of technology in theirclassrooms

For decades, research has documented that teachers are the most important based influence on student achievement with cumulative (although fading) effects: forexample, Jackson, Rockoff, and Stager (2014); McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz, andHamilton (2003); Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005); Rowan, Correnti, and Miller (2002);and Wright, Horn, and Sanders (1997)

school-In addition, economists (e.g., Hanushek, 2011) have documented wide variation inteacher performance on standardized tests A widely cited study by Weisberg, Sexton,Mulhern, and Keeling (2009) documented that most teacher evaluation systems failed tocapture variations in teacher effectiveness This work by education economists andreformers spurred federal and state policymakers to require new accountability policiesthat focus on teachers’ performance

As part of its eligibility criteria for its Race to the Top (RTT) competition under theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Obama administration requiredstates to design and implement evaluation systems for teachers and principals thatdifferentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories, including data on studentgrowth as a significant factor Such evaluations were intended to carry high-stakeconsequences for teachers, including policies regarding their compensation, promotion,and retention

Teachers unions have criticized the fairness of using state tests to conduct teacherevaluations While these federal requirements were rolled back, in part, with the passage

of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), many states have continued to keep their stakes accountability policies, including teacher evaluation policies, in place

high-This political context helps explain current pressures on teachers to improve studenttest scores Yet there is no evidence that these policies have incentivized classroominnovations such as technology use One can consult the annual analyses of technologyuse in American classrooms conducted by Education Week (2016) since 2002 for someindications For its 2016 Technology Counts, Education Week conducted a survey ofteachers Many see themselves as technology innovators and risk takers About a quarter

of teachers describe themselves as risk takers who will adopt new technologies as theybecome available, but another 23 percent say that they will adopt new technologies onlyafter they have been available for a while

The picture that emerges from their self-reports is that typically they use technology fordrills and review rather than to help challenge students with higher-order thinking such ascreating new content and helping students using social media to collaborate on projects.Technology continues to serve a supplementary role in their teaching rather than beingused to promote inquiry-based learning Since the Education Week data havedocumented these practices over many years, it is not clear that high-stakesaccountability policies have had any effect on teachers’ cautious embrace of digitaltechnology

Why are their practices regarding technology use so constrained? In the same survey(Education Week, 2016, June 6), they report that a variety of challenges affect theirpropensity to adopt new technologies, such as, in the following order, too few digitaldevices, lack of training, state/district curriculum demands, poor Internet access,insufficient IT support or administrative guidance, software glitches, and classroommanagement challenges All these factors no doubt contribute, in part, to teachers’ use,

or nonuse, of digital technology in today’s classrooms

TECHNOLOGY ENTHUSIASTS AND TECHNOLOGY

SKEPTICS

I n Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology , Allan Collins and Richard Halverson(2009) capture the debate about education technology’s potential to reform teaching andstudent learning within two different frames They contrast the views of technologyenthusiasts and technology skeptics Enthusiasts, among whom Collins and Halversonmay be counted as members, see technology as providing “enhanced capabilities” toserve all learners more effectively Their examples of such technology-driven innovationsinclude just-in-time learning, customization, greater learner control, and scaffolding (p

19) These seeds of a new educational system also are manifested in other reforms such

as home schooling and workplace learning

Technology enthusiasts share a conviction that the forces of change must and cantransform schooling in the decades ahead It is a transformational agenda The federalgovernment, spanning both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, hasbeen a strong proponent of this view The most recent technology plan released by thefederal government (U.S Department of Education, 2016) illustrates a textbook example

of the transformational perspective on digital technology:

Technology can be a powerful tool for transforming learning It can help to form and advance relationships between educators and students, reinvent our approaches to learning and collaboration, shrink long-standing equity and accessibility gaps, and adapt learning experiences to meet the needs of all learners (p 1)

Technology skeptics respond that the results of digital technology on teaching practiceshave been limited and that student achievement gains from investments in technologyhave been negligible or, at best, mixed They point to a vast literature documenting thefoolhardiness of attempting to change and “rationalize” the educational system withexternal levers, citing the unintended consequences of high-stakes accountabilitysystems

Cuban (2013) has studied this issue extensively and points out that technology has notchanged teaching practices despite widespread adoption of technology Accountabilitysystems have done so, he says, but ironically only to reinforce traditional teacher-centered pedagogical practices rather than the student-centered classrooms thattechnology advocates celebrate He argues that there is no one way of teaching thatworks best for all students, and, moreover, that classrooms remain a poorly understood

“black box.” Further, Cuban (2017) has observed it that is very difficult to ascertainwhether teachers who claim to have changed their classroom practices on technology usehave, in fact, actually done so

Hence, technology skeptics tend toward caution when discussing technology as asingular influence capable of “disrupting” the status quo Some researchers haveconcluded that there is no single medium such as digital media with such power per se.Instead, it is teaching methods and the quality of teaching that must drive any discerniblechange (Clark & Feldon, 2014)

Some recent research tends to reinforce the views of skeptics Hattie’s (2009) analysis of the school “effects” literature does not identify technology use as an importantpredictor of student achievement, although he found considerable variability in researchfindings

meta-Cross-national research has not resolved the debate According to a recent OECD(2015) study, there is no evidence that countries that invest more in technologynecessarily show higher rates of improvement on student assessments in readingmathematics or science It is important to note, however, that the OECD study did not

explicitly examine teacher behavior and was not designed to measure cause-effectrelationships, prompting the authors to acknowledge that the connections betweenstudents, computers, and learning are complex.

At times, the debate can be confusing Collins and Halverson point out that technologyskeptics believe education should promote other educational goals for students such ascritical thinking and analysis and strong oral and written communication skills (p 48).Since many technology enthusiasts also endorse these same goals for students, one canget the sense that the two camps sometimes talk past one another

Clearly, measuring technology’s potential and actual impact is challenging A studycommissioned by the American Federation of Teachers (DeBruyckere, Kirchner, &Hulshof, 2016) examined selected research on effective education technology andsummed up the truths and myths surrounding technology with this observation:

“Regrettably, we have become saddled with a multiplicity of tools, methods, approaches,theories, and pseudotheories, many of which have been shown by science to be wrong or,

at best, only partially effective” (p 2)

THE FRAMEWORK FOR THIS VOLUME

Given this confusing policy and research environment, the editors asked ourselves howour book could clarify whether digital technologies, notwithstanding their current limitedimpacts, have the potential to transform teaching and learning in American schools Intrying to capture what exactly is known today about technology’s potential, we haveobserved that much of the inquiry and research is conducted within specialized subfieldswhose discourses do not necessarily reach the entire education profession or the broaderpublic

These subfields cover a range of important topics relative to digital technology inschools One subfield is learning theory Unless there is a knowledge base about howdigital technologies can promote student learning and engagement, with empiricalevidence to support these foundational perspectives on learning, it is unlikely thattechnology will achieve the efficacious effects enthusiasts promise

When films were introduced in classrooms, research did document their motivationalbenefits for students However, there have been many advances in learning theory anddigital technology in recent decades, particularly in the field of cognition This volumeincludes a review of these advances with an eye to answering a central question of thebook about the potential of digital technologies to advance student learning

Another cluster of subfields consists of particular subjects such as mathematics andscience, reading, and the presentation of those disciplinary subjects to particular learnersdistinguished by grade level or special needs We chose to include two chapters in thisvolume that can serve as a sample of what might be learned from this analytical angle,

one chapter focused on the teaching of science to all students, and the second on theteaching of foundational skills to special needs students.

Educational testing and measurement is a subfield that is sometimes overlooked indiscussions of education technology’s potential to drive reform at the classroom level

“Assessment technology” is driving dramatic advances in test design and development,test administration, scoring, reporting, and interpretation Again, this is a potentially vastlandscape

Recent controversies about high-stakes testing used for summative student outcomeshave tended to obscure how assessment technology might be used in classrooms tosupport student learning Because our primary focus in this book is on classroom teachingand student learning, we commissioned a chapter that charts the formative uses ofassessment technology by teachers as well as students

The earlier discussed subfields correspond closely to subdisciplines within theeducational research community that focus primarily on teaching and learning, that is,educational psychology, curriculum and instruction, and educational measurement andassessment An equally important subfield is the discipline of administrative leadership

In this subfield, there is an emerging empirical knowledge base on effective school-levelleadership practices concerning adoption and implementation of digital technology

School boards must delegate to administrators the task of translating technologyinvestments into improved teaching and student learning Some of this leadership isprovided by district leaders, but the importance of school principals as change agents isnow well understood Accordingly, we have included a chapter in this book to summarizewhat this literature tells us about effective technology leadership practices

Education finance also is a subfield that brings a useful body of expertise on costs ofdigital technologies School budgeting and finance experts also study how equitablyschool resources are distributed across different schools, districts, and states Therefore,education finance casts light on two of the possible barriers to technology use in schools

—costs and equitable access We have included a chapter that helps us understand theseresource issues in more detail

Technology enthusiasts argue that new kinds of schools and new ways of incorporatingdigital technology into the programs of brick-and-mortar schools are needed A subfieldhas emerged to study new forms of schooling such as online schools as well as hybrids oftraditional and online instructions known as blended learning and/or technology-focusedschools While research on their effectiveness has not fully caught up within theinnovations, we include a chapter that reviews the history of online schooling andblended learning and what we know about their impacts on student learning

A subfield that is sometimes overlooked in education research but that has greatpotential importance is professional development for teachers A bevy of research hasdocumented the ineffectiveness of much traditional professional development Inresponse to these criticisms, specialists in professional development have attempted to

reform the content and delivery of professional development models These models bothemploy technology to deliver professional development in new ways and address howteachers can incorporate technology in their classrooms to enhance student learning Wehave included a chapter on what this literature tells us about their potential.

Finally, there is the field of teacher education What evidence is there that teachereducation programs prepare novices to use technology appropriately in the classroom?Are these programs using technology to deliver their programs differently and/or to reachnew audiences? A chapter examines what we know about technology preparation inuniversity-based teacher preparation and examines an innovative technology-deliveredteacher preparation program that may be a prototype

Taken together, these subfields can contribute to our understanding of technology’spotential to improve teaching and student learning They potentially shed light on thesespecific questions:

What does research in each subfield tell us about the potential of technologyinnovations as a driver to improve or transform teaching and student learning inschools?

What do these subfields tell us about how widely these technology approaches(e.g., new practices, new schools) are being adopted?

What do they tell us about problems, constraints, and barriers that may impedeadoption and effective implementation of technology in today’s classrooms, andhow to overcome them?

No one subfield sheds light on all these questions Taken together, however, they canimprove our understanding of technology’s potential to improve teaching and studentlearning Whether the emerging evidence from these subfields supports the technologyenthusiasts or skeptics is a question we will return to in the concluding chapter

OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS

In chapter 1, Kui Xie and Nathan Hawk address “Technology’s Role and Place in StudentLearning: What We Have Learned from Research and Theories.” After reviewing thechanging role of technology in student learning, they explain how technology integrationcan support teaching and student learning in three major areas of learning theory—human cognition, social learning, and motivation They also address how technologyenables new ways of organizing and delivering learning

In chapter 2, Stephanie Hirsh and Michelle King address “Teacher ProfessionalDevelopment in the Digital Age: Design and Implementation of Learning without Limits.”The authors depict a scenario in which college and career-ready standards for studentlearning can be enacted alongside “Standards for Professional Learning” for teachers to

guide the development of technology-supported professional learning This will requireconceptual shifts from traditional to transformative professional learning.

In chapter 3, Michael Barbour addresses “The State of K–12 Online Learning.” Barbourreviews the history of online learning and defines and classifies K–12 online and blendedlearning He reviews research on the effectiveness of K–12 online and blended learning,particularly in relation to “traditional” face-to-face instruction and offers some tentativeconclusions on the conditions under which K–12 online learning can be successful

In chapter 4, Ted S Hasselbring and Margaret E Bausch address “BuildingFoundational Skills in Learners with Special Needs through the Use of Technology.”Technology can assist students with special needs who are being served in generaleducation classrooms to build foundational skills for being successful in life and in theworkplace Technology provides a means of delivering deliberate practice to studentswith special needs, monitoring their performance, and providing feedback information toteachers

In chapter 5, Michael Russell addresses “Assessment Technology as a Tool toStrengthen Teaching and Student Learning.” He describes several ways digitaltechnologies can support teachers’ use of classroom assessment He concludes thatdigital technologies can improve the efficiency, accuracy, and utility of classroomassessment

Chapter 6, by John A Craven III and Tracy Hogan, addresses “Emerging Technologiesand Changing Practices in Science Classrooms.” They cite the rapidly changing practices

in K–12 science education due to the rapid proliferation of, and demand for, digitaltechnologies The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) released in 2013 haveraised learning standards for students The authors explore how teachers are usingemergent technologies to support these new goals and pedagogies within scienceclassrooms across multiple grade levels

In chapter 7, Lawrence O Picus addresses “Economic Effects of Technology: Costs andDistribution of Resources to Support Student Learning.” He employs a cost-benefitapproach to technology use in schools Picus presents general cost estimates and reviewstrends in technology use Districts also face challenges in providing equitable access todigital technologies across all areas of the curriculum and at all grade levels

In chapter 8, James Cibulka discusses “The Role of School Leaders in LeveragingTechnology to Transform P–12 Classrooms.” A recently published review of researchdocuments effective technology leadership by school principals Cibulka concludes thatleadership may be an important missing ingredient impeding many schools from fullyachieving technology integration

In chapter 9, Karen Symms Gallagher writes about “The Current Role of Schools ofEducation in Preparing a Technologically Literate Teaching Workforce.” She notes thatthere is no conclusive evidence on how to prepare teacher candidates to employtechnology effectively and many challenges in accessing reliable information about

technology preparation at education schools Gallagher describes a new online masters’program created in 2008 at the University of Southern California’s (USC) Rossier School ofEducation She discusses three critical technology-related “outcomes” that all candidatesgraduating from the program should possess.

In the concluding chapter, James Cibulka draws together the findings and overallconclusions that can be drawn from the chapters Do they tend to support the technologyenthusiasts or the technology skeptics? The reader is invited to keep this question inmind as he or she reads the chapters

America New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L (1986) Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920 New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L (2001) Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L (2013) Inside the black box of classroom practice: Changes without reform in American education Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Cuban, L (2017) Can technology change how teachers teach? (Part 2) Retrieved from

Goldin, C., & Katz, L F (2008) The race between education and technology Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hanushek, E A (2011) The economic value of higher teacher quality Economics of Education Review, 30, 466–479 Hattie, J (2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement London: Routledge Jackson, C K., Rockoff, J E., & Staiger, D O (2014) Teacher effects and teacher-related policies Annual Review of

Economics, 6, 801–825 Retrieved from www.annualreviews.org

McCaffrey, J R Lockwood, D F., Koretz, D M., & Hamilton, L S (2003) Evaluating value added models for teacher

accountability [Monograph] Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation Retrieved from

417–458 Retrieved from http://edpro.stanford.edu/Hanushek/files_det.asp?FileId=73

Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R J (2002) What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools Teachers College Record, 104, 1525–1567 Schauffhauser, D (2016, January 19) Report: Education tech spending on the rise The Journal Retrieved from

https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/01/19/report-education-tech-spending-on-the-rise.aspx

U.S Department of Education (1983) A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform An open letter to the American people A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education Washington: DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education.

U.S Department of Education (2016) Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education 2016 National Education Technology Plan Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, & Keeling, D (2009) The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act

on differences in teacher effectiveness New York: The New Teacher Project.

Wright, S P., Horn, S P., & Sanders, W L (1997) Teachers and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.

Chapter 1

Technology’s Role and Place in Student Learning: What We Have Learned from

Research and Theories

Kui Xie and Nathan A Hawk

INTRODUCTION

The use of technology in general, and computers more specifically, has increased in bothour society and our classrooms Modern technologies have become more powerful, moreaccessible, more distributed, and more intelligent For example, mobile device ownership

in the United States has steadily increased over the past ten years, with 90 percent ofadults owning a mobile device and 60 percent owning a smartphone (Anderson, 2015)

In addition, the participatory concept of Web 2.0 has reshaped the landscape of theInternet The media and content on the web have grown substantially Newer types oftechnology, such as location aware services, sensor technologies, open platformtechnologies, cloud computing technologies, artificial intelligence, and argument reality,are changing human experiences New experiences with the technology are created thatinvolve users being integrated within their real context, that use services for everydaytasks, such as driving directions and targeted marketing, and opportunities exist forgreater collaboration with peers and experts around the world These new forms ofexperiencing the world increase the authenticity of informal, in-time learning, central tothe nonclassroom-based society today and critical to lifelong learning

The Changing Role of Technology in Student Learning

From an historical perspective, the role of technologies and their impact on studentlearning have been changing A primary function of computers upon its introduction intoclassrooms was to improve work productivity, such as word processing and visualpresentation Many earlier educational software applications (e.g., flash card practice andmath arithmetic practice) emphasized lower-level skills, such as drill and practice.Gradually, the function of computers in schools shifted to more advanced features thathelp students develop more cognitive-based skills (Delgado, Wardlow, O’Malley, &

McKnight, 2015).

This development was followed by the creation of intelligent tutoring systems, allowingfor a tailored individual learning experience Jonassen (1995) argued that a computer-supported learning system should be used not only as productivity software but also astools to construct knowledge With the latter, higher-order, critical thinking can thrive, anecessary component for student learning

Earlier use of computers in classrooms emphasized devices that were useful forindividual and flexible instruction With the technology infrastructure becoming more andmore participatory in nature, the use of learning technologies started to focus on sociallearning processes, such as collaborative group learning Research has shown thatstudents perform better and learn more when they learn in groups and in social contexts(Littleton & Light, 1999)

This difference in the learning structure of a classroom is pertinent: whereas previouslycomputers may have been a tool to increase learning efficiency, their use in sociallearning helps to create new learning environments that emphasize joint meaning makingand collective knowledge construction (Cress, Stahl, Ludvigsen, & Law, 2015) The focus

on learning is the group and the individual within the group in a collaborative setting,rather than the individual only Technology has improved and evolved in our classrooms

to enable and support this form of learning

The Evolving Notion of Technology Integration

With the increased presence of computers, mobile devices, and Internet access, theassumption that technology and classroom learning are two separate concepts has beenchallenged Learning and technology are becoming interwoven together in classrooms.Collaboration and critical thinking are needed to succeed in today’s world The need forthese skills is reflected in subject-level standards, making collaboration and criticalthinking important foci of classroom instruction

In learning activities that focus on collaboration and critical thinking skills, for instance,problem solving, project-based learning, and collaborative learning, it is often notpossible to separate technology from the learning process that takes place in theclassroom; technology is fully integrated into the learning process Technology becomes

an integral part of learning as it provides the necessary communication platform and toolsand offers cognitive and social tools that enhance student performance and evaluation oflearning activities

Technology Integration Guided by Research and Theories

The evolution of learning technologies has informed and advanced educational researchand theories On the other hand, the advancement of research and theories guided the

design and the integration of learning technologies in classrooms In the remainder of thischapter, we will define and discuss three major areas where technology plays animportant role in students’ learning, including how technology supports human cognition,social learning, and motivation for learning We will introduce major theories related tothese topics, define what learning means under each topic, and illustrate some empiricalevidence to show how technology supports learning.

In addition, we will also discuss how technology enables new ways of learning andteaching that would not be possible otherwise, for example, flipped classrooms, virtuallearning communities, and massive open online courses (MOOCs) We will conclude thischapter with a discussion about the future trend of technologies and their roles instudents’ learning

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

In technology-supported environments, research and theories address three generalperspectives of human learning: the cognitive perspectives focusing on the informationprocessing of the human cognitive system, the social perspectives focusing on thedynamics of social interaction, and the motivational perspectives focusing on the internaland external factors that drive and sustain learning actions These theoreticalperspectives have significant implications for technology-supported teaching and learning

Cognitive Perspectives of Learning

While earlier research on human learning started with investigating human behaviors inresponse to contextual stimuli, also called behaviorism, recent research has focused oncognition and cognitive processes of learning, which theorize that human learninginvolves the mental process of acquiring new, or modifying existing, knowledge Theinformation processing theory is foundational to the cognitive perspectives of learning Inthe human information processing system, three types of memory store and processinformation differently Sensory memory receives information from our sensors such aseyes and ears Working memory holds and manipulates information in activeconsciousness Long-term memory stores information for future retrieval These memorysystems vary in capacity and duration of information processing Information passes fromone memory system to another through human learning experiences

Many theories extend the information processing theory to address human learning in aspecific context or to focus on specific parts of human cognition The cognitive theory ofmultimedia learning, for instance, explains how people learn with pictures and words.This theory posits that human cognition includes dual channels to process visual andauditory information Each channel has limited capacity for processing information, andhumans are active information processors (Clark & Mayer, 2016)

The cognitive load theory is based primarily on the assumption that working memory iswhere active cognitive processes take place, but there is a finite load of information thatworking memory can accommodate Cognitive load exists in three different categories: aload reflecting the natural complexities of certain information (intrinsic cognitive load), aload unrelated to learning that often occurs with poor instructional design (extraneouscognitive load), and an intentional load resulting from the learning process (germanecognitive load) (Sweller, 2005).

The schema theory describes information processing in the context of long-termmemory A schema describes an information structure with organized categories andspecified relationships among these categories Long-term memory significantly increasesthe capabilities of working memory, as schemas from long-term memory can be brought

to working memory (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003)

In addition to the study of the human cognitive system, researchers examined acognitive progress, called metacognition, where learners are aware of their own cognitionand control their cognition Metacognition describes a process where learners monitor andself-regulate their thinking and adapt to the environment

Implications of Cognitive Learning Theories for Instruction and

Technology

Based upon the cognitive perspectives of learning, cognitive tools have been developed

to assist learners in paying attention to stimuli (sensory memory), balancing cognitiveload (short-term memory), organizing mental schema for future retrieval (long-termmemory), and facilitating self-regulation of cognition (metacognition)

Supporting Attention

Attention is a cognitive process where the human mind focuses on certain externalstimuli Attention facilitates information passing from the sensory register to workingmemory for further processing Among many cognitive tools, advanced organizers directstudents’ attention to what is important in the coming material, highlight relationships,and provide a reminder about relevant prior knowledge They can be presented indifferent forms For example, Billings and Mathison (2012) created podcasts as atechnology-based advance organizer for elementary students to provide a deeperunderstanding of future content They found a significant positive effect of these podcasts

as advanced organizers on English language learners’ academic performance

Balancing Cognitive Load

Cognitive load theory has identified the sources of cognitive load as intrinsic, extraneous,

and germane The basic principle to promote effective learning is reducing extraneouscognitive load, establishing a balance of intrinsic and germane cognitive load, andkeeping overall cognitive load from exceeding the working memory capacity Forexample, the cognitive theory for multimedia learning identified principles to guide thedesign of multimedia (e.g., contiguity, modality, redundancy, and coherence principles)aiming to reduce extraneous cognitive load for learning (see Clark & Mayer, 2016) Whenappropriately designed and implemented, multimedia materials, such as animations, canaid in learning as information is processed in both auditory and visual channels, reducingthe demand for cognitive resources.

In addition, instructional strategies, such as digital games, may help to increasegermane cognitive load and reduce extraneous cognitive load Activities that arepresented in various formats help to limit the cognitive load and may also increaserelevance of content for students (e.g., Woo, 2014)

Organizing Mental Schema

Successful learning requires the organization and reorganization of mental schema inmemory Cognitive tools have been developed to assist in encoding and organizinginformation in long-term memory Chart-based tools, such as concept maps, can aid thehuman mind in acquiring and retaining new information They provide useful visualimages of the information processing capabilities of the human mind, help to increasepropensity for higher-order cognitive skills as well as improve the recall and processing ofcontent-specific questions For example, Yen, Lee, and Chen (2012) examined students’learning outcomes and cognitive processing while comparing a text-based versus animage-based concept map Their results showed that students engaged more in higher-level thinking when using an image-based concept map Students with image-basedconcept maps also performed better when completing understanding and creatingcognitive activities Image-based concept maps aided in retention and the formation ofnew concepts

Facilitating Self-Regulation of Cognition

Recognizing the importance of metacognition and self-regulation of learning, cognitivetools are developed to facilitate the self-regulatory process of learning For example,researchers used question prompts to support self-regulation of learning in computerenvironments While engaging in learning tasks, students received question prompts(e.g., pop-up messages) embedded within the learning environment asking them tospecify learning goals, to make a plan, and to monitor and regulate their learningprocess These students performed more self-regulated learning activities and achievedbetter transfer performance (Bannert & Reimann, 2012)

Social Perspectives of Learning

The research on social perspectives of learning focuses on how individuals interact withothers to build meaning, solve problems, and learn through cooperation andcollaboration In cooperation, members split the work and combine their individualproducts to produce a common project, whereas in collaboration, members activelyengage with each other to construct new knowledge and produce joint outcomes.Piagetian and Vygotskian theories provide a foundation for understanding socialperspectives of learning

According to Piaget, learning is a process in which individuals construct knowledgethrough interactions with the environment and their peers, by balancing cognitiveactivities and achieving equilibration through the processes of assimilation (a process inwhich new information is brought into one’s existing schema, such as learning to navigatenew websites and software) and accommodation (a process in which existing schema arechanged to deal with new information or a new situation, such as using computers foranother purpose like distance learning)

When cognitive conflicts arise, learners must be able to assimilate or accommodatenew information Piaget’s work has important implications for cooperative andcollaborative learning, mainly because of his ideas about peer interactions Compared toteacher-student interactions, learners in peer interactions generally have equal socialstatus, and thus have equal opportunities to influence one another

Vygotsky emphasized the importance of sociocultural tools and social interactionsinherent around learners He further detailed internalization and externalization as keycomponents in the learning process He suggested that peers in groups develop togetherand optimally because they work within their zones of proximal development, which is alevel of competence on a task that an individual could not achieve on his or her own butcan master with appropriate support from a more capable peer

More recent research examined how self-regulated individuals interact with each other

in social learning contexts creating a coregulation process, by which individuals help toregulate and scaffold the learning and strategies of other students (e.g., Hayes, Smith, &Shea, 2015) Coregulation occurs interpersonally, primarily through collaboration andscaffolding; learners strive to work within their zone of proximal development

Implications of Social Learning Theories for Instruction and

Technology

Based upon the social perspectives of learning, technological tools were designed toenhance learning by enabling cooperation and collaboration, and supporting the learningprocesses that occur through these social behaviors

Enabling Cooperation and Collaboration

Technology has provided the infrastructure and tools to enable collaborative learning.First is computer-mediated communication (CMC; Romiszowski & Mason, 1996), whichincludes the technologies, interactions, and people that form a process of exchanginginformation and ideas with the support of networked devices Various asynchronous andsynchronous technological tools have been used in educational contexts to enable thecommunication and interactions among people at a distance, including e-mail, instantchats, discussion forums, video conferencing, social networks, and virtual worlds Thesetechnologies establish a space for cooperation and collaboration that extend learningopportunities beyond the physical classroom (Xie, DeBacker, & Ferguson, 2006)

Second, technology enables new ways for collaborative learning Web 2.0 technologiesallow users to create artifacts and interact with others in order to enable socialcollaboration Wikis, for example, offer a common space for users to construct and editcontent in an open-source platform Cress and Kimmerle (2008) argue that the process ofassimilation and accommodation, as initially proposed by Piaget, occurs both internallyand externally Since multiple users can modify wikis, the pages can have additionalcontent (assimilation) or the structure of a page may fully change (accommodation)

This external process along with individual internal process of assimilation andaccommodation helps explain the collaborative nature of wikis (Cress & Kimmerle, 2008).Learners are motivated to participate in editing wikis because of the process of cognitiveconflicts and the need to arrive at equilibration, per Piaget

In addition, virtual worlds—computer-based simulated environments—offer usersimmersive experiences otherwise not possible, constant access, and ample opportunitiesfor developing higher-level cognitive functioning Second Life, for instance, is a 3D virtualworld where users can socialize, connect, and create using free voice and text chat(http://secondlife.com/) Second Life helps support socialization in a group, which furtheradds to rich learning experiences and networking (Edirisingha, Nie, Pluciennik, & Young,2009)

Finally, technology enhances interactions in physical spaces Mobile devices, includinginteractive (touch) multiuser devices, offer opportunities for synchronous group cognition

by affording immense control and interaction in digital environments For example, theSynergyNet project uses multiuser tablets in classroom settings to encourage interaction.Led through history and math lessons, students interactively discussed clues to a problemeither on paper or on an interactive device

Students using interactive devices completed activities quicker, showed greatercollaboration, and exhibited an overall increase in higher-order thinking skills compared

to those who work through similar clues on paper (Higgins, Mercier, Burd, & Gibbons, 2012) Use of the technology both affected the type of interactions occurringand the level of group cognitive activity taking place in the physical classroom

Joyce-Supporting Social Collaboration

Technology supports collaborative learning by using different techniques to help studentsaccomplish difficult learning tasks that they would not be able to accomplish on theirown One prominent method is collaborative scripts, which are simply guides for learnersabout how to structure social interactions that promote effective peer learning (King,2007) In collaborative learning research, scripts often are embedded within shared,technology-based communication spaces designed for collaborative learning Thesescripts are often presented as an instructional guide, collaboration rules, defined socialroles (King, 2007), question prompts (Xie & Bradshaw, 2008), worked examples (Tollison

& Xie, 2012), and so forth

With the use of technology, scripts may become more adaptive to collaborativesituations For example, a collaboration script, “I disagree because …” would encouragestudents to articulate their opinion and provide rationale for their positions Another type

of script, for instance, would define social roles for the group, “Please select one member

as challenger, one member as defender, one member as moderator, and one member assummarizer in your group …” Such scripts would encourage group members to raisediverse opinions, argumentations, and reflections

Scripts effectively externalize the process of collaboration, with the ultimate goal forlearners to internalize the process as the scripts gradually fade When students areplaced in contexts where scripts are enabled, and in some cases, where the collaborationprocess is modeled, they show greater signs of quality of work and of the requisiteamount of individual and group cognition necessary (Rummel & Spada, 2007)

Motivational Perspectives of Learning

The motivational perspectives of learning primarily focus on factors that drive and sustainstudents’ interest and engagement in learning activities The extant research evidenceclearly indicates that motivation in education is a strong predictor for positive learningoutcomes Researchers propose that motivation should also be considered as aneducational outcome among the twenty-first century skills (Anderman, Sinatra, & Gray,2012) Several theoretical approaches to the study of motivation in educational contextsinform teaching and learning

Self-determination theory distinguishes between types of motivation based on thedifferent drives that provoke action, ranging from intrinsic motivation where a studenttakes action for the fun or challenge involved in the task to extrinsic motivation where themotive for a student to take an action includes seeking external stimuli or rewards, oravoiding pressure or punishment (Deci & Ryan, 1985)

Students with intrinsic motivation demonstrate better quality of learning, such aspersistence, higher-quality task engagement, more positive self-perceptions, and better

ability to cope with challenges (Ryan & Deci, 2000) Although school activities are notnecessarily intrinsically motivating to all students, researchers suggest that instructionsshould be designed to foster greater intrinsic motivation to the extent that they satisfythree innate psychological needs, including autonomy—the need to determine one’s ownbehavior and to act on one’s own volition; competence—the need to feel successful; andrelatedness—the need to relate to others.

Achievement goal theory explains motivation through goal orientations that emphasizethe reasons for engaging in academic activities Two primary reasons related to anindividual’s engagement in achievement settings are mastery, with a focus on increasingone’s competence and skills, and performance, with a focus on demonstrating one’sability often in comparison to others (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) Researchers furtherdistinguished performance goals into a performance-approach (outperform others in adesirable event to show competency) and performance-avoidance goals (avoiddemonstration of incompetence in an undesirable situation) (Elliot & Church, 1997)

Studies have reliably shown that students with mastery goals are likely to choosechallenging tasks, persist in effort, demonstrate self-regulation, and achieve betteroutcomes (Greene & Miller, 1996) Students with performance-avoidance goalsdemonstrate less interest and engagement and show poor academic performance (Xie &Huang, 2014)

Expectancy-value theory proposes that motivation toward achievement-relatedbehaviors can be elaborated through expectancies for success and task values.Expectancies for success are individuals’ beliefs about how well they will do on anupcoming task They are individuals’ ability judgments against specific learning tasks andare strong positive predictors of learning and achievement (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) Taskvalues include intrinsic value—how interesting the learning activity is to the student,utility value—how useful the learning activity is to the student, and attainment value—how important the learning activity is to the individual

Task values describe how a task meets different needs of individuals They are strongpositive predictors of individuals’ active choice to engage in learning behaviors andpersistence through learning difficulties (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) Research found whenlearners believe that information is valuable and intrinsically meaningful and they have abetter chance to succeed in learning tasks, they are more likely to learn and to engage inrelated behaviors (e.g., Anderman & Wolters, 2006)

Implications of Motivational Theories for Instruction and Technology

A variety of technologies have been developed to support learning that promotesstudents’ motivation, engagement, and persistence in learning activities Digital games,for instance, provide a contextualized setting for active and motivated engagement inauthentic problem solving (e.g., Gee, 2003) Within K–12 schools, games have been

widely used in classrooms for the purpose of intrinsically motivating students, offering afun activity, and increasing student interest A player may even become so engaged andabsorbed in the activity that he or she loses the sense of effort and gains satisfactionfrom solving game challenges (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991).

Researchers identified the distinction between the motivation for playing and themotivation for learning in games, and proposed that meaningful game-based learningengagement should be an integrated and continuing process that advances from affectiveengagement driven by optimal challenge, cognitive engagement situated in playfulness,

to potentially game action-based content engagement (Ke, Xie, & Xie, 2016)

Gamification, an area of recent development within education, uses natural gameelements and integrates them into nongaming situations, such as scoring systems, points,and digital badges These elements act as rewards for performance and show mastery ofcertain goals and content (Ahn, Pellicone, & Butler, 2014) For example, digital badgesare achievement certificates players earn after completing game tasks These badges aregenerated, recorded, and presented in technology-based gaming environments

Research suggests that badges may substantially influence extrinsic motivationbecause learners participate in activities in order to earn badges and compare themselves

to other participants They also purport to affect student behavior and improvemotivation because they represent praise and validation of performance and competency.When badges are included and students are openly aware of them, students pursueearning them and spend more time on task (e.g., in online coursework)

Further, as the task difficulty increases, both the effort to earn badges and the overalltask motivation may increase (Hakulinen, Auvinen, & Korhonen, 2015) In a study ofusing digital badges in the classroom, students became less interested in comparingthemselves to others and instead focused on the content, and this effect was particularlysalient among low-performing students (Abramovich, Schunn, & Higashi, 2013)

TECHNOLOGY ENABLES NEW WAYS OF LEARNING

Infrastructure, engineering capabilities, and overall investments in new, more efficienttechnology have helped shape the way that we use technological devices in society, and,

in turn, enabled new ways of instruction These technology developments have promotedmore independent and adaptive learning Tools for coordination, collaboration, andcommunication have advanced, forming a global society of learners These developmentshave ultimately led to openness in education and new instructional approaches such asflipped classrooms, virtual communities of learners, and MOOCs

Flipped Classrooms

The flipped classroom approach utilizes the benefits of multimedia materials and the

Internet so students can access instructional materials and view content at their owntime and pace Flipped classrooms use the technology available (videos, screencasts,audio lessons, etc.) to deliver traditional “lecture material” to students before and outside

of classroom time; this frees up time for in-class interactions and problem-solvingactivities, which promote in class application of content material (Rotellar & Cain, 2016)

This instructional format allows for differentiated and personal learning, while providingmore time for collaborative activities during classroom time In flipped classes, studentsare expected to watch the “lecture materials” at home, and be prepared for groupdiscussion and problem solving during class The in-class activities offer opportunities forsocial interactions and collaborations that are needed to support active learning andcritical thinking

Researchers suggested several design principles to increase success in a flippedclassroom: teachers should provide exposure to materials prior to class, give incentives toprepare for class, and structure assessment, guidance, and appropriate feedback forstudents A clear link between the online preclass material and the in-class activitiesshould be established Finally, teachers should seek to build a learning community wherestudents can interact to build knowledge (Kim, Kim, Khera, & Getman, 2014)

Virtual Learning Communities

With the affordance of learning technologies, virtual learning communities are formed inboth formal and informal learning settings For example, Virtual Math Team (VMT;

http://www.mathforum.org) is a project that supports virtual learning communities withinmath classes VMT engages learners in geometry problems through a drawing space andchat environment that help peers negotiate problem solving and goal setting duringproblem-solving exercises Students develop math discourse in this computer-mediatedenvironment (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006) Students collaborate on an interestingand challenging math problem using dialogue and propose specific solutions or directionsrelated to the problem Scaffolding features in VMT could help students develop theircritical thinking skills in math and strategy planning for solving problems

Social network sites have also helped shape collaboration activities for students topromote informal learning and develop group organization Social network sites typicallyfeature interconnected users, user-generated content, and the interaction between them.Sites that are popular and widely used, including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, havethe potential to transform the type of learning collaboration that occurs, leading toimproved learning engagement and offering platforms for building virtual learningcommunities (Greenhow & Li, 2013)

For example, YouTube, as a video sharing platform, offers a context that is directed and encourages nonthreatening exploration (Tan, 2013) Students can sharetheir experiences and opinions through this platform, and at the same time, they can find

self-abundant resources in supporting learning on almost any topic of interest YouTube isenhanced as a virtual learning community application when it integrates with other sites,such as Facebook and Twitter.

Massive Open Online Courses

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) were created in early 2000 by some highereducation institutions offering the global community access to curricular content at little

to no cost In contrast to a regular online class with twenty to thirty students, a MOOCcan serve up to hundreds and thousands of learners around the world Some major MOOCproviders include Coursera, Udacity, and edX; participating institutions are deliveringthousands of courses on a variety of topics to the general public MOOCs have advanced,

as a human right, the idea of free access to high-quality education

Although MOOCs were originally designed for higher education, K–12 students areincreasingly open to seeking learning opportunities in online settings, as course offeringswithin their local school are limited In addition, MOOCs are increasingly becoming anoption for high schoolers to take advanced-level courses, such as, the college-creditprogram in the College Ready Ohio project (https://collegeready.osu.edu/)

However, despite their large enrollments, MOOCs demand students to maintain a highlevel of motivation and self-regulation of learning in order to succeed The completionrates in MOOCs are typically low (generally less than 10 percent) Most registeredstudents intend to only explore the topic rather than complete the course

Scholars argue that MOOCs cannot afford students the immersive and comprehensiveeducational experiences that they have in schools, where students develop noncognitiveskills such as collaboration, leadership, friendship, and apprenticeship (Xie, 2015).Therefore, when adopting MOOCs for K–12 students, the cognitive, social, andmotivational perspectives of learning need to be carefully considered in designingactivities and programs in and with MOOCs

CONSIDERATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION IN

CLASSROOMS

Technology and education have evolved substantially over the past decades Despite theincreasing accessibility of technology in K–12 schools, there still are various barriers totechnology implementation in schools ranging from: school culture, resources, andteacher or student experiences or skills (Ping Lim, Zhao, Tondeur, Ching, & Chin-Chung,2013)

Teacher effectiveness and lack of technology planning at the policy level are two suchareas that exacerbate the gap between technology use and technology availability

Current trends in primary and secondary education suggest that the use of technology isoften infrequent and not always used in student-centered or collaborative ways but rather

in low-skill activities (Blackwell, Lauricell, & Wartella, 2014)

Barriers such as lack of time, training, beliefs, comfort, and value of its use help explainimplementation rates As teachers see greater value in and increase confidence in usingtechnology, the quality of technology integration typically increases, allowing fortechnology to support motivation, cognitive development, and social collaboration amongstudents Consequently, students’ own beliefs about, confidence in, and comfort withtechnology can also positively affect their quality of learning opportunities and promotegreater learning

In addition, researchers pointed out there could also be adverse impact of technology

on child development For example, when technology was first introduced into preschoolclassrooms, some scholars argued that technology tools may not be developmentally(e.g., cognitively and socially) appropriate for children at young ages (Codes & Miller,2000)

Educators are also concerned about students overtly depending on technology.Excessive use of digital tools is linked to problems like childhood obesity, sleepdisturbance, hampered attention span, and poor school performance (Strasburger,Jordan, & Donnerstein, 2010) Therefore, when considering technology use in classrooms,teachers need to select quality digital resources and choose appropriate strategies fortechnology integration They may also consider participating in technology professionaldevelopment programs, for instance, the Evaluating Digital Content for Instructional andTeaching Excellence program offered by the Ohio State University (Xie, Kim, Cheng, &Luthy, 2017), to increase their competency in these areas

CONCLUSION

Looking forward, future learning technologies will continue to bring more exciting changes

to educational systems that will not only enhance students’ cognitive and socialengagement as well as their motivation for learning but also improve the functions ofclassrooms by making them more efficient and effective Technology will continue to play

a critical role in learning, as children learn with technology

Technologies will also continue to develop, with the aim of increasing the authenticity

of learning environments and bringing real-world experiences to students Already, withthe evolution of the Internet, students are able to access resources and experts aroundthe world, not possible in earlier generations

These new technologies and instructional practices will promote new areas for researchinto how children learn individually and collaboratively, in both formal and informalsettings These changes will continue to bring into focus the importance of classroom

spaces where students learn together, and the classrooms that exist today will not beobsolete but rather evolve to incorporate new collaborative opportunities.

As noted, technology plays a critical supporting role that informs us about relevantlearning theories Teachers should decide how best to use technology to motivate andcultivate cognitive processes within students, in collaborative settings

Anderman, E M., & Wolters, C A (2006) Goals, values, and affect: Influences on student motivation In P A Alexander & P H Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp 369–389) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Anderson, M (2015, October 29) Technology device ownership: 2015 Retrieved from

Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 105–122.

Cress, U., Stahl, G., Ludvigsen, S., & Law, N (2015) The core features of CSCL: Social situation, collaborative knowledge processes and their design International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(2), 109.

Csikszentmihalyi, M (1991) Design and order in everyday life Design Issues, 8(1), 26–34.

Deci, E L., & Ryan, R M (1985) The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.

Delgado, A., Wardlow, L., O’Malley, K., & McKnight, K (2015) Educational technology: A review of the integration, resources, and effectiveness of technology in K–12 classrooms Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 397–416.

Dweck, C S., & Leggett, E L (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality Psychological Review,

95(2), 256.

Eccles, J S., & Wigfield, A (2002) Motivational beliefs, values, and goals Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132 Edirisingha, P., Nie, M., Pluciennik, M., & Young, R (2009) Socialisation for learning at a distance in a 3-D multi-user virtual

environment British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 458–479.

Elliot, A J., & Church, M A (1997) A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218.

Gee, J P (2003) What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 20 Greene, B A., & Miller, R B (1996) Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 181–192.

Greenhow, C., & Li, J (2013) Like, comment, share: Collaboration and civic engagement within social network sites In N.

C Lavigne & C Mouza (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom (pp 127–141) New York: Springer.

Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A (2015) The effect of achievement badges on students’ behavior: An empirical study in a university-level computer science course International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 10 (1), 18–29.

Hayes, S., Smith, S U., & Shea, P (2015) Expanding learning presence to account for the direction of regulative intent: Self-, co- and shared regulation in online learning Online Learning, 19(3), 15–31.

Higgins, S., Mercier, E., Burd, L., & Joyce-Gibbons, A (2012) Multi-touch tables and collaborative learning British Journal

Littleton, K., & Light, P (1999) Learning with computers: Analyzing productive interaction London: Routledge.

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J (2003) Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.

Ping Lim, C., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Ching, S C., & Chin-Chung, T (2013) Bridging the gap: Technology trends and use

of technology in schools Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 59–68.

Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R (1996) Computer-mediated communication In D Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp 438–456) New York: Macmillan.

Rotellar, C., & Cain, J (2016) Research, perspectives, and recommendations on implementing the flipped classroom American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(2) doi: 10.5688/ajpe80234/

Rummel, N., & Spada, H (2007) Can people learn computer-mediated collaboration by following a script? In F Fischer et

al (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp 39–55) New York: Springer.

Ryan, R M., & Deci, E L (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,

and well-being American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D (2006) Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical perspective In R.

K Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp 406–427) New York: Cambridge University Press.

Strasburger, V C., Jordan, A B., & Donnerstein, E (2010) Health effects of media on children and adolescents Pediatrics, 125(4), 756–767.

Sweller, J (2005) Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning In R E Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp 19–30) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tan, E (2013) Informal learning on “YouTube”: Exploring digital literacy in independent online learning Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 463–77.

Tollison, S., & Xie, K (2012) Preparing students in online debates with worked examples Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(2), 155–174.

Vygotsky, L S (1964) Thought and language Annals of Dyslexia, 14(1), 97–98.

Woo, J (2014) Digital game-based learning supports student motivation, cognitive success, and performance outcomes Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 291–307.

Xie, K (2015, March) Will technology kill universities? Teachers and physical classrooms won’t go away TIME Retrieved from http://time.com/3747816/education-chalkboard-chatroom/

Xie, K., & Bradshaw, A C (2008) Using question prompts to support ill-structured problem solving in online peer collaborations, International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 148–165.

Xie, K., DeBacker, T K., & Ferguson, C (2006) Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67–89.

Xie, K., & Huang, K (2014) The role of beliefs and motivation in asynchronous online learning in college-level classes Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(3), 317–343.

Xie, K., Kim, M K., Cheng S L., & Luthy, N C (2017) Digital content evaluation as technology professional development Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 1067–1103.

Yen, J., Lee, C., & Chen, I (2012) The effects of image-based concept mapping on the learning outcomes and cognitive processes of mobile learners British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 307–320.

Chapter 2

Teacher Professional Development in the Digital Age: Design and Implementation of

Learning without Limits

Stephanie Hirsh and Michelle Bowman King

Imagine the following scenario among colleagues in 2025 Kristin and members of herlearning team are celebrating the results from the most recent state assessment Theydownloaded their students’ results and immediately recognized that their students madesignificant gains over last year Fred suggests that a celebration is in order, but Joelsuggests they take a few minutes for reflection before the celebration She offers tofacilitate the conversation Everyone agrees that reflection is as important as celebrationand they can certainly make time today for both

After a few minutes, the conversation begins Anne suggests that the clarity of goalsset at the beginning of the year gave them a real focus They knew exactly what theywanted to accomplish, and then they were able to build a plan to ensure success Tomadds that it was their commitment to their own learning that gave them the background,knowledge, and skills they needed to be successful with this group of students

Carrie adds that the new schedules gave them the time they needed to implement thenew community of practice cycle of learning, “Aligning our professional learning preciselywith our students’ needs kept us focused and produced the outcomes we desired most.”Joel adds that the district’s investment in all the new technology made it incredibly easythis year, “Not only did they ensure that we knew how to use everything, they made sure

we had access 24/7.”

Kristin suggests focusing on the new technology the district had provided, “Theyprobably would like to know how we feel it contributed to these outcomes.” The teamagrees and Kristin takes notes The final list includes comments about the online districtcurriculum and associated resources, including access to nationally benchmarked lessonsand exemplar videos; a powerful collaborative learning platform that manages thelearning process, promotes video sharing, provides access to expert coaches, andfacilitates shared lesson development; and support for networking with colleagues withinthe system and beyond who are working on similar challenges Tom agrees to take theirnotes and write the summary memo if they could finally adjourn Everyone accepts his

offer and packs up for the celebration.

In the district office Chief Technology and Innovation Officer Anthony Celeste is visitingwith Chief Learning Officer Sarah Rodriquez They also have downloaded the districtresults and recognize an upward trend across the system “This will certainly help with

my upcoming report for the school board,” comments Celeste

“Yes, our collaboration really paid off,” Rodriquez notes “I think we can finally reportthat our teachers have a coherent and aligned system of curriculum, assessments, andprofessional learning In addition, they are getting the support they need to focus theirlearning on the areas where they and their students show weakest performance.” Theyagree to take a few minutes to recap for themselves how they account for these newresults

Celeste says it all starts “with a superintendent committed to being recognized as alearning system and a district vision statement that includes all educators and studentshave the digital tools and support necessary to achieve high expectations.” Rodriquezadds, “Let’s not forget that the school systems make an investment in leadershipdevelopment for both teachers and principals and that technological literacy is anexpectation for all leaders; and where it does not exist it is cultivated and supported.”

The list continues with:

Resources set aside for technology purchases include 30 percent of the totalpurchase allocated toward professional learning to support implementation

Teachers have access to data systems that allow them to set goals and monitorthe impact of their actions

Teachers have access to a wide variety of learning options and are given theautonomy to choose from among all of them as long as they can demonstrate howtheir choices will lead to the intended outcomes

Support for implementation of changes in classrooms is a focus and priority also isplaced on using available technology to support substantive and lasting change.Clear alignment with content and performance goals drives the process that led tothe results

They both agree that the list seems to capture the most important ideas they want toshare and will schedule a time to speak with the superintendent about it In themeantime, they know they will need to dig more deeply into the data They will look tothose schools where their gains exceeded the system average and examine the data tofind more answers

CONTEXT OF AND REALITY OF INSPIRED CHANGE

Several decades of unsatisfactory performance within our nation’s schools and school