The Impact of School Technology Infrastructure on Teachers' Technology Integration A Survey in...

Ubiquitous LearningAn International Journal

UbI-LeArn.com

VOLUME 5 ISSUE 4

__________________________________________________________________________

The Impact of School Technology Infrastructure on Teachers' Technology IntegrationA Survey in Thirteen CountriesDANIEL LIGHT AND ELIZABETH PIERSON

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

http://ubi-learn.com/

First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USAby Common Ground Publishing University of Illinois Research Park 2001 South First St, Suite 202 Champaign, IL 61820 USA

www.CommonGroundPublishing.com

ISSN: 1835-9795

© 2013 (individual papers), the author(s)© 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <[email protected]>.

Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

Typeset in CGScholar. http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

The Impact of School Technology Infrastructure on Teachers’ Technology Integration: A Survey in

Thirteen CountriesDaniel Light, Education Development Center, USA

Elizabeth Pierson, Education Development Center, USA

Abstract: This paper uses survey data collected from participants of the Intel Teach professional development program in thirteen developing countries to examine how differing degrees of access to information and communications technology (ICT) influences technology use with students. The PD course promotes student-centered uses of technology and project-based approaches. The researchers created indices of the robustness of teacher and student access to ICT to examine the influence of teacher and student access on the use of technology in the classroom. The analysis found that, above a minimal level of access, teachers’ access to technology did not influence frequency or type of technology use with students. However, the analysis did find that students’ access was important. Teachers were more likely to use technology with students if they had access in classrooms and in computer labs, rather than just computer labs. A 1 to 1 environment was similar to the combined classroom and lab access. These findings suggests that providing students multiple and flexible access to computers is important to encourage teachers to use more ICT with their students.

Keywords: Student Computer Access, Teacher Computer Access, 1 to 1 Computing Environment, ICT Integration, Web 2.0 Tools, ICT Infrastructure, International Research, Quantitative Analysis

Introduction

his paper aims to illuminate trends in teacher technology use across a wide range of international contexts using a data set that was originally gathered from a 13-country survey intended to measure the impact of the Intel® Teach Essentials Course for teachers

(Light & Pierson, 2011). That survey collected detailed information about the distribution of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) resources within schools,1 and this analysis highlights the importance of access to ICT resources for students as a key contextual factor that contributes to the successful integration of various technology tools and software.

Our data suggest that the distribution of ICT resources within schools, and flexibility in how teachers and students can access the technology, also impact what types of ICT-based activities teachers are able to do with their students. This flexibility is not simply a function of the number of computers available, but of accessibility and reliability of the machines. More specifically, it is where and how students can access computers that impact a teacher’s ability to integrate technology into his or her lesson. Teachers whose students have more than one access point tend to use more technology. Teachers whose students have moveable technology that is not locked into one place or in one room also use a wider variety of technology tools; they also use them more frequently.

Intel’s Essentials Course has been the flagship program within Intel’s efforts to partner with national governments to improve education. Over the last decade, the program has trained more than 10 million teachers in more than 60 countries (Lemke & Metiri Group, 2012). The Essentials Course offers teachers the knowledge and skills to integrate information and communication technologies as critical tools to encourage active student learning.

Though Intel has supported the evaluation of its educational programs since they began in 1999, this report goes beyond program assessment to look at the role that various types of technology access points can have on a teachers’ use of technology tools and software with

1 “ICT resources” in this context refers to desktop computers, laptops, Internet access, Interactive Whiteboards, and projectors.

T

Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal Volume 5, 2013, www.ubi-learn.com, ISSN 1835-9795 © Common Ground, Daniel Light, Elizabeth Pierson, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]


students. Results from this data analysis can be used to inform wider policy decisions around technology acquisition, installation, and maintenance.

Perspective

Around the globe, ministries of education are promoting information and communication technologies (ICT) as an element of a modern education system. As they respond to the challenge of globalization, policymakers and educators recognize that educational applications of ICTs are a crucial element in a 21st-century education system. A motivation behind many of these ICT programs is the desire to overcome with one powerful resource the historical lack of educational tools and resources available in developing countries. When effectively integrated into high-quality learning environments, researchers have demonstrated that ICT can help deepen students’ content knowledge, engage them in constructing their own knowledge, and support the development of complex thinking skills (Balanskat, Blamire, & Kefala, 2006; Beatty & Gerace, 2009; Bruff, 2010; Caldwell, 2007; Johnson & McLeod, 2004; Lemke, 2006; Light & Pierson, 2012; Light & Pierson, 2013; Salend, 2009; Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011). In line with this research, the Essentials Course encourages teachers to put students in control of technology in the classroom, using technology to gather and analyze information, make presentations, and share their interpretations with others.

The research on educational ICT in developing countries often finds a common problem: The computers, once distributed to the schools, may seldom be used in the classrooms (Valiente, 2010; Winthrop & Smith, 2012; Zucker & Light, 2009). Research on ICT initiatives easily identifies the challenges to their use in classrooms as teacher training, time constraints, or outdated teaching approaches (Akbaba-Altun, 2006; Comenius, 2008; Kraemer, Dedrick, & Sharma, 2009; Light & Rockman, 2008; Vyasulu Reddi & Sinha, 2003; Winthrop & Smith, 2012). Many of the teachers surveyed, all of whom completed the Intel Essentials training course, indicated that they were frequently using a variety of technology resources with their students. Using this population, this study sought to better understand the connection between access and the frequency and diversity of technology use across teachers. As this analysis shows, the distribution models of ICT resources within schools is a critical factor that affects the types of activities that teachers are able to do with their students. While this data permitted neither an analysis of the quality of use nor of the affects on students, understanding how best to increase technology use is a vital first step for fostering further changes in developed nations.

Methods

Survey Design

Between August 2010 and January 2011, one self-reporting online impact survey was made available to Intel Essentials Course graduates in 12 countries. The survey was designed to get a quick look at the current state of the Intel Essentials Course across a range of countries and contexts. The survey covered issues such as teachers’ implementation of a technology-rich lesson; obstacles and challenges to implementation; changes in teacher practice; and technical infrastructure in the schools in which the respondents work.

This survey was developed using the previous Intel Teach global impact survey (Light, McMillan Culp, Menon, & Shulman, 2006a, 2006b) and updating it to reflect changes in the program in the intervening years. The survey also was shortened and simplified to make it easier for teachers to complete. SRI International oversaw the process of translation, dissemination, and data collection. The English language version of the survey was posted online in Lime Survey® by SRI. SRI then trained local evaluators on how to access Lime Survey to create a translated version of the impact survey that would feed back data in a consistent format. Twelve countries used the online format, and one country administered a paper-and-pencil survey, the data of which were ultimately aggregated with the other countries’ responses.

30

LIGHT AND PIERSON: IMPACT OF INFRASTRUCTURE ON TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

Data Analysis

The research for this paper is based in quantitative methods. Methods of analysis included both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. Frequencies and cross-tabulations were run to gain a better understanding of how survey responses were distributed across a variety of demographic and school-level contextual data. Statistical methods, including two-tailed independent sample t-tests, two-tailed paired samples t-tests, one-way analysis of variance tests (ANOVA), and chi-squared tests, were used to determine whether relationships in the descriptive data were statistically significant or whether they occurred simply by chance. The types of variables being considered determined which analysis was used. A small number of countries had discrepancies of varying degrees in their online survey that affected some of the data, resulting in the exclusion of their data from certain analyses. Places where data were excluded are clearly marked.

Participant Background

The response rate varied across the participating countries (See Table 1, below). Across all 13 countries there were 2,473 total respondents, and 1,922 of those respondents were classroom teachers. Four geographic regions were represented, including the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

Table 1: Final Sample of Classroom Teachers by Country

Country Number of respondents Number of classroom teachers

Egypt 341 175 Turkey 340 293 Jordan 288 202 Saudi Arabia 94 77 Mid-East Regional Total 1,063 747 South Africa 76 57 African Regional Total 76 57 Costa Rica 19 9 Brazil 39 17 Argentina 254 187 South American Regional Total 312 213 India 291 285 Thailand 159 111 Sri Lanka 382 355 Philippines 83 62 Pakistan 107 92 Asian Regional Total 1,022 905 Total respondents: 2,473 1,922

Source: Data adapted from Light & Pierson, 2011

The survey respondents included both classroom and non-classroom educators: The bulk of respondents work directly with students—77.7% were classroom teachers, and another 3.2% were technology coordinators or oversaw computer labs (See Table 2). The remaining respondents were divided between 15.9% teacher-trainers and 2.7% school administrators. Because the goal of this analysis was to explore how Essentials Course participants were using technology with their students, the analysis was restricted to the classroom teachers who work

31


directly with students. School administrators, teacher-trainers, and technology coordinators were removed from the sample. This limited sample has 1,922 respondents.

Table 2: Respondents’ Professional Role (n=2,473)

Role Percentage

Classroom teacher 77.7%

Teacher-trainer 15.9%

Administrator 2.7%

Technology coordinator 3.2%

Other .4%


Table 3 shows that the respondents are evenly distributed across teachers at all levels of the school system, from primary to secondary, with only a slightly lower share in lower primary (17.1%). In addition, the sample includes educators who have substantial teaching experience, with nearly half (41.6%) of teachers having 10 to 20 years of teaching experience (See Table 3). A fifth of teachers teach all of the subject areas (20.5%). And most of the teachers work in the core subject areas of science (18.5%), language arts (17.6%), and math (16.2%). Also, 11.8% teach computers.

Table 3: Classroom Teachers by Subject Area, Grade Level, and Years of Experience (n=1,922)

Percentage

Subject Area

All 20.5% English/ Language Arts 17.6% Math 16.2% Social Studies/ Geography/ History 12.3% Science 18.5% Computer Science/ Technology Education 11.8% Foreign Languages 6.1% Arts/ Music 3.2% Health/ Physical Education 2.4% Other 1.3%

Grade Level

Lower primary 17.1% Upper primary 28.9% Lower secondary or middle school 36.7% Upper secondary 29.6% Other .1%

Teaching Experience

Less than 3 years 10.2% 3 to 9 years 30.9% 10 to 20 years 41.6% Over 20 years 17.3%


32


Results

The results are divided into three sections. First come two sections that review the technology tools and applications that teachers are using with their students, and the nature of the type of access teachers and their students have in school. The final section is an analysis of the relationship between access to ICT resources and the use of ICT with students.

Technology Use

In order to explore the relationship between students’ computer access and ICT use, the survey first sought to establish what technologies teachers used with students and to what degree they were used. The teachers were surveyed on their use of 21 common technology resources and activities with their students. The items surveyed ranged from productivity software to Internet research to social networking. Teachers’ responses were analyzed along two dimensions: Do teachers use the tools with their students or not, and to what degree (frequency) do teachers use the tools with their students? For analysis, the tools and strategies were grouped into three categories:2 productivity and traditional ICT tools, Web 2.0 tools and applications, and Internet research activities.

Figures 1 through 3 show the percentage of teachers who report using each type of ICT tool or software. The most frequently used tools are presentation software at 97.1% and word processing at 96.6%, which are both from the productivity tools category (Figure 1). The most commonly used Web 2.0 tools are document-sharing sites, with 83.5% of teachers using that tool with students (Figure 2). Over ninety-two percent of teachers report accessing selected websites for Internet research with their students (Figure 3). Looking across the three categories of ICT tools and activities, the productivity tools and the Internet research activities are more commonly used by teachers than are the Web 2.0 tools.

Figure 1: Teacher Use of Productivity Software and Traditional ICT Tools with Students*

*This graph depicts teachers who report using these tools, regardless of frequency.Source: Light & Pierson, 2011

2 Data from Costa Rican teachers was removed from this section because of a local variation in these survey items.

33


Figure 2: Teacher Use of Web 2.0 Activities with Students *

* This graph depicts teachers who report using these tools, regardless of frequency.Source: Light & Pierson, 2011

Figure 3: Teacher Use of Internet Research Activities with Students *

* This graph depicts teachers who report using these tools, regardless of frequency.Source: Light & Pierson, 2011

In addition to calculating what percentage of teachers is using particular technology tools and software, we created two indices measuring frequency of use for the productivity tool and Web 2.0 tool categories. The first index is a continuous measure of the variety and frequency of technology use. The teachers’ responses to the six items about productivity tools, the 11 items about Web 2.0 tools, and the four items about Internet research activities were combined to create a single indicator for each category to capture some aspect of the frequency and variety of tool use. On average, teachers scored a 7.39 on the traditional tool scale, a 9.08 on the Web 2.0 scale, and a 5.17 on the Internet research scale.3

3 Responses were recoded where “Not at all” was equivalent to a 0, “A little” was given a 1,” and “A lot” was allocated a 2. Respondents’ scores were summed across the three groups to give them one score for each index. The scores on the traditional technology tool indicator ranged from 0 to 12, scores on the Web2.0 indicator ranged from 0 to 22, and scores on Internet research indicator ranged from 0 to 8.

34


Technology Access

The survey also asked respondents a variety of questions about where and how they can access ICT resources for themselves and for work with their students. The following section reviews the data on teachers’ and students’ access to ICT resources and then examines the relationship of access to their use of technology.

Teachers across the sample reported having access to computers through a variety of access points. Figure 4 shows the percentage of teachers who have different types of access to ICT for professional use. The survey also asked various questions about where students could access ICT resources in school. The results of both of these series of questions were compiled into a six- and five-level index respectively. Each response is mutually exclusive.

The most common ICT access point for both teachers and their students are computer labs at their school. While 30.4% of teachers say their students can access computers in both a lab and in the classroom, only 12% of teachers reported that same flexibility of access for themselves, since many teachers are prohibited from using lab computers for their own planning. In addition, regardless of their access points at school, 89.9% of teachers report having computer access at home.

Figure 4: School-Level Computer Access Points for Teachers and Students Source: Light & Pierson, 2011

Influence of Multiple Access Points to School-Based ICT Resources on Use

We ran an ANOVA to look at the effect of the type of school-based access to ICT on the teacher’s degree of technology use with students. The first major finding is that the type of teacher access point has no significant impact on that teacher’s use of technology with students. In other words, there is no significant difference between the frequency or type of technology that teachers use with their students, regardless of whether they have access to a laptop, a teacher lab, a classroom computer, or both lab and classroom (p>.05).

In contrast, the data show that the type of student access point does, in fact, significantly impact teachers’ use of technology, though not use of Internet research activities. In fact, teachers who have more flexible access points (i.e., lab and classroom or one-to-one environment) not only use a wider variety of tools, but they use them more frequently. Table 4 shows the average number of tools used alongside the average degree of use by student access point. The first notable finding is that even teachers in schools with no student-level technology access are doing

35


some ICT activities with their students. Most likely, this is through community access points like cybercafés. In addition, both the number of ICT resources used and the amount of use increase as teachers gain flexibility in ICT access. Because teachers were given a higher value if they indicated that they used a tool “a lot,” the average degree of use column reflects the fact that teachers are using the tools more frequently.

Table 4: Number of Tools Versus Degree of Use Across Types of Tools and Activities

Type of access Web 2.0 technology1 Traditional technology2

Average # of tools used

Average degree of use

Average # of tools used

Average degree of use

No access 4.7 6.68 3.2 6.45 Classroom only (Not one-to-one) 4.6 6.27 3.6 7.27

Computer lab only 6.3 8.72 4.2 7.33

Lab and classroom 6.8 9.76 4.5 7.51

One-to-one environment 7.4 10.82 4.7 7.71

1 Maximum # of tools: 11; Range of degree of use: 0 to 22 2 Maximum # of tools: 6; Range of degree of use: 0 to 12


The ANOVA analysis, run on the data from Table 4, also found that teachers who have lab and classroom access to ICT, or have a one-to-one environment, were both significantly more likely to use ICT than were their peers who have access only to a computer lab (p<.05). However, one-to-one environment or lab and classroom access were not significantly different from each other, either in terms of productivity or Web 2.0 tools. These findings suggest that both of those strategies for distributing ICT resources are roughly equivalent in supporting Essentials-trained teachers to use ICT with their students.

Our results also suggest a relationship between the types of student access points and the type of ICT resources and activities that teachers use with their students (see Figure 5). Not surprisingly, teachers with no in-school ICT access for their students consistently use technology less frequently than do their peers with some type of access. Looking across teachers who do have access reveals that the type of tools and software used varies by type of access point. For example, educational games are most likely to be used by teachers with lab and classroom access (81.9%), while word processing software is most likely to be used by teachers with access only in a computer lab (98%). Teachers whose students have a one-to-one computing environment are more likely to use a variety of activities, software, and tools, including structured Internet searches, video creation software, and web-development and visualization tools.

36


* Differences are significant at the p<.05 level** Differences are significant at the p<.01 level *** Differences are significant at the p<.001 level

Figure 5: Percentage of Teachers Who Use ICT Tools and Software, by Student ICT Access Point

Source: Light & Pierson, 2011

Discussion and Conclusion

These data offer a vantage point on a diverse range of teachers from around the world and how the distribution of ICT resources influences how they use those resources. The data highlight not only the wide range of technology access, but also the variation of degree of use within these varied contexts. Generally, providing students with flexible and easy access to ICT resources appears to support teachers’ use of ICT with their students. Furthermore, since we found little difference between one-to-one environments and the dual-access environments (classrooms and lab access), these findings begin to suggest that it is not the absolute number of computers that is as important as the ease with which teachers and their students can access those resources.

Teachers whose students are able to access computers when they need them, wherever they need them (based on a one-to-one or lab/classroom configuration) are able to integrate more technology-based activities into their classrooms. Their students use more basic productivity software and more Web 2.0 tools than do their peers in other schools without the same access. An important question for future research to consider is whether ease of access equates with gains in various learning outcomes in students.

These findings reinforce the importance for Ministries of Education and local education authorities to provide adequate access to ICT, but they suggest that there may be different but equally effective ways to distribute resources in schools. Our analyses suggest that creating easy and flexible ways for students to access computers not only increases the frequency with which they engage in ICT-based activities, it impacts the types and quality of activities that are conducted. However, access to ICT by itself is not sufficient to improve learning gains. The critical factor is still how teachers use technology to support learning.

Within the rapidly changing field of technology, computer acquisition is a constant budgetary item, not a one-time purchase, and therefore school level administrators and state-level ministries must be strategic and thoughtful in their procurement. This study shows that there is not a single best strategy to build technology infrastructure in a school; rather, as long as students have flexibility as to when and how they are accessing computers, Ministries are one step closer to their goals of promoting student-centered learning and ICT use for students.

37


Acknowledgement

This research was funded by a grant from Intel®.

38


REFERENCES

Akbaba-Altun, Sadegul 2006. “Complexity of Integrating Computer Technologies into Education in Turkey.” Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 9(1): 176–187.

Balanskat, Anja, Roger Blamire, and Stella Kefala. 2006. “The ICT Impact Report: A Review of Studies of ICT Impact on Schools in Europe.” Brussels, Belgium: European Schoolnet,.

Beatty, Ian D., and William J. Gerace. 2009. “Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment: A Research-Based Pedagogy for Teaching Science with Classroom Response Technology.” Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18: 146–162.

Bruff, Derek. “Classroom Response Systems (Clickers),” Vanderbilt Center for Teaching, accessed December 21, 2010, http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teaching-guides/technology/clickers/

Caldwell, Jane E. 2007. “Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips.” CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6: 9–20.

Comenius. 2008. Informe Final—Enlaces Portátil: Abriendo Camino para un país digital. Santiago, Chile: Centro para el desarrollo de innovaciones en educación, Universidad de Santiago Chile.

Johnson, David and Scott Mcleod. 2004. “Get Answers: Using Student Response Systems to See Students’ Thinking.” Learning & Leading with Technology, 32: 18–23.

Kraemer, Kenneth L., Jason Dedrick, and Prakul Sharma. 2009. “One Laptop Per Child: Vision Versus Reality.” Communications of the ACM, 52(6).

Lemke, Cheryl and Charles Fadel. 2006. “Technology in Schools: What the Research Says.” Culver City, CA: CISCO Systems.

Lemke, Cheryl, and Metiri Group. 2012. Intel® Teach: Jumpstarting 21st Century Learning. Santa Clara, CA: Intel.

Light, Daniel, Katherine McMillan Culp, Roshni Menon, and Simon Shulman, 2006a. Intel® Teach to the Future Essentials Course: Impact Survey Results for 2005. New York, NY: EDC|Center for Children and Technology.

Light, Daniel, Katherine McMillan Culp, Roshni Menon, and Simon Shulman, 2006b. Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century Classroom: Current Findings from Evaluations of the Intel® Teach to the Future Essentials Course. New York, NY: EDC|Center for Children and Technology.

Light, Daniel, and Elizabeth Pierson. 2011. Increasing ICT Use with Students Around the World: Intel® Teach Essentials Survey Results from 13 Participating Countries. New York: EDC|Center for Children and Technology.

Light, Daniel, and Elizabeth Pierson. 2012. Highlighting Changes in the Classrooms of a Successful One-to-One Program in Rural Argentina: Case Studies of Todos Los Chicos en la Red in San Luis. New York, NY: EDC|Center for Children and Technology.

Light, Daniel, and Elizabeth Pierson. 2013. Highlighting Changes in Two Russian Schools with Successful One-to-One Laptop Programs: Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod Case Studies. New York, NY: EDC|Center for Children and Technology.

Light, Daniel, and Charles Rockman. 2008. “The Emerging Paradigm of Teaching and Learning in Discovery Schools,” Evaluation of the Jordan Education Initiative. Washington, D.C.: Education Development Center.

Salend, Spencer J. 2009. “Technology-Based Classroom Assessments: Alternatives to Testing.” Teaching Exceptional Children, 41, 49–58.

Tamim, Rana M., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, Philip C. Abrami, and Richard F. Schmid. 2011. “What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis and Validation Study.” Review of Educational Research 81 (1): 1 4–28.

Valiente, Oscar. 2010. “1-1 in Education: Current Practice, International Comparative Research Evidence and Policy Implications,” in OECD Education Working Papers, 20. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

39


Reddi, Usha Vyasulu, and Vineeta Sinha. 2003. “India: ICT Use in Education,” in Metasurvey on the Use of Technologies in Education in Asia and the Pacific, ed. G. Farrell and C. Wachholz, (Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO-Bangkok), 245–252.

Winthrop, Rebecca, and Marshall S. Smith. 2012. “A New Face of Education: Bringing Technology into the Classroom in the Developing World,” in Brooke Shearer Working Paper Series. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Zucker, Andrew, and Daniel Light. 2009. “Laptop Programs for Students.” Science, 323: 82–85.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Daniel Light: Daniel Light, a Senior Scientist at EDC’s Center for Children and Technology, has a background in qualitative and quantitative sociological research methodologies. His work focuses on the social issues of school reform and technology integration across school systems both in the US and internationally. Dr. Light did his doctoral research on the role of technology integration in high school reform in an urban school district. Dr. Light is particularly involved in educational technologies in Latin America. He has done project work throughout the region with longer involvement in projects based in Costa Rica, Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, and Peru. Dr. Light has worked with technology integration projects in Peru and Guatemala and was the co-director of a study on seven successful SchoolNets in Latin America. Dr. Light has worked with technology integration projects throughout the United States, working on projects including the evaluation of youth development and school-to-work programs, the design of technology-related needs assessment instruments, impact studies of technology use with students, and the role of guidance counseling in helping students plan for the future.

Elizabeth Pierson: Elizabeth Pierson, a Research Associate at EDC’s Center for Children and Technology, has worked both internationally and in US on a variety of projects, all related to education and development. These projects, funded by Cisco, IBM, Intel, and the Inter-American Development Bank, have all focused on 21st-century school and system reform. Her work also focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of a range of small and large scale educational technology interventions aimed at improving teaching and learning. Prior to joining EDC, she worked at a school principal leadership development academy in New York City, directed youth-led community development projects in Panama and Costa Rica, coached high-school field hockey, and taught science and English to elementary students at a bilingual school in Quito, Ecuador. Elizabeth holds an M.A. in International Education Development from Columbia University's Teachers College and a B.A. in Environmental Studies from Vassar College.

40

Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal sets out to define an emerging field. Ubiquitous learning is a new educational paradigm made possible in part by the affordances of digital media.

Ubiquitous Learning is a counterpart to the concept “ubiquitous computing”, but one which seeks to put the needs and dynamics of learning ahead of the technologies that may support learning. The arrival of new technologies does not mean that learning has to change. Learning should only change for learning’s sake. The key perspective of the conference and journal is that our changing learning needs can be served by ubiquitous computing. In this spirit, the journal investigates the affordances for learning in the digital media, in school and throughout everyday life.

Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 1835-9795

The Impact of School Technology Infrastructure on Teachers' Technology Integration A Survey in...

Documents

Transcript of The Impact of School Technology Infrastructure on Teachers' Technology Integration A Survey in...