University students’ rankings and reflections on technologies value to their learning
The Measuring Technologies Value to Learning (MTVL) survey instrument was developed and deployed to collect data on the value learners place on 37 specific technologies and in some cases, the processes they facilitate. Administered to university students in three different locations in the spring of 2014, findings provide evidence to educators on the value to learning of measured items. Surprisingly, “writing with a word processor” was rated number one for its value to learning (n=386). The constructivist and didactic deployment of technologies was also surveyed for their value to learning. Constructivist usages with technology ranked four of the top five and didactic learning from technology occupied four out of the top ten and eight of the top 15 value rated positions, indicating value of both types of use. Respondents indicated a high degree of meta-awareness of technologies value to learning and a higher degree of ability to communicate and collaborate in-person compared to through social networking or any other online tools. Findings support the pedagogical use of technologies and show relative value of different tools.
Key words: Technology. Value. Learning.
ALLEN, I. E.; SEAMAN, J. Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning, 2007. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C), 2007. Available in: <http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf>.
BENNETT, S.; MATON, K.; KERVIN, L. The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal of educational technology, 39(5), 775-786, 2008.
CHRISTENSEN, C. M.; HORN, M. B.; JOHNSON, C. W. Disrupting class: how disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008. (v. 98).
CUBAN, Larry. Teachers and machines: the classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1986.
CUBAN, L. Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.
CUBAN, L.; JANDRIĆ, P. The dubious promise of educational technologies: Historical patterns and future challenges. E-Learning and Digital Media, April 22, 2015. DOI: 10.1177/2042753015579978.
DAHLSTROM, E.; WALKER, J.; DZIUBAN, C. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2013. Research Report. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research, 2013. Available in: <http://www.educause.edu/ecar>.
DOCKTERMAN, D. Tools for teachers: an historical analysis of classroom technology. 1988. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
DWYER, D. C. Changing the conversation about teaching learning and technology: a report about ten years of ACOT research. 1995
HIGGINS, S.; XIAO, Z.; KATSIPATAKI, M. The impact of digital technology on learning: a summary for the education endowment foundation. Durham, UK: Education Endowment Foundation and Durham University, 2012.
JONASSEN, D. Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, v. 6, n. 2, p. 40-73, Spring 1995.
KENNEDY, G.; JUDD, T.; CHURCHWARD, A.; GRAY, K.; KRAUSE, K. First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian journal of educational technology, 24(1), 2008.
KONRATH, S.; O’BRIEN, E.; HSING, C. Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, p. 180-198, 2011.
KOBA, M. Education tech funding soars -- but is it working in the classroom? Fortune.com, April 28, 2015. Available in: <https://fortune.com/2015/04/28/education-tech-funding-soars-but-is-it-working-in-the-classroom/>. Access: April 28, 2015.
KOEHLER, M.; MISHRA, P. What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70, 2009. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
LOTI. Digital-Age Survey for Teachers. LOTI connection. 2008.
MISHRA, P.; KOEHLER, M. J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054, 2006.
NIESS, M. L. Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299-317, 2011.
OREGON STATE. Socrates II. (n.d.). Available in: <http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Socrates/socrates02.html>.
PRENSKY, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6, 2001a.
______. Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), p. 1-6, 2001b.
RATHS, D. edX CEO: ‘It is pathetic that the education system has not changed in hundreds of years’. Campus Technology, July 31, 2014. Available in: <http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2014/07/31/edX-CEO-It-Is-Pathetic-That-the-Education-System-Has-Not-Changed-in-Hundreds-of-Years.aspx>. Access: August 1, 2014.
RIDEOUT, V.; FOEHR, U.; ROBERTS, D. GENERATION M2 Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. A Kaiser Family Foundation Study, 2010.
SAETTLER, P. The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc., 1990.
SALOMON, G.; PERKINS, D.; GLOBERSON, T. Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, p. 2-9, April, 1991.
SANDHOLTZ, J. H. Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1997.
SCHMIDT, D. A.; BARAN, E.; THOMPSON A. D.; KOEHLER, M. J.; MISHRA, P.; SHIN, T. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149, 2009-10.
SMALL, G.; VORGAN, G. iBrain: surviving the technological alteration of the modern mind. New York: Harper, 2008.
SOMEKH, B. Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In: VOOGT, J.; KNEZEK, G. (Ed.). International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer, 2008. p. 449-460.
SPEAK UP. Learning in the 21st Century: Digital Experiences and Expectations of Tomorrow’s Teachers. Speak Up, Project Tomorrow and Blackboard. 2013. Available in: <http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/tomorrowsteachers_report2013.html>.
THINYANE, H. Are digital natives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into South African first year students’ use and experience with technology. Computers & Education, 55(1), 406-414, 2010.
THOMPSON, P. The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, p. 12-33, 2013.
WHITTIER, D. Cyberethics: Envisioning Character Education in Cyberspace. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(02), 225-242, 2013. DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2013.775882.
______. Measuring Technologies Value to Learning. In: SEARSON, M.; OCHOA, M. (Ed.). Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Chesapeake, VA: AACE, 2014. p. 1366-1371.
ZUCKER, A. Lost in cyberspace: A review of Disrupting Class. Concord, MA: The Concord Consortium. Retrieved February, 2, 2015. Available in: <http://concord.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2008_DisruptingClass_WhitePaper.pdf>.
A revista Série-Estudos permite a reprodução total em outro órgão de publicação mediante a autorização por escrito do editor, desde que seja feita citação da fonte (Série-Estudos) e remetido um exemplar da reprodução. A reprodução parcial, superior a 500 palavras, tabelas e figuras deverá ter permissão formal de seus autores.
Direitos Autorais para artigos publicados nesta revista são do autor, com direitos de primeira publicação para a revista. Em virtude de aparecerem nesta revista de acesso público, os artigos são de uso gratuito, com atribuições próprias, em aplicações educacionais e não-comerciais.