An Analysis of High School Math,Science,Social Studies,English,and Foreign Language Teachers' Implementation of One-to-One Computing and Their Pedagogical Practices

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare high school Math, Science, Social Studies, English, and Foreign Language teachers' implementation of teaching practices in terms of their pedagogical dimensions in a one-to-one computing environment. A survey was developed to measure high school teachers' implementation of teaching practices associated with Collaborative Learning, Constructivist Learning, Project-Based Learning, and Differentiated Instruction in a one-to-one computing environment. Of the 209 teacher participants, 170 high school teachers were chosen for the purposeful sample. The results of the one-way between-group analysis of variance showed that there was a statistically significant difference in terms of high school Math, Science, Social Studies, English, and Foreign Language teachers and their pedagogical practices while implementing one-to-one computing technology. The findings in this study indicated different pedagogical classroom practices in a one-to-one computing environment among the high school disciplines. This study revealed how teachers use specific technological resources and strategies to teach their content.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atweh

Cooper

(1995). The construction of gender, social class and mathematics in the classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 293–310.

Bebell

(2005). Technology promoting student excellence: An investigation of the first year of 1:1 computing in New Hampshire middle schools. Annual meeting of the National Educational Computing Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

Bebell

Russell

O'Dwyer

(2004, Fall). Measuring teachers' technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45–63.

Bransford

J. D.

Stein

B. S.

(1993). The ideal problem solver (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Freeman.

Christensen

C. M.

Horn

M. B.

Johnson

C. W.

(2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Cobb

Wood

Yackel

McNeal

(1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2–33.

Crawford

(1996). Vygotskian approaches in human development in the information era. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(1), 63–93.

Ertmer

P. A.

(1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4),47–61.

Hatfield

Bitter

(1994). A multimedia approach to professional development of teachers: A virtual classroom. In NCTM 1994 yearbook: Professional development for teachers of mathematics (pp. 102–115). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

10.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2000). ISTE national educational technology standards (NETS) and performance indicators for teachers. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2000.sflb.ashx

11.

Jaillet

(2004). What is happening with portable computers in schools? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 115–128.

12.

Jonassen

(1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

13.

Lambert

(2005). Technology integration expertise in middle school social studies teachers. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 2, 261–289.

14.

Lambert

Gong

Cuper

(2008). Technology, transfer, and teaching: The impact of a single technology course on pre-service teacher's computer attitudes. Journal of Technology and Teachers Education, 16(4), 385–410.

15.

Lane

D. M.

(2003). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative impact on students and learning. Portland, ME: Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation, University of Southern Maine.

16.

Penuel

W. R.

(2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329–348.

17.

Roschelle

Pea

Roy

Hoadley

(2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer based technologies. Future of Children, 10(2), 76–101.

18.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

19.

Trilling

Fadel

(2009). 21st century skills learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

20.

Trimmel

Bachmann

(2004). Cognitive, social, motivational and health aspects of students in laptop classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 151–158.

21.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Freedom to learn: Michigan Virtual University and Ferris State University, Lansing, MI. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

22.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education learning powered by technology: National education technology plan 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

23.

Warschauer

(2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

24.

Windschitl

Sahl

(2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.

25.

Zucker

McGhee

(2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Public Schools. Roslyn, VA: National Science Foundation.