What Does Effective Classroom Technology Look Like?
Program Design, Research Tagged integration, leadership August 26th, 2009The use of technology
in the classroom to engage and motivate students is hardly a new concept. The question that both teachers and policy-makers have been asking themselves almost from the moment that the first computer landed in a classroom is a simple one: “Which kinds of programs work?”
In 1998 the Milliken Family Foundation released a study that identified 7 dimensions of effective technology integration. Even though this report was released over 10 years ago, the focus and dimensions that were identified are hardly dated. In fact, 10 years of experience in the classroom and the release of standards such as those created by ISTE for both teachers and students have validated the domains of learning that lead to effective technology integration. (You can download and read the full report here in PDF format.)
Here’s a brief recap of the identified dimensions of technology integration that we’ll be using in Project SMaRt as we examine our program:
1. Learners: Are learners using the technology in ways that deepen their understanding of the content in the academic standards and, at the same time, advance their knowledge of the world around them? Does the student use contemporary technology, communication networks, and associated learning contexts to engage in relevant, real-life applications of academic concepts?
2. Learning Environments: Is the learning environment designed to achieve high academic performance by students through the alignment of standards, research-proven learning practices, and contemporary teaching methods? Does the school culture enable teachers to individually and collectively improve the learning and teaching process through the use of technology? Is there sufficient access to technology tools, data, and the means to examine and manipulate them?
3. Professional Competency: Are educators fluent with technology and do they use technology tools to impact student achievement? Do teachers provide learning contexts that require students to take on more independent roles in their own learning?
4. System Capacity: Is the education system re-engineering itself to systematically meet emerging needs of a changing global workforce and new educational objectives? Is there a system to build human capacity through training and mentoring?
5. Community Connections: Are key community and school stakeholders committed and involved in the planning, funding, implementing, and evaluating the system’s use of technology? Is their clear articulation of roles, expectations, implementation, time lines, and accountability?
6. Technology Capacity: Are there adequate technology, networks, electronic resources and support to meet the goals of the system? Is capacity evenly distributed? Do all students and teachers have equal opportunities?
7. Accountability: Is there agreement on what success with the successful use of technology looks like? Are there measures in place to track progress, report results, and change as needed?
While there may be individual points to argue in this study, there is much to be gained by asking these questions. As you examine your own priorities and the priorities of your school, how would you answer? What changes do you feel need to be made in the approach you are taking with technology integration? And where do you feel changes are needed?
Feel free to comment here, or save your questions for our face-to-face workshops where questions like these will be examined in more detail.




August 26th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I propose that technology infused into the curriculum needs to be done so seamlessly and consistently for an impact to be made. By making whatever use of programs and applications available as part of the academic curriculum, students are learning to use the technology in conjunction with, and as part of, their required curriculum. I think technology should enhance their understanding by allowing them creative and unique ways of expression. This shows mastery of concepts and an understanding of benchmarks that go beyond the minimum standards.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
As a reading teacher I am frustrated and disappointed at what passes for use of technology in the reading classroom. In order to infuse technology in ways that empower students to go beyond the “mandated” idea of computer program as teaching assistant, I have to require my students access and use technology outside of the classroom. Principals, district “movers and shakers,” and our Superintendent need to rethink the use of technology in order to incorporate it much more effectively than it is currently used.
August 28th, 2009 at 8:39 am
I just did an abstract on a great article titled Tapping into active learning and multiple intelligences with interactive media: A low-threshold classroom approach. He believes that teachers have taken the same old content and compiled it into a PowerPoint presentation, which he calls “shovelware.” In the article, Schrand (2008, pp. 78-79) encourages educators, “to avoid using new technologies as shovels and, instead, to use them to build structures for active forms of student learning that were not possible or practical with our previous technologies.”
It is a great article if you get a chance to read it!
http://selenalknight.googlepages.com/InteractivePowerPointArticle.pdf