FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1520373771> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1520373771 endingPage "200" @default.
• W1520373771 startingPage "177" @default.
• W1520373771 abstract "This study investigates how two elementary teachers begin to use technology in a private school that had access to technology at many levels. Using a collaborative teacher-research model, the researcher specifically examined how to support teachers’ practice as they integrated technology tools within their literacy curriculum. Due to a supportive context, the teachers refined their writing instruction to include technology tools, and students improved their literacy through challenging learning experiences. Supporting Teachers • 177 Supporting Teachers in their Integration of Technology with Literacy Margaret A. Moore-Hart Eastern Michigan University Abstract This study investigates how two elementary teachers begin to use technology in a private school that had access to technology at many levels. Using a collaborative teacher-research model, the researcher specifically examined how to support teachers’ practice as they integrated technology tools within their literacy curriculum. Due to a supportive context, the teachers refined their writing instruction to include technology tools, and students improved their literacy through challenging learning experiences.This study investigates how two elementary teachers begin to use technology in a private school that had access to technology at many levels. Using a collaborative teacher-research model, the researcher specifically examined how to support teachers’ practice as they integrated technology tools within their literacy curriculum. Due to a supportive context, the teachers refined their writing instruction to include technology tools, and students improved their literacy through challenging learning experiences. In 1988, the Office of Technology (OTA) asserted, “Most teachers want to use technology, but few have found ways to exploit its full potential. Technology will not be used, and certainly will not be used well, unless teachers are trained in the use of technology, provided goals for new applications, supported in doing so, and rewarded for their successes in meeting these goals” (1988, p. 114). Even though many teachers continue to show an interest in using technology, our educational systems often fail to address the needs of teachers who have limited instruction in technology or know how to integrate it with the curriculum (Pianfetti, 2001). While authorities (Bork, 1987; IRA & NAEYC, 1998; Labbo, 1996; Labbo & Kuhn, 1998; Leu, 2000; Leu, Leu, & Coiro, 2004; Papert, 1993; Reinking, 1995, 1998), claim that technology offers a revolutionary and important instructional medium for improving the quality of academic learning for all students, the potential 178 • Reading Horizons • V48.3 • 2008 impact of technology on academic learning remains untapped. Equally discouraging is the fact that computers remain isolated from the content of the curriculum. Compounding these issues, technological innovations continuously expand and frequently become more complex. In order to overcome these barriers, educational systems need to closely examine how to help teachers acquire the expertise to use computer technology, integrate technology with the curriculum, and use technology to improve literacy. This qualitative study is designed to examine how two teachers, both immersed in a technological learning environment, changed their use of technology to enhance and support the literacy learning of their students through a mentor/ researcher relationship. Specifically, the major research objectives are to investigate how (1) two elementary teachers change their use of technology to support young students’ reading and writing, (2) elementary students feel about using technology with their reading and writing, and (3) elementary students’ reading and writing is enhanced through the use of technology. Research Perspectives Despite possible teacher interest in using technology, efforts to reform teacher use of technology in teaching and learning document only subtle changes in its instructional use (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Pianfetti, 2001). Other research studies reveal that reform efforts seldom involved teachers in the design of the study nor did the efforts provide sustained support for ongoing professional development (Cohen, 1990; Cuban, 1993; Spencer, 2000). While reform efforts reveal subtle changes in teachers’ instructional use of technology, research studies do show shifts in reported classroom use of technology. In the 1980s the majority of teachers were nonusers of computers in their classrooms (Cuban, 1986). Since the 1990s, one third of elementary and middle school teachers are occasional users of technology; one out of ten are daily users; and one half are nonusers (Means & Olson, 1995; Schofield, 1995). Although these studies indicate shifts in reported classroom use of technology over the years, there is a need to consider more specifically how teachers use computers. According to the National Educational Assessment Program (1996), software and hardware use are the prevailing classroom practices in technology, and is frequently used for drill and practice. Other studies suggest that while a larger number of teachers use technology for drill and practice, a smaller number of teachers use it for higher level thinking and problem solving activities (National Educational Assessment Program, 1996; Pianfetti, 2001; Wenglinsky, 1998). Supporting Teachers • 179 Several recent studies have attempted to address these challenges by examining how teachers become users of technology in their classrooms and what factors shape their thinking (Margerum-Leys, 2002; Vannatta & O’Bannon, 2002; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). These studies reveal important findings related to teacher use of technology and what factors motivate teachers to change their instructional practice to include it. Studies associated with the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT), for example, suggest that teachers learning to use technology move through five stages of technology integration, ranging from the entry to invention stages, over time (Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997). These studies further suggest that teachers need time to incorporate technology into their curriculum. Other studies indicate that teacher beliefs about learning and student and teacher roles in the learning process influence how they use technology (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). Becker (1994) found that teacher use of technology thrived in environments where they experimented with its use. Several studies further claim that support networks stimulate teacher use of technology and its integration within the curriculum (Becker & Ravitz, 1999; Franklin et al., 2002; Jayroe, Ball, & Novinski, 2002; Labbo, Eakle, & Montero, 2001; Margerum-Leys, 2002; Myers & Halpin, 2002; Vannatta & O’Bannon, 2002; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). The findings from these studies suggest that teachers become willing to integrate technology with the curriculum when they see how it can be used as a tool to accomplish their learning goals and to promote student learning. As the number of technological innovations continues to increase, the need for support networks, as well as effective in-services and ongoing professional development programs, becomes heightened (Hawisher & Selfe, 1989; Labbo, et al, 2001; Margerum-Leys, 2002; Moore & Karabenick, 1992; Reinking, 1995, 1998). Specifically, teachers need ongoing support to accommodate their understanding of evolving communication and technological tools. They also need ongoing support to determine what possibilities these tools offer for student learning. In-services and ongoing professional development opportunities are ways to increase teachers’ expertise in changing technologies. In addition, teachers need supported practice to consider possibilities for enhancing student learning and for integrating technology with the curriculum (Franklin et al., 2002; Moore, 1988, 1989; Moore-Hart, 1995; Myers & Halpin, 2002; Vannatta & O’Bannon, 2002; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Once teachers assume more of the responsibility and begin to function independently, this support may gradually be decreased. However, these studies emphasize that when innovative technology emerges, support should increase once again. Desiring to determine if supported practice would facilitate teachers’ knowledge and understanding of technology, as well as enhance student literacy learning, 180 • Reading Horizons • V48.3 • 2008 I investigated how supported practice affected two elementary teachers’ use of technology. The two teachers taught in a private school where technology was abundant and advocated by teachers and administrators." @default.
• W1520373771 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1520373771 creator A5065689684 @default.
• W1520373771 date "2008-01-01" @default.
• W1520373771 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1520373771 title "Supporting Teachers in Their Integration of Technology with Literacy" @default.
• W1520373771 cites W1515587369 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W1516788698 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W153117292 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W1546458080 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W1563126856 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W1575771661 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W1580725936 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W1599334645 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2000117884 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2004184632 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2004901822 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2037687914 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2040760046 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2062275150 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2068671962 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2075243909 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W210204261 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2108942689 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2149826930 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2160435453 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W238796659 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W295177758 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W3034207090 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W3127341039 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W598790930 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W599756828 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W628954343 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W66661366 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W97573396 @default.
• W1520373771 cites W2799095451 @default.
• W1520373771 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W1520373771 type Work @default.
• W1520373771 sameAs 1520373771 @default.
• W1520373771 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W1520373771 countsByYear W15203737712012 @default.
• W1520373771 countsByYear W15203737712016 @default.
• W1520373771 countsByYear W15203737712021 @default.
• W1520373771 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1520373771 hasAuthorship W1520373771A5065689684 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConcept C2778048005 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConcept C2983612474 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConcept C2992644762 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConcept C547764534 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConcept C88610354 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConceptScore W1520373771C144024400 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConceptScore W1520373771C145420912 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConceptScore W1520373771C15744967 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConceptScore W1520373771C19417346 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConceptScore W1520373771C2778048005 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConceptScore W1520373771C2983612474 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConceptScore W1520373771C2992644762 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConceptScore W1520373771C547764534 @default.
• W1520373771 hasConceptScore W1520373771C88610354 @default.
• W1520373771 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1520373771 hasLocation W15203737711 @default.
• W1520373771 hasOpenAccess W1520373771 @default.
• W1520373771 hasPrimaryLocation W15203737711 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W1483063897 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W17493797 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W1979764229 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2102457714 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W210478520 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2110107717 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2114009713 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2114596190 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2118324273 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2143663294 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2245687029 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2589979634 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2610340146 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2934993940 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2974454263 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W3021629691 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W317841931 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W97640779 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2083074263 @default.
• W1520373771 hasRelatedWork W2612276217 @default.
• W1520373771 hasVolume "48" @default.
• W1520373771 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1520373771 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1520373771 magId "1520373771" @default.
• W1520373771 workType "article" @default.