Stevens Something Technological

Something technological this way comes.

Defining the something as we strive to improve instruction and curriculum

An Inquiry Paper Cullen G.E. Stevens CURR800 summer 2004 Dr. Aleidine J. Moeller

Stevens Something Technological Abstract Do successful teachers NEED something technological in our instruction? For technology to work for teachers to improve instruction and curriculum, areas of best practices must first be explored. Through an exploration of best practices, areas arise

where technology can and should be implemented. Technology can benefit teachers in areas of management (grades and applications), student communication (feedback and delivery), and instructional design and practice (classroom materials and websites). Teachers must understand the how and why of technology and no longer except technology on face validity alone. Teachers must understand HOW the use of technology links to the students on a cogitative level and WHY the development of those links can improve areas of their teaching. As a case FOR technology builds, the case AGAINST technology must responsibly be explored. Teachers must move away from simply needing something technological, we need to know how technology can work for teachers to improve instruction and curriculum.

Stevens Something Technological

Something technological this way comes. Defining the something as we strive to improve instruction and curriculum

Introduction

How can technology work for teachers to improve instruction and curriculum?
Although the question of this paper is quite broad it began even broader and was vague. As a classroom teacher, I had often heard that technology improves learning or technology is what the students need. I would always (blindly) agree with these statements because I had seen technology work. I knew that technology made ideas develop quickly, look better, and run faster. But I was defining technology in generic terms and had no true understanding of why or how technology works. My knowledge was minimal and because I had minimal hard data to back up my beliefs, I found it harder to justify to myself and others around me that time must be invested to implement technology. In a packed curriculum, I was asking for more time to implement a system that I only felt would work and I was countered with hard numbers and studies of why I should strictly follow the curriculum (which implemented very little technology). This paper became a springboard for me to begin to understand why I should fight for technology. Technology, when implemented amongst best practices, really works. The following information on technology is something that I personally needed to know and had an interest in. Understanding that I possessed an interest for this information, I asked myself, Do I NEED this information?

Stevens Something Technological There seems to be a growing trend of shooting for a high branch instead of

shooting for the stars. My district seems to focus on each student meeting the minimal requirement instead of each one striving to surpass it. Too often teachers new to the profession or to a school district will find themselves entrapped within the increasingly comfortable and unchallenging status quo laid out by a school district. Teachers begin to dismiss their undergraduate theories and practices and shoot for mediocrity. I have almost been swallowed by the status quo. My current instructional strategies seemed to be shifting toward a goal for the mediocre and I needed to squash that shift immediately. As Dale Carnegie, an American author, stated, If your work is becoming uninteresting, so are you. Work is an inanimate thing and can be made lively and interesting only by injecting yourself into it. Your job is only as big as you are. I needed to understand the ideas of learning (visual and audio channels, cognitive load, and feedback, instructional design) to grow into a teacher who could effectively guide students to optimal learning. I saw technology as a bridge from where I am to where I want to go. Realizing equipment and loss of time are costly and that drawbacks exist, I found that it is the most reasonable step was to explore and understand areas of technology before I implement them. As a fellow teacher, Jaime Swanson, told me, You did all your Bachelor Degree classes because you had to. Your Masters Degree is all about what you want to do. I wanted to pursue teaching in a way that I have never been taught or have begun to teach myself. My need to learn also had a student component. It is my responsibility as a teacher to continue to explore new avenues toward improving my teachings as I mold new ideas with established best practices.

Stevens Something Technological The following begins an exploration of how technology can work for teachers to improve instruction and curriculum while focusing on: Management and Acceptance computer applications have been created that allow teachers to maintain grades, class lists, attendance, etc. The proper management of non-instructional items frees up time for instruction, development, and planning. Also, an openness to technology helps promote success. Student communication the area of feedback will be explored emphasizing how technology can aid in the process. Feedback is increasingly important and may change as individual students change. Technology can adapt and change with the learner. Technology also affects the delivery and availability of material. Material can be created ONCE and from that time on be revised quickly and continually available for the student. Instructional design and practice - classroom materials and websites can be effectively designed around how learners learn and the needs of individual students can be addressed. An understanding of design principles and their effects is a key item here. Examining areas of cognitive load and individual learning is also important.

Drawbacks or Misconceptions for many, technology is seen as something that can be easily misused and steps must be constructed to prevent this. To prevent misuse, misconceptions, examples of previous misuse, or concerns, must be addressed to prevent them from being repeated.

Stevens Something Technological Description of inquiry search I have not written a paper for five years, so I knew the process would begin slowly. As described above, I had a desire to pursue the how and why of technology, but not the means. Technology is a broad subject, so I tried to focus on mathematics. As I began my research and continued in my graduate courses I began to realize that I needed to understand technology on a lower level first. I was being reintroduced to areas of best practices and cognitive learning theory and became more fascinated by how a learner learns. I found myself unknowledgeable in the subject. Following Dr. Moellers advice, I contacted some experts in the field. I sent an email out to several UNL professors that swim in areas of technology and stated:
I am currently in CURR 800 with Dr. Moeller. I large part of our grade will focus on our upcoming Inquiry Report. Currently, my Inquiry Question is "How does the implementation of technology effect a students motivation, achievement, and learning?" Dr. Moeller suggested that we contact professors in the area of your inquiry for suggestions on authors and/or articles that truly need to be in our paper in order for it to be proficient. (She called it the "Big 5" every area has five main researchers that should be present in a study or review of that area.) Thanks you for your time, assistance, and attention to this matter.

I received two emails back. Dr. Brooks informed me to look ahead in the reading for our CURR859 class and Dr. Fowler gave me the following lists of experts: James A. Kulik - The University of Michigan Ann Arbor http://www.umich.edu/~osvp/bios/kulik. Richard E. Clark - University of Southern California http://www.ceppress.com/bios/clark_estes.htm Elliot Soloway - University of Michigan Ann Arbor http://web.si.umich.edu/courses/people/faculty-detail.cfm?passID=100 Roxana Moreno - University of New Mexico http://www.unm.edu/~moreno/ David Brooks - University of Nebraska-Lincoln http://dwb.unl.edu/

Stevens Something Technological

Many of these individuals were helpful as experts in the area of my first question, but my interest toward instructional design and cognitive theory continued to grow. The articles I found from these experts are still informative and valuable when it comes to implementation. After a conversation with Dr. Moeller, the focus of my question changed to the improvement of instruction through implementing technology rather than examining how technology improves student achievement. In summary, I switched from looking at technology as a student to looking at it as an educator. The next part of my search involved the UNL Libraries website: (http://iris.unl.edu/). From the site I traveled the following path: chose search for journal articles through Indexes by Subject , chose Education, and then went to the Academic Search Premiere. In the Academic Search Premiere, I searched from several items. I used the database to search for articles that where authored by the experts suggested, and searched for articles with titles that contained the following words or a combination of the following words: achievement, success, failure, technology, instruction(al), design, cognitive load, education(al), research, qualitative, quantitative, meta-analysis, motivation, attitude, feedback, misconceptions, student, teacher, computer, etc. As an added bonus, my other current class had great resources. One downfall is that the resources were time released and, at the time of rough draft of the paper, are still unavailable. One disadvantage of using the search method I chose was most of my articles were really 15-35 page research papers. I tried to glean important information from those papers and include any appropriate material from my CURR 859 textbooks. After collecting around 30 resources, I began to read and summarize each one to see if

Stevens Something Technological it was truly applicable. I left all resources listed, but will change that to references cited if appropriate once the paper is finalized. At times, large chunks of my review focus around a particular book or author mainly because I had recently read those books and was inspired by how they linked to my question.

Review of Literature

The goal of my review of literature is to point out areas of best practice and emphasize their importance in instruction and curriculum. With the introduction any area of best practice, we often find limitations of that area. Limitations prevent best practices from being considered, create resistance toward their implementation, may restrict areas of their effectiveness, and constrain it due to an unavailability of time or effort. A big role of technology is to eliminate limitations of best practices and expand on their process.

Management and Acceptance Any valid time management skill is valued. The automation of grades allows the teacher to free more time up for other duties. Grade programs allows teachers to quickly compute a running total, classify grades in categories, compare groups of students and classes to other groups, tracks student process throughout the year, and so on. Grade programs, such as Easy Grade Pro, now incorporate grades, seating charts, and attendance from a single class list. Grades are categorized by colors for a better visual breakdown and lists can be created by grade, missing work, absences, etc. Grades can also be saved as an email file to send to students and parents or post on a website.

Stevens Something Technological Though technology may eliminate non-instructional tasks and/or increase the productivity of the teacher, resistance to the technology often prevents the technology from ever being used. Christensen et al. (2001) discussed how the receptivity of distance learning can affect the outcome of the learning. Credibility must be established and results must be solid before assumptions or generalizations can be considered. When you introduce a

new technology it is not automatically accepted, technology must be seen as viable and useful (Christensen et al., 2001). Daley et al. (2001) examined the effects of an initial attitude on success. A positive approach generally led to a positive experience. Daley et al. (2001) reported that negative/positive outcomes involving technology were directly linked to the negative/positive perceptions and attitudes of the learners. They add study data indicate however, that if students attitudes and perceptions of the technology were negative, then they did not develop the ability to extend and refine their knowledge (Daley et al., 2001, 12). Kulik and Dillon & Gabbard (1998) both explored the area of attitude. Kulik (2002) relayed that attitudes were reported as more positive when a class contained and technological element. But Dillon and Gabbard reported that a positive attitude (or willingness to explore) may be what effects whether not hypermedia is effective. Hannula (2002) examined the importance of attitude in respect to mathematics and concluded that a positive attitude will affect learning in a meaningful way.

Stevens Something Technological 10 The advantages of technology must be explored and communicated to the teachers (and students) who, in turn, must invest the initial chunk of time (assisting them to become proficient with the new technology).

Student Communication/Feedback Feedbacks increasing importance makes its limitations more visible. (Brooks et al., 2004, 4) state best instruction provides learners with much more feedback than does conventional instruction. As a learner grows, the optimal feedback can change. An area of feedback that can be emphasized by technology closely tied to a classroom setting is performance-related feedback. In a reinterpretation of a good deal of literature, (Brooks et al., 2004, p.19) suggest that increasing the amount of performance-related feedback is one of the most effective ways to improve instruction. There are many teaching strategies that can be linked to performance-related feedback and those linked strategies can also be introduced to the student through technology. Testing is the best form of performance-related feedback and frequent testing is best. (Frequent testing is vital in PSI strategies of Keller Plan courses as well). But frequent testing increases workload [and teachers following a Keller Plan may find that a maddening amount of bookkeeping must be done for a Keller Plan course of any size (Silberman, 1978, p.98).] Technology can step in and reduce the time needed to monitor and maintain results from frequent testing. Online testing can be constructed and physical record keeping by the instructor is almost completely reduced. Two other valuable performance-feedback strategies are in class pair discussion and cooperative learning. Positive results arise when learners engage in activities where they provide feedback for one another about their work (Brooks et al., 2004) and

Stevens Something Technological 11 (Marzano et al. 2001). The strategies of discussion and cooperative learning are overpowering, but they are heavily limited by the time the group has together in the physical classroom. With technology, material for discussion can be posted continually and class time is extended outside of the physical classroom to a continual online discussion. Worked out examples are also important for student learning. Student can analyze the process and receive immediate feedback about where they succeeded and/or failed. Examples may be limited by their complexity and speed of reproducibility. Technology can assist the instructor in creating an elaborate example once and then it becomes available to demonstrate over and over again. Norman (2002) introduced the ideas of constraints and slips and how immediate feedback must be designed to not only correct slips, but to also catch them as soon as possible. Norman (2002) and Clark & Mayer (2003) both recognized what could get in the way of a successful outcome. Norman discusses the importance of recognizing the power of constraints and eliminating unwanted constraints. Though Clark & Mayer (2003) did not define it as such, distraction and cognitive overload were big constraints and concern for them. A very interesting subject in Normans (2002) book is the idea of slips. Norman (2002) explains slips: Some slips can result from the similarities of actions. Or an event in the world may automatically trigger an action. Sometimes our thoughts and actions may remind us of unintended actions, which we then perform (pg. 107). Norman suggests, "Two different kinds of design lessons can be drawn, one for preventing slips before they occur and one for detecting and correcting them when they

Stevens Something Technological 12 do occur" (2002, 112). Norman heavily relies on the idea of feedback to assist the user in correcting their mistakes. Clark & Mayer (2003) also understand that learners make mistakes, but they focus more on the importance of the designed lesson to explain where "slips" might occur, why they affect the learner so, and how to prevent them with good e-lesson design. Mason & Bruning (2004) discuss what the research tells us about feedback, one of the main advantages of computer-based education is the ability to provide immediate feedback on individual responses and unlike feedback from an instructor or tutor, this feedback can remain unbiased, accurate, and nonjudgmental, irrespective of the student characteristics or nature of the student response (p.1). Conversely, from results of past studies Fletcher-Flinn & Gravatt (1995) state that math students may learn more from drill-and-practice which incorporates feedback. Kulik (2002) agrees. Feedback must be corrective, timely, and specific (Marzano et al. 2001). It is important to understand that feedback should be gauged appropriately to the learner. Computer-based feedback can, at least theoretically, be adapted to the learning styles and needs of each individual student, a goal that seldom is attained in a traditional classroom (Mason & Bruning, 2004, p. 1-2). (Mason & Bruning, 2004) establish that feedback builds on responses; errors are expected and are an important resource to build upon. Feedback assists learners to determine expectations, examine personal levels of understanding, and discover of misconceptions. Mason & Bruning (2004) also emphasize that feedback can and should be tailored to the level of the learners achievement or performance. Minimal feedback can assist in a self-development of learning and delayed feedback will allow the learner time for self-reflection and examination.

Stevens Something Technological 13 Feedback can also be controlled by the learner. A techno logically designed lesson can offer a control of how much feedback a learner desires. Dillon & Gabbard (1998) suggested that a big advantage of hypermedia is learner control. A highfunctioning leaner may understand when feedback is or isnt necessary.

Instructional Design Clark and Mayer (2003) have explored the area of multimedia and developed strategies to increase its effectiveness. Clark and Mayer (2003) often focus on elearning (hence the title), but define multimedia and the use of it mainly throughout Chapter 3. In Chapter 3 they "summarize the empirical evidence for learning gains that result from combined text and relevant graphics in e-lessons" (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 51). Research evidence and cognitive theory suggest that e-lessons incorporate multimedia (words and graphics). The authors suggest that an e-lesson that includes multimedia will assist the learner to engage in active learning. Without multimedia (or simply used text alone) the learners in more likely be engaged in "shallow learning." The active learning is increasingly productive by "mentally representing material in words and pictures and mentally making connections between the pictorial and verbal representations" (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 54). Though the inclusion of pictures is highly recommended, the authors specify the graphics must be relevant. Clark and Mayer classify graphics into two categories: decorative illustrations and explanative illustrations. Decorative illustrations provide no additional learning opportunity. Conversely, explanative illustrations assist the learners

Stevens Something Technological 14 to understand the material (Clark & Mayer, 2003). Relevant graphics are dynamic and purposeful. The authors offer "types of graphics to meet instructional goals" (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 55). When teaching content types, the authors have many suggestions. In the growing word of computers and software development, it is vital to be able to instruct and learn new computer systems and programs. Clark & Mayer (2003) report the continual use of screen captures. Screen captures are very useful and help identify the steps needed in a process or to identify additional information on the screen itself. The process of the screen capture allows the learners to initially view the environment that they are going to be operating in, but when learning the system there is some instruction present. I believe this is a very strong example of "modeling". Also in content types, Clark & Mayer (2003) explore animated graphics. Animated graphics assist in clarifying and displaying flows and processes. This animation will link back to engaging active learning. Graphics as topic organizers can "serve an organizational function by showing relationships among topics in a lesson" (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 58). Learners can easily and quickly access information to topics when organized with appropriate graphics. Another advantage is that learners will be able to make connections between related concepts. Graphics can make the invisible become visible (Clark & Mayer, 2003). I practice this technique in my geometry classes. Students create a circle, a diameter of that circle, and a radius of that circle in Geometer's Sketchpad. The program will allow students to identify the measures of the diameter and radius. The original circle is dynamic and as students change the circle, the measures are still displayed.

Stevens Something Technological 15 Graphics in instruction are also helpful. In Geometer's Sketchpad, students click on a line icon to create a line, segment, or ray. They click on the letter to label the points, and on the point icon to initially create the point. Clark and Mayer's (2003) favor cognitive theory (also called cognitive learning theory or cognitive theory of multimedia learning) when discussing how learners learn through process images, oral text, and written text. Key ideas are: Human memory has two channels for processing information: visual and auditory; Human memory has a limited capacity for processing information; Learning occurs by actively processing in the memory system; New knowledge and skills must be retrieved from long-term memory for transfer to the job. The path of visual and auditory information can be summarized as follows: it enters the eyes/ears, is briefly stored in visual and auditory sensory memory, enters working memory, and concludes in permanent or long-term memory. Clark and Mayer (2003) reiterate the importance of activating working memory appropriately. Working memory is the "center of cognition since all active thinking takes place there" (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 36). Thorough the exploration of multimedia, they discusses the importance of multimedia to engage active thinking. Learning will only be effective if it can draw from past knowledge and relate it to new knowledge. Consequently, the new information in the working memory must be concise and limited in size in order to be incorporated. New information is synthesized from working memory into permanent memory - encoding. They state "well-defined practice exercises provide encoding opportunities" (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 159).

Stevens Something Technological 16 The active processing is called rehearsal. Into order to permanently hold information, there must be time for rehearsal. Cognitive load, the burden imposed on working memory in the form of information that must be held plus information that must be processed, must not be exceeded because rehearsal ceases to function if a learners cognitive load is overwhelmed. Multimedia presentations foster the integration process by presenting "verbal and visual information together rather than separated" (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 38). The ability to retrieve that memory is called retrieval. Without retrieval, all other processes are meaningless because knowledge that cannot be accessed is not beneficial. Clark & Mayer (2003) suggest that an effective practice session will assist to add new information to existing information and establish a good retrieval hook to find the new information when it is needed. In summary, Clark & Mayer (2003) believe in metacognition. Lessons must be designed to assist learners with poor metacognition skills and foster success in individuals with excellent metacognition skills. "The design of the e-lesson can support active processing or it can inhibit it, depending on what kinds of instructional methods are used" (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 42). Clark and Mayer (2003) outline principles for instructional design. The principles are also closely mirrored by the principles introduced by Moreno (2004). (This is not at all surprising since much of the research that supports the design principles were conducted with Mayer and Moreno.) All principles, when applied, show a tremendous improvement in the learners' performance. Each principle had been tested to demonstrated support for the principles.

Stevens Something Technological 17 Multimedia Principle: Use Words and Graphics Rather than Words Alone The multimedia principle builds on the fact the multimedia promotes active learning by "mentally making connections between pictorial and verbal representations" (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 54). Active learning is an essential step in cognitive learning. Contiguity Principle: Place Corresponding Words and Graphics Near Each Other The contiguity principle focuses on the fact "humans are sense-makers who try to see the meaningful relations between words and pictures (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 77). By placing words and corresponding pictures in appropriate proximity, the learners are allowed to make connections between the two and reinforce that concept. In cognitive learning, making a connection with new data will help us incorporate new data with existing data. Modality Principle: Present Words as Audio Narration Rather than Onscreen Text In order for an e-lesson to be most effective, it should contain graphics and text. Human memory has two channels for processing information: visual and auditory. Occasionally, presenting graphics simultaneously with text, the visual processing may become overloaded and presenting graphics simultaneously with text is not using the phonetic processing. Presenting words as audio uses both channels and places less pressure on the learner's cognition load. Redundancy Principle: Presenting Words in Both Text and Audio Narration Can Hurt Learning The redundancy principle, defined loosely, also pursues easing cognitive load. When words and audio are presented, the visual

Stevens Something Technological 18 channel can approach overload. Words are redundant because the purpose is already being met with the audio text. Coherence Principle: Adding Interesting Material Can Hurt Learning Similar to redundant text, extraneous sounds, pictures, and words should be omitted. The "extra" instruments not only place strain on the cognitive load, but they may also distract, disrupt, or seduce the learners consequently interrupting the learning process. Cognitively adding extraneous words may also "stimulate the learner to organize the material around the exciting themes in the added words rather than the cause-and-effect explanation of the target material (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 126). Also "in three separate experiments, students who read [a] summary [of a passage] performed better on tests of retention and transfer than students who received the whole passage (Clark & Mayer, 2003, p. 127). Sometimes less is more. Personalization Principle: Use Conversational Styles and Virtual Coaches The personalization principle examined the benefits of bringing material down from a complex level to a more conversational level. This process assisted in creating a personal link to the learner and promoted a higher performance rate. Pedagogical agents provide an "on-screen character" for the learner to interact with and focus on. Practice Principle: Does Practice Make Perfect? The practice principle emphasizes how practice improves learning. E-lessons should contain opportunities for practicing and more critical ideas should provide more practice opportunities. The steps of cognitive learning demand a formation of a link between existing and new information through active learning. Practice

Stevens Something Technological 19 helps establish the link and creates cognitive hooks to lead back to the information. Work Example Principle: Fuel for Learning Worked examples help learners process information, link ideas, examine processes, build retention, and improve learning. Worked examples are not effective if ignored and should follow other principles when being created.

To compare and contrast these ideas, we can explore how Norman (2002) views design. Norman (2002) and Clark & Mayer (2003) agree on many aspects of design. One of the strongest ideas from Norman that we can relate to the "principles of design" in Clark & Mayer (2003) is visibility. Norman (2202) states that a designer needs to "make relevant parts visible". Relevant parts must be evident to insure proper function and irrelevant parts should be invisible to insure that to not get in the way of proper function. In summary, the design should only contain exactly what it needs and nothing more. Clark & Mayer (2003) and Norman (2002) agree here. Throughout the "design principles", Clark & Mayer (2003) repeatedly caution the overuse or improper use of text, graphics, and sound. Though important, they can distract, disrupt, and seduce the learner away from the lesson. Both Norman (2002) and Clark & Mayer (2003) discuss the importance of a good "display" and warn against redundant pieces, but Clark & Mayer (2003) were more open to variations. Where Norman (2002) may see aesthetics as sabotage, Clark & Mayer (2003) encouraged the use of graphics, audio, and video clips by relating their proved effectiveness and outlining guidelines for appropriate use.

Stevens Something Technological 20 Norman (2002) and Clark & Mayer (2003) do not seem to hold the same view on memory and learning. Norman states, "Human memory is essentially knowledge in the head, or internal knowledge" (2002, p.67) and Clark & Mayer (2003) discuss, in length, their subscription to cognitive learning theory. Clark & Mayer (2003) offer many "design principles" to ensure that learners are using more visual and audio sensors at an appropriate level without distraction or overload. Clark & Mayer (2003) understand and explain the two nodes of input and maps out a successful roadmap to a learners success. Norman (2002) derives one of his most powerful tools, mental models, to assist with understanding. Norman states, "People probably make up mental models-this is why designers should provide users with appropriate models: When they are not supplied, people are likely to make up inappropriate ones" (2002, p.70). Note the important difference, Norman (2002) said probably and Clark & Mayer (2003) used empirical research to support their ideas. Others have concluded that development of material outside the textbook can be quite beneficial. (Bottege et al., 2004, p.43) discusses the ability to develop curriculum for special education students, video based problems on CDs, called anchors, are especially motivating for students with low reading skills because they can immediately access the problems embedded in the anchor without having to decode and comprehend word-based problems. EAI [Enhanced Anchor Instruction] also extents students learning by affording them the opportunities to apply their skills in building hands-on projects (e.g., skateboard ramp, compost bins, hovercrafts). EAI brings together teams of mathematics, special education, and technology education teachers

Stevens Something Technological 21 with diverse but complementary skills to plan, develop, and deliver the unique curriculum.

Past Studies Past studies demonstrated that average-achieving students and low-achieving students, taught technology were more successful in applying what they learned than students who were taught with traditional text-based instruction (Bottege et al., 2004). Kulik (2002) summarizes the important of instructional technology, instructional developers have been working for four decades to improve mathematics and science education with computer technology, and they have made significant contributions to student achievement during this time according to a review of controlled evaluations of instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools (pg.1). He states that integrated learning system (ILS) had positive effects in both studies. ILS raised math scores, was educationally meaningful and statistically significant. Tutorials produced favorable results in nature and social science, were educationally significant and unusually large for education, and effects on attitudes largely observed were largely observe (more positive if tutoring was used). Science simulations designed to help students achieve high order instructional objectives where tutorials may seem mundane, but simulations and MBLs produced weaker results and negative results as well. Kulik (2002) and Liao (1998) both found statistically significant and educationally meaningful data to support forms of hypermedia in the classroom. Conversely Dillon & Gabbard (1998) showed no significant difference between hypermedia and paper or hypermedia and lectures. Evidence does not support use of most hypermedia to increase learner comprehension (p. 334). Hypermedia seems to

Stevens Something Technological 22 help the performance of lower ability students. Learning ability plus willingness to explore may determine how well learners learn. The concluded that technology should focus on technology-applicable learning tasks and individual learning styles for improvement. Liao (1998) examined conflicting reports on hypermedia versus traditional instruction. After meta-analysis, Of 35 studies, 69% of the study-weighted effect sizes were positive and favored the hypermedia instructed and of 87 effective sizes 64% were positive and favored hypermedia instruction. Provided evidence against Richard Clarks views that media is not the message. He concluded that the relationship between learning and hypermedia must still be explored. Flethcher-Flinn & Gravatt (1995)

realized that past results involved flawed data newer technology need to be explored. Since the invention of the computer, teacher concern has generated inerasably growing amounts of research. Kulik (2002) relayed positive results with tutoring (which involved repetitive testing). Dillon & Gabbard (1998) suggests that hypermedia is only effective for a learning task reliant on repeated manipulation and searching for information. FletcherFlinn & Gravatt (1995) share 1991 results from Kulik & Kulik [mirrored in Kulik & Kulik (1980)] in their meta-analysis. [Perhaps the Kulik (2002) article we read was somewhat are highly based on Kulik & Kuliks previous findings that Fletcher-Flinn & Gravatt (1995) mention here.] Soloway and Norris (1998) perceive a growing trend of children without basic skills. As the number of unskilled jobs dwindle in our world, they emphasize that basic skills must be learned appropriately and state, computational technologies can play an

Stevens Something Technological 23 important role in achieving this end by addressing, in new ways, the unique aspects of learners their diversity, their need for supportive intellectual tools (p.18). Fletcher-Flinn & Gravatt (1995) reported that the largest effect size was on the kindergarten level because of their least amount of experience. Dillon & Gabbard (1998) state the hypermedia will be most effective with the learners of lowest ability.

Drawbacks or Misconceptions Many drawbacks arise when discussing technology. The misconception of technology or its definitions can often bring its downfall. Ehrmann (2004) points out that educators continue to have the same misconceptions and continue to ask the wrong questions about technology. Ehrmann (2004) warns learning is not usually so well-structured, uniform or stable that one can compare an innovation against traditional processes without specifying in explicit detail what those processes are (pg. 1) and it also seems useless to search for global generalizations about the costs of technology relative to traditional methods (pg. 2). Such lack of knowledge can prevent technology from getting its fair shake; technology must be understood before it is accepted or denied. In a section entitled, If youre headed in the wrong direction, technology wont help you get to the right place, Ehrmann (2004) states that a question is useless if we do not answer it. Often technology is seen as the answer without first analyzing whether the content is appropriate. Technology may be the answer, but not to a problem that is undefined. In the section entitled, the medium is not the message, Ehrmann (2004) reiterates the words of Richard Clark concerning the technological medium, and

Stevens Something Technological 24 Communications media and other technologies are so flexible that they do not dictate methods of teaching and learning. All the benefits attributed to previous research to computers or video, Clark asserted, could be explained by the teaching methods they supported (p. 4). Soloway (1991) also expressed the fault of adding computers before understanding the problem, What is needed is a more incisive model of learning, one that can help us cope with changing times and changing needs. So armed, we can then roll in those computers! (p. 30). Dillon & Gabbard (1998) called for a need to understand important design principles. Liao provides the research for positive outcomes, but agrees echoes Dillon & Gabbard (1998) with left unanswered is the question of which factors truly contribute the positive outcomes (p. 355). Fletcher-Flinn & Gravatt (1995) state that technology must be fully examined and not easily dismissed. They agree that poor design could have lead to past failures. Herrman et al. (2000) discussed unintended effects in using learning technologies, our experience has taught us that as soon as any technology is introduced into the teaching and learning contexts, it affects, either intentionally or unintentionally, what happens: sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse (p. 39). Learner examples of unintended effects included (Herrman et al., 2000) playtime (web browsing between or in place of study sessions), access difficulties (individual learners may have different technologies to access from home or no technology at all), and contributive opportunities (when a learner relies solely on an employer or school for technology they may not always get the service they require and

Stevens Something Technological 25 the employer/school may not recognize a need to provide it). Teacher learner examples of unintended effects include: reduced quality of output, unexpected self-awareness, displacement of teaching goals, and counterintuitive behavior. Liao (1998) examined some studies where technology showed no or negative effects compared to the alternative (traditional instruction). Kulik and Dillon & Gabbard (1998) both reported areas of negative effect. Dillon & Gabbard (1998) pointed out that several studies they evaluated frequently flawed analyses and research methods. Fletcher-Flinn & Gravatt (1995) also state that previous studies have flawed data (that motivates their meta-analysis!) Dillon & Gabbard (1998) point out that newer technology is implemented everyday and needs to be considered and explored. Fletcher-Flinn & Gravatt (1995) explores that newer technology. Dillon & Gabbard (1998) couldnt provide solid research to suggest that teachers use technology or that technology had overwhelming positive effects. Kulik (2002) showed some positive effects and Liao (1998) showed many positive effects and provided research to support technology.

Stevens Something Technological 26 Conclusions Technology is an awesome tool that can be effectively used or easily misused. The technology must be tied to areas of best practice to insure a better chance for success. Best practices have been identified, but many have limitations that technology can overcome or eliminate. Classroom management technology is continuing to produce applications that can manage our non-instructional tasks. An initial investment of time must be invested to explore these applications. Attitude- an open attitude must be present to allow the strength of technology to be displayed. Teacher and students with a positive attitude have demonstrated more success. Feedback feedback is a vital tool. The development of instructional materials that catch mistakes and respond quickly, engage the learner continuously, and are gauged to the learner needs to be a focus. Sometimes continual feedback is needed, but a high achieving learner needs a more refined form of feedback. Testing - when workload is increased technology can ease the burden. Technology can do the grunt work once the initial set-up has been created. Discussion and cooperative learning - the strategies of discussion and cooperative learning are limited by physical classroom time, but technology can extend that limitation. With technology, material for discussion can be posted continually and class time is extended outside of the physical classroom.

Stevens Something Technological 27 Elaborate examples examples can be created on a computer. The example can be sped up or slowed down. The example can be repeated several times, is easily revised or elaborated upon, and more easily shared. Multimedia - lessons that contain multimedia and its effective use increase the learners success. Technology allows multimedia lessons to be created, easily revised, and shared. Technology as a solution technology is a good answer to a well defined question. Technology that is introduced into an already failing system will not be effective. Technology must be used in conjunction with best practices. Unintended effects the introduction of technology will create effects. Unintended effects that can be identified have a better chance of being eliminated.

Stevens Something Technological 28 Recommendations for Teaching and Learning Technology must be used, but it must be approached with knowledge, an understanding of misconceptions, and an initial positive attitude. When infused with instruction and curriculum, technology can enhance best practices and eliminate traditional limitations. I recommend that instructors take ideas from technology out for a spin. I have provided some examples or ideas of technology below. Web resources Web resources can be created once and posted for 24 hour accessibility. This will allow students to practice outside the class time. Practice, which was an additional initial focus of this paper, is very important. Marzano et al. (2001) described the importance of homework and practice. Homework can be created and explained, but once a student leaves the classroom the tie between student and teacher is cut. But with resources posted on the web, students can engage with the teachers message, reexamine the lesson, and practice with feedback outside of the classroom. Ericsson et al. (1993) reports that deliberate practice is the only direct route toward expert performance. Online courses - Appropriately designed online courses can be effective in many areas. Feedback can exist in many forms in an e-learning course. Performance related feedback is given to learners in an internet course in numerous ways. Below, I have outline how various forms of feedback exist in my online course. In effect, our submitted responses could fall under "testing". We frequently respond, or are tested, over the material read. In order to elaborate or summarize how we viewed or retained the material, we frequently are tested. Though the feedback from our testing is not necessarily dynamic, it still emphasizes self-learning and reflection.

Stevens Something Technological 29 Our discussion groups are an effective method of cooperative learning. We "engage in activities where [we] provide feedback for one another about [our] work" (Brooks et al., 2004, 13). Though initial expectations and examples and coinciding with guidance, we understand and implement effective feedback. This is an important process, "the nature of the feedback that the learners are expected to provide one another is very well defined and controlled" (Brooks et al., 2004, 14). Guided inquiry is provided through our required submissions. Our submissions provide "structure" and are "critical thinking questions". After reading submissions, a group question is posed. Though this is not a lecture course, a student may misinterpret feedback as minimal. A student could easily sabotage their learning process by not understanding the impact of the courses self-explanation. If self-explanation is present, it will be evident in the submissions (and though I have not experienced it yet, the instructor views submissions for content and would address any concerns with the student). The professional level that graduate students are expected to perform at demands less feedback; "feedback is matched to the learner". The performance related feedback is delivered in different ways that can be defined by the Mason & Bruning article (2004). As discussed in the syllabus one form of feedback is the "answer-until-correct" form. Though it is expected that our answer be at a certain quality, it is also indicated that a student that failed to reach that level may be given an opportunity to promptly correct a poor response. Again, since I have not gone through this process yet, I do not know the extent of the feedback in this case. I recognize the benefit of "feedback providing general information and allowing [us] to reevaluate [our] own answer" (Mason and Bruning, 2004, 11).

Stevens Something Technological 30 Performance base feedback also exists in the posing of discussion questions. On one occasion, specifically, the instructor gleaned material from responses and posed a question about them. This provided me with an opportunity to see others responses do what I had read and perhaps reemphasizes key ideas and thought as I compared/contrasted responses with my own. Student achievement levels are also addressed and it suggested, again, the feedback should match up with the learner: "high achieving students may better utilize delayed feedback" (Mason and Bruning, 2004, 6). I am in favor of the delayed feedback. I appreciate that the lessons are designed effectively and require thought and performance. Test out some design principles - Teachers can create examples to test new principles and their effectiveness. I present Geometry as a class of defined Vocabulary, Postulates, and Theorems (call them VPTs). VPTs cannot be used until they are defined. Occasionally I write the definition as I say it and I constantly refer students to the book as I write it or explain it. Am I being redundant and approaching the upper limits of my students' cognitive load? It is so unbelievable to me because this is the way I was presented it as a student and instructed to present it as a teacher. To test the design principles of Clark and Mayer (2003), I could do the following: Test One: At the beginning of lesson three groups (separated into different rooms) of students are presented the material in different ways; reading the book themselves, reading along in the book as the teacher presents the material audio only, reading along in the book as the teacher presents the material using visual (text written on board) and audio (speaking text as writing text) components. Students would then be tested on strength of

Stevens Something Technological 31 comprehension, retention, and understanding. Though there is a possibility for cognitive load, I believe that the importance of repetition in the introduction of new VPTs in more important and beneficial.

Test Two: For one class I present in my "normal" fashion. In the second group, I present the material as audio only and instruct them to take notes to reemphasize their learning. With the second group, I would write nothing on the board, but allow them to look at their book if they desire. I would then test strength of comprehension, retention, and understanding of the two groups. By applying new principles, a teacher can personally test them for validity and add or subtract them from their instructional plan. Do your research There is an incredible amount of research available on technology, how it can improve instruction, and how it affects the learner. Teachers have a responsibility to understand the effects and create an optimal environment for the technology and learner to thrive. Technology is the answer to well-defined questions.

Stevens Something Technological 32 Bibliography (references cited) Bottge, Brian A.., Heinrichs, Mary., Mehta, Zara Dee., Rueda, Enrique., Hung, Ya-Hui., & Danneker, Jeanne. (2004). Teaching Mathematical Problem Solving to Middle School Students in Math, Technology Education, and Special Education Classrooms. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 24(1), 43-56. Brooks, David W., Schraw, Gregory P., & Crippen, Kent J. (n.d.) Performancerelated Feedback: The Hallmark of Efficient Instruction. (Online), Date Retrieved June 2004. http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/P-RFeedback-4REFs.pdf Christensen, Edward W., Anakwe, Uzoamaka P., & Kessler, Eric H. (2001). Receptivity to Distance Learning: The Effect of Technology, Reputation, Constraints, and Learning Preferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 263-279. Clark, Ruth Colvin. & Mayer, Richard E. (2003). e-learning and the Science of Instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Daley, Barbara J., Watkins, Karen., Williams, Sandra Wall., Courtenay, Bradley., Davis, Mike., & Dymock, Darryl. (2001). Exploring learning in a technology-enhanced environment. Educational Technology & Society, 4(3) 1-18. Dillon, Andrew & Gabbard, Ralph. (1998). Hypermedia as a Educational Technology: A Review of the Quantative Research Literature on Learner Comprehension, Control, and Style. Review of Educational Research. 68(3), 322-349. Ehrmann, Stephen C. (n.d.) Asking the Right Question What does Research tell Us About Technology and Higher Learning?. (Online), Date Retrieved June 2004. http://www.learner.org/edtech/rscheval/rightquestion.html Ericsson, K. Anders., Krampe, Ralf Th., & Tesch-Romer, Clemens. (1993) The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review. 100(3), 363-406. Flecther-Flinn Claire M. & Gravatt, Breon. (1995). The Efficacy of Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI): A Meta-Analysis. Educational Computing Research, 12(3), 219-242. Hannula, Markku S. (2002). Attitude toward mathematics: emotions, expectations and values. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 25-46. Hermann, Allan., Fox, Robert., & Boyd, Anna. (2000). Unintended Effects in

Stevens Something Technological 33 Using Learning Technologies. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 88, 39-48. Kulik, Chen-Lin C., Kulik, James A., & Cohen, Peter A. (1980) Instructional technology and college teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 7(4), 199-205. Kulik, James A.. (November 2002) School Mathematics and Science Programs Benefit from Instructional Technology.(Online), Date retrieved June 2004. http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/infbrief/nsf03301/start.htm Liao, Yuen-kuang Cliff. (1998). Effects of Hypermedia versus Traditional Instruction on Students Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(4), 341-359. Marzano, Robert J., Pickering, Debra J., & Pollock, Jane E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mason, B. Jean. & Bruning, Robert. (n.d) Providing Feedback in Computer-based Instruction: what the researcher tells us. (Online), Date Retrieved June 2004. http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html Moreno, Roxana. (n.d.) Designing for Understanding: A Learner-Centered Approach to Multimedia Learning. (Online), Date retrieved June 2004. http://www.unm.edu/~moreno/PDFS/HCI-MM-final.pdf Norman, Donald A. (2002). The design of everyday things (2002 ed.). New York: Basic Books. Silberman, Robert. (1978). The Keller Plan: A Personal View. Journal of Chemistry Education, 55(2), 97-98. Soloway, Elliot. (1991). Quick, where do the computers go? Communications of the ACM, 34(2), 29-33. Soloway, Elliot., & Norris, Catherine. (1998). Using technology to address old problems in new ways. Communications of the ACM, 41(8), 11-18. Other works that informed this paper Connell, James E., & Witt, Joseph C. (2004). Applications of computer-based instruction: using specialized software to aid letter-name and letter-sound recognition. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 67-71. Doornekamp, B. G. (2001). Designing Teaching Materials for Learning Problem

Stevens Something Technological 34 Solving in Technology Education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(1), 25-38. Hautakangas, Sami, & Kiilakoski, Tomi. (2004). The Information Society: towards An iron cage of e-learning? European Educational Research Journal, 3(1), 1-13. Kortecamp, Karen; Steeves, Kathleen Anderson. (2002). Teacher Research: The Key to Understanding the Effects of Classroom Technology on Learning. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(2), 124-129. Kramarski, Bracha; Zeichner, Orit. (2001). Using Technology to Enhance Mathematical Reasoning: Effects of Feedback and Self-Regulation Learning. Educational Media International, 38(2/3), 77-82. Moriyama, Jun., Satou, Masashi., King, Cyril T. (2002). Problem-Solving Abilities Produced in Project Based Technology Education. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(2), 154-158. Morrison, Gary R., Ross, Steven M., & Kemp, Jerrold E. (2004). Designing Effective Instruction (4ht ed.) . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Smith, Allen, & Reiner, Laura. (2000) Education Bytes: The problems and promise of technology. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(1), 76. Soloway, Elliot. & Bielaczyc, Kate. (1995, May). Interactive Learning Environments: Where theyve come from & where theyre going. Presentation at CHI Conference, Denver, CO. Success = technology, education, & the arts. (1995, October). Educational Leadership, 53(2), 6-7. Waxman, Hersh C., Connell, Michael L., & Gray, John. (December 2002). A Quantitative Synthesis of Recent Research on the Effects of Teaching and Learning With Technology on Student Outcomes. (Online), Date retrieved June 2004. http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects/effects.pdf Williams, Anthony, & Williams, P. John. (1997). Problem-based learning: an appropriate methodology for technology education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 15(1), 91-101. Williams, Anthony; Williams, P. John. (1999). The Effects of the Use of Learning Contracts on Student Performance in Technology. Science & Technological Education, 17(2), 193-201.