 |
 |
Mid-Atlantic Regional Technology in Education Consortium
1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave.
Ritter Annex 9th Floor
Temple University - CRHDE
Philadelphia, PA 19122
800-892-5550
215-204-5130 (fax)
General Inquires:
Laurence Peters
Judith Stull
Technical Assistance:
Barry Mansfield
Professional Development:
Joan Pasternak
|
|
 |
 |
Temple University Center for Research
in Human Development and Education |
|
|
2005 Profile of Teachers’ Use of Technology in the Mid-Atlantic Region
150
by
Judith C. Stull
Temple University
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (Pub.L. No. 107-110) (2002) implies that schools are accountable for ensuring that students are technologically literate and can demonstrate subject matter mastery—two objectives that can be in opposition. Given the time and resource constraints within a typical classroom, teachers must make crucial curriculum decisions: they need to improve student achievement in identified subject areas, and they need to ensure that students are technologically literate by graduation from eighth grade. From an individual teacher’s perspective, the pressure for subject area mastery is explicit and immediate. Given the lack of a well-established research base on the relationship between technology integration and student achievement, the pressure for technology literacy is implicit and distant. Further, while material taught in one class can have “spillover” effects in other classes, teachers are concerned with individual accountability—not effects in other classes. Technology use takes time that could be devoted to the class content. It is not necessarily in any one teacher’s limited self-interest to use technology, yet it is in the student’s interest that a sufficient amount of technology be used in the school. .
|
|
| |
Technology literacy, as a concept, has been addressed from different perspectives. For example, Anderson and Bikson (2004) reported on the level of technology literacy that employers expect from their workers. Currently, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) is involved in a project to develop assessments to measure a student’s knowledge of information and communications technology. States have developed detailed rubrics defining requisite technology knowledge and skills by grade level (see Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Wisconsin Department of Education websites for examples).
Among the professional organizations that have developed technology literacy indicators are the American Association for School Librarians, the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, the International Technology Education Association Standards, the Alliance for Childhood, and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). The ISTE indicators have been identified as the most popular set of standards ( Alliance for Childhood, 2004). As of May 2004, 33 states have adopted, adapted, or aligned their standards with the ISTE standards for students (National Educational Technology Standards for Students); four additional states have referenced the standards.
The ISTE (2005) technology literacy indicators for students are organized into four grade-based categories: preK–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12. There are six standards categories that apply to each of the grade groupings: 1) basic operations and concepts; 2) social, ethical, and human issues; 3) technology productivity tools; 4) technology communications tools; 5) technology research tools; and 6) technology problem-solving and decision-making tools. The ISTE protocols will be used to measure mean changes in student technology literacy levels.
Page
1 2
3
4
Next |
