2015 Badia Meneses Garcia

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/270283351
Technology use for teaching and learning
Article · January 2015

DOI: 10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
CITATIONS READS
11 98
3 authors:
Antoni Badia Julio Meneses

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
80 PUBLICATIONS 654 CITATIONS 72 PUBLICATIONS 562 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Consuelo Garcia
Universidad Internacional de La Rioja
15 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Research View project
Training Higher Education Students in IPS skills by means of modelling examples, synchronous sessions and hands-on activities View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Antoni Badia on 02 January 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Badia, A., Meneses, J. & García, C. Páginas 9 a 24
TECHNOLOGY USE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
USOS DE LA TECNOLOGÍA PARA ENSEÑAR Y APRENDER
Dr. Antoni Badia Garganté1

tbadia@uoc.edu
Dr. Julio MenesesNaranjo1

jmenesesn@uoc.edu
Consuelo Garcia Tamarit2

cgarciat@uoc.edu
(1)
eLearn Center. Open University of Catalonia. C/ Roc Boronat, nº 117 - Planta 6, 08018,
Barcelona (España)
(2)
Department of Psychology and Education. Open University of Catalonia
Rambla del Poblenou, nº 156, 08018, Barcelona (España)
The article main objective is to categorise the different uses teachers and students make of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) as a teaching and learning tool in
technology-rich classrooms. A questionnaire about possible uses was developed following
the guidelines provided by the literature review. A sample of teachers (n=278) who teach in
highly technological classrooms participated in the study. Four types of educational ICT
uses in the classroom turned out of the exploratory factor analysis, technology usage for:
teachers' content generation and interaction, and students' content generation and
interaction. Useful ideas for researchers and teachers are provided.
Keywords: Learning tool, educational innovation and ICT, technology-rich learning
environments, ICT and teaching.
El principal objetivo de este artículo es clasificar los diversos usos que los docentes y los
alumnos hacen de las Tecnologías de la Comunicación y la Información (TIC) como
herramienta de enseñanza y aprendizaje en aulas altamente dotadas de tecnología. Se
desarrolló un cuestionario sobre los posibles usos siguiendo las directrices proporcionadas
por la revisión de la literatura. Participaron en el estudio una muestra de profesores (n =
278) que enseñan en aulas altamente dotadas de tecnología. El análisis factorial exploratorio
muestra la existencia de cuatro tipos de uso educativo de las TIC en las aulas: el profesor usa
la tecnología para el contenido, el profesor usa la tecnología para la interacción, los alumnos
usan la tecnología para el contenido, y los alumnos usan la tecnología para la interacción.
Finalmente, se proporcionan ideas útiles para investigadores y profesores.
Palabras clave: Herramienta de aprendizaje, innovación educativa y TIC, entornos de
aprendizaje ricos en tecnología, enseñanza.
-9-
Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación. Nº 46. Enero 2015. ISSN: 1133-8482.
e-ISSN: 2171-7966. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2015.i46.01
1. Introduction. educational interaction that students can

establish with the syllabus content and their
According to Van Braak, Tondeur and peers.
Valcke (2004), teachers use computers mainly We consider that there are two important
for two types of professional activity, referred limitations concerning these categories. First,
to as «supportive use of computers» and «use all existing classifications are biased towards
of computers in the classroom». Computers students’ learning activity and do not
are used as a support when they are incorporate the teacher’s activity as a
incorporated into the teacher’s professional criterion. Furthermore, the third category that
practice outside the classroom (Meneses, considers ICT as a learning tool is too broad
Fàbregues, Rodríguez-Gómez & Ion, 2012), to be useful to characterize technology as a
providing assistance to classroom teaching. support for teaching and learning.
Several authors (Bebell, Russell & O’Dwyer, Accordingly, it is necessary to go deeper into
2004; Hsu, 2010; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer & this topic in order to have a new and integrated
O’Connor, 2003; Ward & Parr, 2009) include overall classification that helps researchers
in this category computer uses for the and teachers, as a starting point for a
professional development of teachers, reasonable and good use of ICT in the
administrative tasks, the design and planning classroom, not only from the technological
of instruction, and personal use. The use of point of view but also from the point of view
computers in the classroom involves the use of teaching and learning specific curriculum
of ICT during the lessons, as an integral part content.
of the teacher’s teaching and student’s
learning. 2. Technology use as a teaching and
Several authors (Tondeur, Van Braak learning tool.
&Valcke, 2007; Twining, 2002) distinguish
between three types of computer use in the To achieve such a classification proposal
classroom: as content (learning basic it is necessary to take into account the
computer skills), as an information tool, and technological, instructional and educational
as a learning tool. The first type of use rela- issues that may influence the use of ICT as a
tes to acquiring «computer literacy». ICT is a learning tool. The Squires and McDougall
specific school subject designed to teach (1994) approach meets this challenge as it
students the basic technical skills to use proposes three different criteria for identifying
computers, use keyboards and mice, and to and classifying the use of educational
learn the basic concepts and procedures of computers in the classroom: software use,
operating systems. The second type of use instructional role of the software, and soft-
refers to the concept of computers as ware relationship with educational rationales.
information tools, which includes this use to Categories of software use have a twenty-
select, retrieve, store, access, view, display year tradition (Khan, 1989; Rutven &
and send information. Finally, the view of Hennessy, 2002; Selwyn, Potter & Cranmer,
computers as learning tools, according to 2009; Waite, 2004). Currently, software
Ainley, Banks and Fleming (2002), is related possibilities are often analysed as ICT
to the role of technology in mediating the affordances. For instance, Conole and Dyke
- 10 -
(2004) propose a taxonomy of ICT Significant literature can also be found on

affordances that includes categories such as classifications of educational uses of ICT
information accessibility and immediacy, fast based on educational rationales, often related
information exchange, diversity of learning to teachers’ beliefs about teaching and
experiences, extensive communication and learning (Hermans, Tondeur, Van Braak &
collaboration technologies, reflection by Valcke, 2008; Levin & Wadmany, 2006; Palak
means of written discourse analysis, and & Walls, 2009; Tondeur, Hermans, Van Braak
multimodal or non-linear access to & Valcke, 2008). The distinguishing criterion
information. This type of classification adopted is based on the educational
highlights the technological influences on principles that underlie different educational
managing information and communication in paradigms. The vast majority of these authors
educational contexts, but do not provide distinguish between two different
information about the teaching and learning educational perspectives: teacher-centred
processes that occur in the classrooms. teaching, and student-centred learning. In the
There is also an extensive bibliography on first case, the teacher uses ICT to promote
frameworks focused on the instructional role direct instruction and the transmission of
of the software (Ainley, Banks & Fleming, contents. One example is the use of
2002; Duffy & McMahon, 1999; Inan, information presentation software to transmit
Lowther, Ross & Strahl, 2010; Jonassen, 1995; content. In the second case, ICT is used to
Lim & Tay, 2003; Passey, 2006; Ruthven, help students’ knowledge acquisition,
Hennessy & Deaney, 2005). The educational whether individually or through collaborative
intentions of the teacher are taken as core learning among peers. One example of this is
classification criteria.Two types of the use of online forums to encourage
educational uses of ICT can be distinguished: students to develop the necessary
computer-based instruction (Martin, Klein & educational interaction for building shared
Sullivan, 2007), and technology supported meanings on a syllabus topic. Some authors
learning (Jonassen, 1995). From a learning- (Levin & Wadmany, 2006) argue that student-
based classification, three broad ICT uses centred teachers use more open
have been identified: technology as tool for constructivist software that engage students
information management (information in complex learning tasks, work with specific
resources, information access, representation contents, and are based on problems whose
of ideas, communication with others, product resolution requires multiple points of view.
generation), technology as an intellectual By contrast, teachers who adopt direct
partner or mind tool (to support student instruction approaches use skill-based soft-
thinking when expressing ideas, reflecting on ware, computer-assisted learning, and
what they have learned, or building learning with technical tools. It may be
representations of knowledge), and important to identify the educational
technology as a learning context (for example, paradigm that underlies the use of ICT, but
to represent and simulate significant real- often does not provide useful knowledge to
world problems or to support discourse be used at the pedagogical level.
among students through knowledge building The three criteria used by Squires and
communities). McDougall (1994) are relevant, but it would
- 11 -
be useful to interrelate them to have an high level of skills in the educational uses of
integrated approach that would help to these technologies.
provide a broad vision and higher The research presented here is based on
understanding of how ICT can be used by data collected from eight schools that joined
teachers and students, as a teaching and the project for «Advanced ICT Integration»
learning tool, in classrooms. An integrated (In Catalonian: Integració Avançada de les
analytical model also is needed in order to TIC, IA-TIC), run by the Department of
decide how educational software can be Education of the Catalonia Government (2004-
useful to teaching and learning, whatthe 2007), with the aim of fostering the integration
instructional roles that can be developed by of ICT in schools. Eight public schools (five
educational software are, and what the Kindergartens and Primary schools, and three
educational rationales that provide a Secondary schools) were selected to
theoretical framework for an educational participate in this innovative teaching
useare. experience.
IA-TIC project provided the best possible
3. Technology-rich classrooms. technological conditions of that time to these
eight schools - for example, availability of
A more specific categorization of the Internet and computer infrastructure,
educational uses of ICT would be very useful educational software and educational
especially for technology-rich classrooms platforms for synchronous and
(Craig, Ault & Niileksela, 2011; Levin & asynchronous communication, teacher
Wadmany, 2006; Palak &Walls, 2009).These training and technical support to solve needs
types of classrooms are characterised by a or problems - with the idea that teachers and
high level of access, both by teachers and students would teach and learn through ICT
students, to a wide variety of technologies without technological or skills and working
that can help teaching and learning, and by a conditions barriers. More specifically, the
DATA FROM DATA FROM

SCHOOLS IN IATIC
INDICATORS
SPAIN CENTERS
Mean of the total number of computers 55.7 197.50
Mean of the total number of computers used by teachers for 10.6 15.33
educational purposes
Mean of the total number of computers used by students for 43.20 176.83
educational purposes
Mean of the total number of computers with Internet access 49.90 197.50
%of schools with web page 67.0% 100%
% of schools with intranet 58.5% 100%
%of schools with Wi-Fi connection 49.8% 100%
% of schools with Wi-Fi access in the classrooms 34.8% 100%
% of schools that use laptops in the classrooms 70.3% 100%
%of schools that provide technical support to teachers 73.4% 100%
% of schools that provide pedagogical support to teachers 57.2% 100%
Table 1.Comparison of the IATIC centers infrastructure with general schools in Spain.
- 12 -
eight schools maintained a full ICT schools (in Catalonian: Integració Escolar
infrastructure, consisting of complete de les TIC, IE-TIC), funded by the
Internet access anywhere through Wi-Fi, Department of Education of the Catalonia
private educational Intranet, a mean of 42.9 Government, and carried out between 2006
computers connected to Internet per 100 and 2009. The main aim of this research
pupils, plenty of educational software in all project was to study the issues directly related
curricular areas, and enough technical and to the integration of ICT in school classrooms,
pedagogical human support for the teachers namely, approaches to teaching and learning
in their own centre. Table 1 compares some with ICT, educational uses of ICT by teachers
data of the ICT infrastructure available in the and students inside and outside the
IE-TIC centers (with high technological classroom, and the obstacles, supports and
equipment) with data from a sample of incentives touse ICT by teachers.
conventional schools, representative of the
Spanish educational system (Sigalés, 4.1. Participants.
Mominó, Meneses & Badia, 2009).
According to the information presented in Teachers belonging to the eight schools
the theoretical background, the analysis that participated in the IA-TIC project fulfilled
performed during the study has, as main a questionnaire specially designed to study
objectives: ICT integration in schools. They were 278
a) To figure outnew categories that can teachers (74 from Kindergarten,108 from
be useful to classify the possible educational Primary education and 96 from Secondary
uses of ICT for teaching and learning in education). Teachers’distribution among the
classrooms. three educational levels is shown in Table 2.
b) To identify the use of the software by The sample of participants consisted of
teachers and students in each category. 72.1% of women and 27.9% men. The avera-
c) To examine the differences in the types ge age of participants was 41 (SD = 9.83);
of ICT educational uses between 46.9% of teachers had a three-year Diploma,
Kindergarten,Primary education, and 39.9% had a Bachelor’s degree, and 13.3%
Secondary education. held a Master’s or Doctoral degree; 89.6% of
them were civil servants, with an average
4. Method. experience of 16.45 years (SD = 10.62) as
teachers.
This research paper is part of a larger
research project called ICT integration in
SCHOOL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL
Kindergarten 11 24 16 12 11 74
Primary education 12 25 26 26 19 108
Secondary education 13 19 30 34 96
TOTAL 23 49 42 38 43 19 30 34 278
Table 2. Sample distribution.
- 13 -
When this research was carried out, 70.3% which they use technological media such as
of teachers considered that they had computers, computers with an Internet
integrated ICT in their classroom because it connection or digital whiteboards for a se-
was a shared priority in their schools, 84.2% ries of educational aims. The second scale
of teachers were Internet users for more than explores the uses that teachers encourage
3 years, 84.2% had received training on ICT among their students while teaching the
educational uses in the last three years, 86.4% subject and assesses the frequency with
gave high value to the training, and 87% had which students use ICT in the teaching and
a minimum connection of 2-3 timesper week learning process. All the items (you can see
to Internet. all of them in tables from 4 to 7) use the same
answer scale: «I do not use them» (1),
4.2. Measures. «Occasionally» (2), «Frequently» (3), and «I
always use them» (4). Personal and
The three theoretical frameworks described professional background information was
above, based on categories of software use, also collected, including age, sex, education
on the instructional role of the software, and and qualification level, teaching experience,
on the relation between software and current teaching level and subjects.
educational rationales, were taken into
account to develop the two scales of the 4.3. Data collection.
questionnaire. Table 3 shows how we
incorporated these three contributions. Data of the two scales were collected
Among other measurements, two ad-hoc between March and June 2008. The
scales, with eight items each, were drawn up researchers provided the questionnaires on
to analyse ICT uses in lessons (Sigalés, paper to the headmaster of each school, and
Mominó, Meneses & Badia, 2009). The items each school organized to collect the
were selected to show prototypical questionnaires completed by the teachers and
educational uses of ICT in technology-rich students. Overall, between 40% and 60% of
classrooms (Craig, Ault & Niileksela, 2011; teachers in schools answered the
Levin & Wadmany, 2006; Palak & Walls, 2009). questionnaire. Later, data were recorded in a
The first scale relates to the activity carried computer file to be processed using SPSS-
out by teachers when giving lessons on their version 17.
subject and describes the frequency with
METHODOLOGICAL DECISIONS THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

We created two different questionnaires: one for Software rationales from both educational
teachers-ICT users, and another for students-ICT perspectives: teacher-centred teaching, and
users student-centred learning
We developed a list of items related to different Instructional role of the software
instructional aims and according to different
instructional roles
We included different prototypical uses of Categories of software use
software to each item
Table 3. Relationship between methodological decisions and theoretical frameworks.
- 14 -
FACTORS EXPLAINED CRONBACH'S

VARIANCE ALPHA
TEUCT 43.597 0.722
TEUIT 14.482 0.764
Total scale 58.079 0.813
SEUCT 47.907 0.829
SEUIT 14.983 0.733
Table 4. Explained variance and Cronbach’s alpha of Teachers’ and Students’ ICT use.
5. Results. 0.417 and 0.437, respectively), the

computation of two orthogonally rotated
Firstly, we applied an exploratory factor solutions was not required.
analysis to the two scales. Principal
components analysis revealed two structures 5.1. Categories of technology use as a
of two factors, representing the uses by teaching and learning tool.
teachers (KMO=0.821 and a significant
Bartlett test, p=0.000) and the uses by We identified four new categories that can
students (KMO=0.839 and a significant be useful to classify the educational uses of
Bartlett test, p=0.000), reaching an acceptable ICT for teaching and learning in school
explained total variance of 62.89% and classrooms. Based on the meaning of the items
58.08%, respectively. Two non-orthogonal with high factor loadings, these factors were
solutions with oblique rotation (Oblimin with named «Teachers’ Educational Use of
Kaiser normalisation) were calculated to exa- Content Technologies (TEUCT)», «Teachers’
mine potential correlations between factors. Educational Use of Interaction Technologies
Since they were significantly correlated (i.e. - (TEUIT)», «Students’ Educational Use of
MEAN SD TEUIT TEUCT

TEUCT 1,88 0.54
Support the oral presentation of content 2.22 0.76 0.779 -0.362
Present contents through a multimedia or 1.85 0.72 0.749 -0.265
hypermedia system
Support conversations with my students 1.72 0.72 0.709 -0.236
Show examples of products that students are 1.75 0.75 0.704 -0.482
required to develop
TEUIT 1.46 0.53
Extend classroom to virtual classroom 1.33 0.595 0.238 -0.788
Communicate with students 1.48 0.702 0.446 -0.777
Monitor the progress of the learning process 1.34 0.685 0.276 -0.767
Provide guidance and guidelines to facilitate 1.68 0.760 0.570 -0.700
learning
Table 5. Items including the educational uses of ICT by teachers.
- 15 -
MEAN SD SEUIT SEUCT
SEUCT 2,11 0.66
Search for information for class assignments 2.34 0.823 0.850 0.360
Organise and classify content documents 1.84 0.993 0.806 0.457

Access information previously selected by the 2.24 0.773 0.796 0.292
teacher
Develop educational products 2.04 0.876 0.703 0.252
Obtain information relating to the real world 2.00 0.828 0.702 0.440
SEUIT 1.32 0.50
Use of ICT for collaborative work with other 1.28 0.624 0.430 0.866
students
Learn in complex learning environments 1.28 0.596 0.255 0.805
Communicate to exchange information with 1.40 0.646 0.483 0.740
other students
Table 6. Items including the educational uses of ICT by students.
Content Technologies (SEUCT)» and The SEUCT factor consists of five items.
«Students’ Educational Use of Interaction Students use ICT to search, manage and
Technologies (SEUIT)». Table 4 shows elaborate content information. The
explained variance and Cronbach’s alpha of relationship between students and content,
each factor. mainly for syllabus contents, characterizes
Reliability analysis revealed acceptable this type of ICT use. The mean of this factor
Cronbach’s alpha, ranging from 0.722 to 0.841 (2.11) appears a little above the value 2
both on the teachers’ and students’ global (occasionally), with a standard deviation of
scales and in relation to the specific factors. 0.66.
Tables 5 and 6 show items included in each Finally, the factor SEUIT involves three
of the four factors. items and includes learner ICT uses such as
Four items form TEUCT factor. The mean collaborative work, complex environments for
(1.88) appears slightly below thevalue 2 learning, and communication among
(occasionally), with a standard deviation of students. It involves the learning tasks
0.54. So, the most common use is the oral characterized by educational interactions
presentation of the content from the teacher. among students in technology-rich
TEUIT factor also consists of four items. classrooms. The mean (1.32) appears close
This factor includes the teaching tasks that to value 1 (never), with a standard deviation
characterize the educational interactions of 0.54.
between teachers and students. The most
common use is to provide guidance for
students to learn the content. The mean (1.46)
appears in the midpoint between values such
as never (1) and 2 (occasionally), with a stan-
dard deviation of 0.53.
- 16 -
5.2. Computer resources and software technologies, which are based on the
uses carried out by teachers and students. principles of teacher-centered teaching and
developed using computer-based instruction:
Next we present the data on the percentage a) technologies for accessing Internet
of software use on each of the items, content, mainly from webpages or other
presented as corresponding to each factor. resources useful for teaching, b) technologies
Table 7 shows the highest frequency of use for content editing documents in order to
by teachers of three types of content present them to their students, and c)
% SOFTWARE USE %
ALMOST SOFTWARE
ALWAYS/ USE
ALWAYS
Support the oral 31.8 Presentation software 36.9
presentation of Word processor or spreadsheet software 6.8
content Web pages 56.3
Present contents 14.2 Web Authoring software 9.0
through a Video creating/editing software application 47.0
multimedia or Video-sharing website or photo sharing website 44.0
hypermedia system
Support 12.9 Content edited by teacher himself 16.0
conversations with Web pages 23.3
my students Other online resources 60.7
Show examples of 13.4 Content edited by teacher himself 41.3
products that Office suite: Microsoft Office, OpenOffice or 11.9
students are required similar
to develop Web pages or documents from internet 46.9
Table 7. Frequency of teachers’ educational use of content technologies (TEUCT),

computer resources and software.
% SOFTWARE USE %
ALMOST SOFTWARE
ALWAYS/ USE
ALWAYS
Extend classroom to 5.9 E-learning software platform (e.g. Moodle) 64.6
virtual classroom Social bookmarking web service (e.g. Delicious) 3.1
Blog-publishing service (e.g. Blogger) 32.3

Communicate with 7.7 Asynchronous communication software (e-mail) 92.7
students
Synchronous communication software 7.3
(Messenger, Skype or similar)
Monitor the progress 7.9 E-portfolio 3.8
of the learning Computer monitoring and tracking software 15.1
process Computer-based self-assessment software 81.1
Provide guidance 16.2 Intelligent tutoring system 5.4
and guidelines to Software supporting problem based learning 49.5
facilitate learning Guideline made by teacher himself 45.0
Table 8. Frequency of teachers’ educational use of interaction technologies (TEUIT),

- 17 -
technologies to display the contents in the information, and c) technologies to transform

classroom. the information into a learning product
Table 8 reveals the highest frequency of (mainly word processors).
use by teachers of two types of Interaction Table 10 discloses the two most frequent
Technologies, which are based on the uses of interaction technologies based on the
principles of teacher-centered teaching and student-centered learning perspective and
developed using computer-based instruction: developed through technology supported
a) technologies that promote teacher and learning: a) Technologies to exchange of
student interaction (by e-mail or e-learning information among students (mainly, e-mail)
software platform), and b) technologies to and b) Technologies tolearn in collaboration
promote student learning, either by guiding in complex environments.
(for example, by supporting software specific
problem based learning, or also through 5.3. Differences in the types of educational
guidelines), or by developing formative use of ICT between educational levels.
assessment or self-assessment.
Table 9 shows the most frequent use of Additionally, a series of ANOVA analyses
three types of content technologies, based (F test) were carried out to assess the
on the student-centered learning perspective differences among uses of ICT of teachers
and developed though technology and students from Kindergarten,Primary and
supported learning : a) technologies to obtain Secondary education. Levene’s test of
content information (from web pages or real homogeneity of variance was applied to test
life) b) technologies to organize this the ANOVA assumption that each group had
% SOFTWARE USE %
ALMOST SOFTWARE
ALWAYS/ USE
ALWAYS
Search for 37.3 Internet search engine 35.3
information for Digital or Internet Encyclopaedia (e.g. Encarta or 9.3
class assignments Wikipedia)
Educational website for kids 55.3
Organise and 25.8 Off-line folders 65.5
classify content Online shared folders 34.5
documents
Access information 34.1 Educational website for kids 63.5
previously selected Digital or Internet Encyclopaedia (e.g. Encarta or 15.2
by the teacher Wikipedia)
Other websites (e.g. virtual museums, online 21.3
newspaper)
Develop educational 28.9 Word processor or presentation software 91.8
products Web Authoring software 5.3
3D computer graphics software 2.9
Obtain information 23.9 Digital camera 51.2
relating to the real Digital audio recorder 10.4
world Online questionnaire 38.4
Table 9. Frequency of students’ educational use of content technologies (SEUCT),

- 18 -
% SOFTWARE USE %
ALMOST SOFTWARE
ALWAYS/ USE
ALWAYS
Use of ICT for 4.8 Wiki page 40.4
collaborative work Virtual discussion forum 55.3
with other students Social bookmarking web service (e.g. Delicious) 4.3
Learn in complex 4.0 Computer learning environment to promote 26.4

learning critical thinking
environments Computer learning environment to promote 50.9
problem based learning
Computer learning environment to promote 22.6
authentic assessment
Communicate to 7.4 Asynchronous communication software (e-mail) 81.5
exchange Distribution list 6.2
information with Synchronous communication software 12.3
other students (Messenger, Skype or similar)
Table 10. Frequency of students’ educational use of interaction technologies (SEUIT),

the same variance in scale and factor scores. Table 11 shows that the four factors that
A significant Levene’s test suggests classify ICT use in technology-rich
heterogeneous variances between groups, so classrooms have significant mean differences
this assumption is not adequately met and according to the educational level: Kinder-
an alternative procedure must be developed. garten, Primary educationand Secondary
Accordingly, the researchers computed a education.
more robust test, Welch’s variance-weighted Overall, findings showthat the frequency
ANOVA, which also adequately deals with distribution of technology uses for teaching
unequal group sample sizes.
KINDERGART PRIMARY SECONDARY

FACTORS
EN EDUCATION EDUCATION
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Levene's test ANOVA
Teachers' ICT use

TEUCT 1.80 (0.50) 1.80 (0.52) 2.03 (0.57) 0.792 F=5.205b
TEUIT 1.24 (0.34) 1.38 (0.43) 1.72 (0.62) 12.059c W=19.074c
Scale total 1.51 (0.37) 1.58 (0.42) 1.88 (0.51) 6.747b W=14.155c
Students' ICT use

SEUCT 1.87 (0.57) 2.14 (0.63) 2.27 (0.71) 3.403a W=8.676c
SEUIT 1.16 (0.33) 1.29 (0.41) 1.48 (0.63) 11.485c W=8.668c
Scale total 1.60 (0.42) 1.80 (0.48) 1.98 (0.61) 5.883b W=11.292c
a, p<0.050, b, p<0.010, c, p=0.000
Table 11. Differences in educational uses of content and interaction technologies of

teachers and students, from Kindergarten, Primary and Secondary education.
- 19 -
and learning is significantly different in each content through hypermedia technology, and
level: a) in relation to the use of technologies through the use of smart boards in the
made by teachers (Kindergarten: M=1.51, classroom. There is a substantial body of
SD=0.37; Primary education: M=1.58, knowledge about the use of hypermedia
SD=0.42; Secondary education: M=1.88, (Gerjets & Kirschner, 2009); however, more
SD=0.51); b) in relation to the use of research is needed on the use of smart boards
technologies made by students (Kindergar- in class, even though there is already some
ten: M=1.60, SD=0.42; Primary education: research on how their use can impact
M=1.80, SD=0.48; Secondary education: classroom dialogue (Mercer, Hennessy &
M=1.98, SD=0.61); c) in each of the specific Warwick, 2010).Both types of content
uses of Content technologies and Interaction technologies are used extensively in the
technologies. classroom, although there is evidence that
the use of hypermedia does not always have
6. Discussion. a positive impact on student learning.
TEUIT category accounts for how the
The classification of educational uses of teacher uses technology to establish
ICT as a teaching and learning tool, just educational interaction with students. There
characterized, should be understood under are two well-known education research lines:
an integrated framework.This classification the use of virtual classrooms, based on
has three advantages in relation to previous asynchronous and written communication,
classifications of ICT as a learning tool, and the provision of educational and
presented in the theoretical framework. First, evaluative aids to facilitate content learning.
it is more comprehensive and complete, while Educational aids can be provided via content
taking into account the use of ICT for scripts (see e.g. Weinberger, Ertl, Fischer &
students’ learning and also how the teacher Mandl, 2005), while formative feedback (Fitch,
can teach using technology. Second, it is a 2004) can provide evaluative aids. While there
more integrated classification at the theoretical has been a lot of educational research in this
level, as it involves both the two traditional area in recent years, yet there is little
frameworks of educational rationales widespread of the use of these technologies
(teacher-centered and student-centered), and in educational practice.
the two possible roles of instructional SEUCT category refers to the way in which
technology (computer-based instruction and students manage content using computers.
technology-supported learning). Third, the Two of the fields that are related to this subject
classification follows an educational criterion, are access to Internet content, and the use of
since the software is used in each category technology to help students manage the
in a different way, in each case for a specific content. To get access to open content of
educational purpose. quality published in the Internet and use it
TEUCT category refers to the research and for educational purposes is one of the
educational practice related to what the challenges of the schools for the next three
teacher does in relation to the content. years, according to the preliminary report
Currently, there are two lines of relevant NMC Horizon Project (2013). Content
research on the topic: the presentation of management with the support of technology
- 20 -
has been a field of study in the last forty years among Kindergarten, Primary and Secondary
(Monereo & Romero, 2008), but with few teachers and students, probably due to the
results. There has only been an advance in characteristics of each level of education.
the study of how students use some This fact points tothe two main limitations of
technological systems, such as intelligent this research:first, the limited sample of
tutoring systems. Since these technological schools and teachers, and second, the global
systems have had a very limited expansion, perspective adopted for the analysis of the
much of the research has focused on studying educational uses of ICT. More research with
how students use the technologies currently other schools, perhaps even with greater
available (not designed specifically for technological resources, would be necessary
education) to manage content, and what to provide a wider empirical basis to these
possible problems can appear in this process four categories. And it would also be
(Monereo & Badia, 2012). This lack of research necessary to determine whether these
and in the design of this type of technology categories are useful to characterize specific
has led students not to use a technology uses of ICT in specific educational levels and
specially designed from an educational point in particular curriculum areas.
of view for this purpose. Despite these limitations, we believe that
Finally, SEUIT category includes two types we provide an ever-lasting categorization of
of technology uses: collaborative learning, educational uses of ICT, which is not
and learning in complex technological dependent on technological changes that
environments. Collaborative learning through may occur in the present or in the future.
ICT (CSCL: Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning) has been the field 7. Acknowledgements.
most researched of all, and also has had more
impact on school educational practice (Stahl, This project was supported by a grant from
Koschmann & Suthers, 2006). Nevertheless, the Department of Education of Catalonia
it is a complex educational practice where it is Government (2006-2008). The authors would
often difficult to achieve high levels of quality like to thank all administrators and teachers
of social interaction between peers (Kreijns, of the schools who participated in this project.
Kirschner & Jochems, 2003). Difficulties also
arise in learning in complex technological
8. References.
environments (Puntambekar & Hubscher,
2005), both from the point of view of design Ainley, J., Banks, D. & Fleming, M. (2002).
and implementation in the classroom. The The influences of IT: Perspectives from five
main challenge is to know what kind of Australian schools. Journal of Computer
educational aids are necessary to meet the Assisted Learning, 18 (4), 395-404. doi:
diverse needs of students’ learning, and 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00251.x
when it is needed to remove them because Bebell, D., Russell, M. & O’Dwyer, L. (2004).
they are not necessary. It is an emerging field, Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why
very little implemented in the classrooms. multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal
All four categories are useful to highlight of Research on Technology in Education, 37
differences in the frequency of use of ICT (1), 45-63. doi:10.1080/15391523.2004.10782425
- 21 -
Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the activities during students’ use of computers:
affordances of Information and Relations between instructional strategies
Communication Technologies, ALT-J, 12 (2), and computer applications. Teaching and
113-124. doi: 10.1080/0968776042000216183 Teacher Education, 26, 540-546. doi:10.1016/
Craig, J., Ault, M. & Niileksela, C. (2011). j.tate.2009.06.017.
The Influence of Technology Rich Learning Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Supporting
Environments: A Classroom-based communities of learners with technology: a
Observational Study. In M. Koehler & P. vision for integrating technology with
Mishra (eds). Proceedings of Society for learning in schools. Educational Technology,
Information Technology& Teacher 35 (4), 60-63.
Education International Conference 2011 Khan, E. H. (1989). The use of computer-
(pp. 4304-4311). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. assisted learning in a primary school.
Duffy, T. M. & McMahon, T. A. (1999). Computers & Education, 13 (4), 355-362.
Linking homes and elementary schools with Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A. & Jochems, W.
computers: The impact on pedagogy (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social
(Technical Report 9-99). Center for Research interaction in computer-supported
on Learning and Teaching. Bloomington, IN: collaborative learning environments: a review
Indiana University. of the research. Computers in Human
Fitch, J. L. (2004). Student feedback in the Behavior, 19 (3), 335-353.
college classroom: A technology solution. Levin, T. & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’
Educational Technology Research and beliefs and practices in technology-based
Development, 52 (1), 71-77. doi: 10.1007/ classrooms: A developmental view. Journal
BF02504773 of Research on Technology in Education, 39
Gerjets, P. & Kirschner, P. (2009) Learning (3), 157-181. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2006.
from Multimedia and Hypermedia. In N. 10782478
Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A. Lazonder Lim, C. P. & Tay, L. Y. (2003). Information
& S. Barnes (Eds.) Technology-Enhanced and communication technologies (ICT) in an
Learning(pp. 251-272). Netherlands: Springer. elementary school: Students’ engagement in
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J. & higher order thinking. Journal of Educational
Valcke, M. (2008). The impact f primary school Multimedia and Hypermedia,12 (4), 425-451.
teachers’ educational beliefs on the Martin, F., Klein, J.D. & Sullivan, H. (2007).
classroom use of computers. Computers & The Impact of Instructional Elements in
Education, 51 (4), 1499-1509. doi: 10.1016/ Computer-Based Instruction. British Journal
j.compedu.2008.02.001 of Educational Technology,38 (4), 623-636.
Hsu, S. (2010). Developing a scale for doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00670.x
teacher integration of information and Meneses, J., Fàbregues, S., Rodríguez-
communication technology in grades 1-9. Gómez, D. & Ion, G. (2012).Internet in
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 teachers’ professional practice outside the
(3), 175-189. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- classroom: Examining supportive and
2729.2010.00348.x management uses in primary and secondary
Inan, F. A., Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M. & schools. Computers & Education, 59 (3),
Strahl, D. (2010). Pattern of classroom 915-924. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.011
- 22 -
Mercer, N., Hennessy, S. & Warwick, P. of Teacher Education, 54 (4), 297-310.doi:

(2010). Using interactive whiteboards to 10.1177/0022487103255985
orchestrate classroom dialogue. Technology, Ruthven, K. & Hennessy, S. (2002). A
Pedagogy and Education, 19 (2), 195-209. practitioner model of the use of computer-
doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.491230 based tools and resources to support
Monereo, C. & Badia, A. (2012). La compe- mathematics teaching and learning.
tencia informacional desde una perspectiva Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49 (1),
psicoeducativa: enseñanza basada en la re- 47-88. Doi: 10.1023 / A: 1016052130572
solución de problemas prototípicos y emer- Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S. &Deaney, R.
gentes. Revista española de Documentación (2005). Incorporating Internet resources into
Científica, 35 (Monográfico), 75-99. classroom practice: pedagogical perspectives
Monereo, C. & Romero, M. (2008). Los and strategies of secondary-school subject
entornos virtuales de aprendizaje basados en teachers. Computers & Education, 44 (1), 1-
sistemas de emulación socio-cognitiva. In C. 34.
Coll & C. Monereo (Eds.) Psicología de la Selwyn, N., Potter, J. & Cranmer, S. (2009).
educación virtual (pp. 194-212). Madrid: Edi- Primary pupils’ use of information and
torial Morata. communication technologies at school and
NMC HORIZON (2013). Project Preview home. British Journal of Educational
K-12 edition. Available:www.nmc.org/ Technology, 40 (5), 919-932. doi:10.1111/
publications/2013-horizon-report-k12 [26-04- j.1467-8535.2008.00876.x
2013]. Sigalés, C., Mominó, J. M., Meneses, J. &
Palak, D. & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ Badia, A. (2009). La integración de internet
Beliefs and Technology Practices: A Mixed- en la educación escolar española. Situación
methods Approach. Journal of Research on actual y perspectivas de futuro. Madrid:
Technology in Education, 41 (4), 417-441. doi: Ariel/Fundación Telefónica.
10.1080/15391523.2009.10782537 Squires, D. & McDougall, A. (1994).
Passey, D. (2006).Technology enhancing Choosing and using educational software:
learning: analyzing uses of information and A teachers’ guide. London: The Falmer Press.
communication technologies by primary and Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. & Suthers, D.
secondary school pupils with learning (2006). Computer-supported collaborative
frameworks. The Curriculum Journal, 17 (2), learning: A historical perspective. In R. K.
139-166. doi:10.1080/09585170600792761 Sawyer (Ed.). Cambridge Handbook of the
Puntambekar, S. & Hubscher, R. (2005). Learning Sciences (pp. 406-427).Cambridge,
Tools for scaffolding students in a complex UK: Cambridge University Press.
learning environment: What have we gained Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., Van Braak, J. &
and what have we missed?. Educational Valcke, M. (2008). Exploring the link between
psychologist, 40 (1), 1-12. doi:10.1207/ teachers’ educational belief profiles and
s15326985ep4001_1 different types of computer use in the
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L. & classroom. Computers in Human Behavior,
O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher 24 (6), 2541-2553.doi: http://dx.doi.org/
technology use. Implications for pre-service 10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.020
and in-service teacher preparation. Journal
- 23 -
Tondeur, J., Vann Braak, J. & Valcke, M.

(2007). Towards a typology of computer use
in primary education. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 23 (3), 197-206. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00205.x
Twining, P. (2002). Conceptualising
computer use in education: introducing the
Computer Practice Framework (CPF). British
Educational Research Journal, 28 (1), 95-
110.
Van Braak, J., Tondeur, J. & Valcke, M.
(2004). Explaining different types of computer
use among primary school teachers.
European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 19 (4), 407-422. doi: 10.1007/
BF03173218
Waite, S. (2004). Tools for the job: a report
of two surveys of information and
communications technology training and use
for literacy in primary schools in the West of
England. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 20 (1), 11-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2004.00043.x
Ward, L. & Parr, J. (2010). Revisiting and
reframing use: Implications for the integration
of ICT. Computers & Education, 54 (1), 113-
122. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2009.07.011
Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F. & Mandl,
H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in
computer–supported collaborative learning.
Instructional Science, 33 (1), 1-30. doi:
10.1007/s11251-004-2322-4
Fecha de recepción: 28-02-2014

Fecha de evaluación: 25-04-2014
Fecha de aceptación: 01-06-2014
- 24 -
View publication stats

2015 Badia Meneses Garcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 Badia Meneses Garcia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 Badia Meneses Garcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Technology use for teaching and learning

Article · January 2015

Antoni Badia Julio Meneses

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Research View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

TECHNOLOGY USE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

USOS DE LA TECNOLOGÍA PARA ENSEÑAR Y APRENDER

Dr. Antoni Badia Garganté1

Dr. Julio MenesesNaranjo1

Consuelo Garcia Tamarit2

1. Introduction. educational interaction that students can

(2004) propose a taxonomy of ICT Significant literature can also be found on

DATA FROM DATA FROM

Table 2. Sample distribution.

METHODOLOGICAL DECISIONS THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Table 3. Relationship between methodological decisions and theoretical frameworks.

FACTORS EXPLAINED CRONBACH'S

5. Results. 0.417 and 0.437, respectively), the

MEAN SD TEUIT TEUCT

Table 5. Items including the educational uses of ICT by teachers.

MEAN SD SEUIT SEUCT

SEUCT 2,11 0.66

Organise and classify content documents 1.84 0.993 0.806 0.457

Table 6. Items including the educational uses of ICT by students.

Table 7. Frequency of teachers’ educational use of content technologies (TEUCT),

Blog-publishing service (e.g. Blogger) 32.3

Table 8. Frequency of teachers’ educational use of interaction technologies (TEUIT),

technologies to display the contents in the information, and c) technologies to transform

Table 9. Frequency of students’ educational use of content technologies (SEUCT),

Learn in complex 4.0 Computer learning environment to promote 26.4

Table 10. Frequency of students’ educational use of interaction technologies (SEUIT),

KINDERGART PRIMARY SECONDARY

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Levene's test ANOVA

Teachers' ICT use

Students' ICT use

a, p<0.050, b, p<0.010, c, p=0.000

Table 11. Differences in educational uses of content and interaction technologies of

Mercer, N., Hennessy, S. & Warwick, P. of Teacher Education, 54 (4), 297-310.doi:

Tondeur, J., Vann Braak, J. & Valcke, M.

Fecha de recepción: 28-02-2014

View publication stats

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.