Technology Article 1

Creating Technology-Enhanced, Learner-Centered Classrooms:
K12 Teachers Beliefs, Perceptions, Barriers, and Support Needs
Yun-Jo An Charles Reigeluth

University of West Georgia Indiana University
Abstract
Although a wealth of literature dis- The learner-centered model focuses of the meta-analytical research on the
cusses the factors that affect technol- on developing real-life skills, such as effectiveness of problem-based learn-
ogy integration in general and how collaboration, higher-order thinking, ing (PBL), one of the learner-centered
to improve professional development and problem-solving skills, and better approaches. Their results indicate that
efforts, few studies have examined is- meets the complex needs of the informa- PBL is significantly more effective than
sues related to learner-centered tech- tion age. The learner-centered model traditional instruction when it comes to
nology integration. Thus, this study also addresses the personal domain, long-term knowledge retention, perfor-
aims to explore K12 teachers be- which is often ignored in conventional mance improvement, and satisfaction of
liefs, perceptions, barriers, and sup- schools and classrooms, and it results in students and teachers, whereas tradi-
port needs in the context of creating increased student motivation and learn- tional approaches are more effective for
technology-enhanced, learner-cen- ing. In learner-centered classrooms, stu- short-term retention. These are just a few
tered classrooms. The researcher used dents feel accepted and supported, feel examples. Numerous studies provide evi-
an online survey to collect data, and ownership over their learning, and are dence that students are motivated to learn
126 teachers participated in the sur- more likely to be involved and willing to and develop more in-depth understand-
vey. The findings of this study provide learn (Bransford et al. 2000; Cornelius- ing of content as well as real-world skills
practical insights into how to support White & Harbaugh, 2009; McCombs & in learner-centered environments.
teachers in creating technology-en- Whisler, 1997; Reigeluth, 1994). Todays students, often called digital
hanced, learner-centered classrooms. Research evidence on the effective- natives or the Net Generation, grow up
This article discusses the implica- ness of learner-centered approaches con- with technology. Most of them have nev-
tions for professional development tinues to grow. Recently, Cheang (2009) er known life without the Internet. They
and the need for paradigm change. examined the effects of learner-centered have spent their entire lives using com-
(Keywords: Learner-centered instruc- teaching on motivation and learning puters, cell phones, and other digital me-
tion, technology integration, teacher strategies in a third-year pharmaco- dia and have integrated technology into
beliefs, perceptions, barriers, support therapy course in a doctor of pharmacy almost everything they do. It is obvious
needs, teacher education, professional program. In the study, the students that technology is an integral part of their
development, paradigm change) were asked to complete the Motivated lives (Oblinger, 2008; Prensky, 2007). To
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire engage them in learning, there has been
(MSLQ) before and after taking the increased emphasis on the integration
O
ur information society needs course. Students also assessed the extent of technology into K12 classrooms.
people who can effectively to which the learner-centered approach Although a wealth of literature discusses
manage and use ever-increasing facilitated their learning. Results show technology integration in general, there
amounts of information to solve com- that students intrinsic goal orientation, is a lack of research on learner-centered
plex problems and to make decisions control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy, technology integration. This study aims
in the face of uncertainty. There is little critical thinking, and metacognitive to explore K12 teachers beliefs, percep-
argument that the traditional factory self-regulation significantly improved tions, barriers, and support needs in the
model of education is incompatible after taking the course. Students were context of creating technology-enhanced,
with the evolving demands of the in- also positive in their assessment of learner-centered classrooms.
formation age (Reigeluth, 1999b). The the learner-centered experience in the
factory model also does not take into course. These results indicate that the Learner-Centered Classrooms
account students varying needs, which learner-centered approach is effective in The American Psychological Association
leads to student dissatisfaction and de- promoting several domains of motiva- (1993, 1997) identified 12 learner-centered
motivation. Students and parents often tion and learning strategies. psychological principles. The domains of
perceive school learning as irrelevant to Using a qualitative metasynthesis ap- the learner-centered principlesthe meta-
their personal and real-life needs and proach, Strobel and van Barneveld (2009) cognitive and cognitive, affective, personal
interests. compared and contrasted the findings and social, developmental, and individual
54 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 28 Number 2

Copyright 201112, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191 (U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Intl), iste@iste.org, iste.org. All rights reserved.
Learner-Centered Technology Integration
differences factorsemphasize both the Collaborative and authentic learning three main components: content, peda-
learner and learning. McCombs and experiences. Learner-centered teachers gogy, and technology. However, TPACK
Whisler (1997) contend that the learner- provide students with authentic learning goes beyond these three components.
centered perspective focuses equally on experiences that help students develop Emphasizing the importance of dynamic
the learner and learning and that the real-world skills, such as communication, relationships among these components,
ultimate goal of education is to foster the collaboration, critical-thinking, creative- Mishra and Koehler (2006, 2008) iden-
learning of all learners (p. 14). Learner- thinking, problem-solving, and decision- tified pedagogical content knowledge
centered instruction (LCI) does not take making skills. Students are encouraged to (PCK), technological content knowledge
only one form, but learner-centered work collaboratively with others, to solve (TCK), technological pedagogical knowl-
classrooms tend to have the following problems, and to create new knowledge (TPK), and technological pedagogi-
general characteristics in common: edge rather than just recall or restate cal content knowledge (TPCK) in addition
knowledge. Learning activities are often to content knowledge (CP), pedagogical
Personalized and customized learn- global, interdisciplinary, and integrated knowledge (PK), and technological knowl-
ing. Learner-centered teachers have (Bransford et al., 2000; Cornelius-White edge (TK). The TPACK framework shows
high expectations for all students and & Harbaugh, 2009; McCombs & Whisler, that technology integration requires much
pay close attention to the knowledge, 1997; Reigeluth, 1994). more than technical skills.
skills, and attitudes that each student Assessment for learning. Learner-cen- Recognizing the importance of the
brings into the classroom. Considering tered teachers assess different students links among technology, pedagogy, and
the unique and diverse needs and styles differently. They conduct assessments content, researchers have examined
of the students, they include person- not just to generate grades but to pro- ways to improve technology integration
ally meaningful and relevant goals and mote learning. They monitor individual practices and professional development
provide personalized learning experi- students progress continually to provide efforts. For instance, Ertmer et al. (2003)
ence and support. They are also sensitive feedback on their growth and progress. designed and implemented professional
to cultural issues as well as individual They also promote students reflection development activities to help teachers
differences. Students actively engage in on their growth as learners and help create problem-based learning environ-
learning and work at their own individ- them develop self- and peer-assessment ments that promote meaningful uses of
ual pace (Bransford et al., 2000; DiMar- skills. What they assess is congruent technology within the learner-centered
tino, Clark, & Wolk, 2003; McCombs & with students learning goals. Teachers context. Brush and Saye (2009) provided
Whisler, 1997; Reigeluth, 1994, 1999a; make all assessments as authentic as preservice social studies teachers with
Reigeluth & Duffy, 2008). possible (Bransford et al., 2000; Mc- opportunities to explore innovative,
Social and emotional support. Learner- Combs & Whisler, 1997; Weimer, 2002). emerging technologies in authentic social
centered teachers foster students social It is worth noting that different learn- studies learning and teaching situations.
and emotional growth as well as intel- er-centered teachers have varying but Kopcha (2010) presented a systems-
lectual growth by creating a supportive overlapping beliefs and that any single based model of technology integration
and positive environment. They assume learner-centered instruction will not that uses mentoring and communities of
that all students want to learn and necessarily include all of these attributes practice to prepare teachers to integrate
provide them with emotional support (McCombs & Whisler, 1997). technology in more student-centered
and encouragement. Students feel like ways. Polly and Hannafin (2010) pro-
they belong in the class (McCombs & Technology Integration posed a Learner-Centered Professional
Whisler, 1997; Reigeluth, 1999a). Although there is no clear definition of Development (LCPD) framework, which
Self-regulation. Learner-centered technology integration in K12 contexts includes six major features. LCPD efforts
teachers serve as facilitators rather than (Bebell, Russell, & ODwyer, 2004), tech- are (a) focused on student learning, (b)
transmitters of knowledge. They give nology integration is generally viewed teacher-owned, (c) intended to develop
students increasing responsibility for the as the use of technology for instruc- knowledge of content and pedagogies,
learning process and provide an optimal tional purposes. Mishra and Koehler (d) collaborative, (e) ongoing, and (f)
amount of structure without being over- (2006, 2008) introduced Technological, reflective. Overall, research suggests that
ly directive. They encourage students Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge professional development efforts move
participation and empower students by (TPACK) as a framework for teacher their focus from building teachers iso-
sharing power. They also help students knowledge for technology integration lated technical skills to preparing teachers
develop metacognitive skills and learn- and argued that the development of to implement technology-enhanced,
ing strategies. Students are actively TPACK is critical for effective technol- learner-centered instruction.
engaged in and take ownership of their ogy integration. The TPACK framework Despite generally improved conditions
learning (Cornelius-White & Harbaugh, builds on Shulmans (1986, 1987) idea of for technology integration, including in-
2009; McCombs & Whisler, 1997; Reige- pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). creased access to technology and increased
luth, 1994, 1999a; Weimer, 2002). As the name suggests, the framework has training for teachers, and research efforts
Volume 28 Number 2 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | 55

An & Reigeluth
for improving technology integra- to teachers, include such barriers as 4. Teachers perceptions of the effective-
tion practices, high-level technology lack of resources, institution, subject ness of current professional develop-
use is still low. In general, high-level culture, and assessment. On the other ment programs and suggestions for
technology uses tend to be associated hand, second-order barriers are intrin- improvement
with learner-centered or constructivist sic to teachers and include such obsta- 5. Teachers support needs
practices. Rather than using technology cles as attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and
in the ways that the literature suggests, skills. Pointing out that the first- and By examining K12 teachers beliefs,
teachers tend to use technology mostly second-order barriers are inextricably perceptions, barriers, and support
for communication and low-level tasks, linked together, researchers suggest that needs in the context of learner-centered
such as word processing, drill-and-prac- it is necessary to address both types of technology integration, this study
tice activities, and exploring websites, barriers rather than addressing them aims to inform teacher educators and
many of which align minimally with separately (Ertmer, 1999; Hew & Brush, administrators of how they can better
core pedagogical goals (Becker, 1994, 2007). Hew and Brush (2007) analyzed support teachers in creating technology-
2000; Brush & Saye, 2009; Ertmer, 2005; previous research studies from 1995 to enhanced, learner-centered classrooms.
Russell, Bebell, ODwyer, & OConnor, spring 2006 and identified six major
2003; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999; Willis, categories of the barriers faced by K12 Method
Thompson, & Sadera, 1999; U.S. Depart- schools when integrating technology The researchers used an online survey
ment of Education, 2003). into the curriculum for instructional to collect data in this study. The survey
To better understand and improve purposes: (a) resources, (b) knowledge included the following eight sections:
ineffective or inadequate technol- and skills, (c) institution, (d) attitudes
1. Demographic questions
ogy integration practices, researchers and beliefs, (e) assessment, and (f) sub-
2. Technology beliefs
have examined factors that may affect ject culture. Then they classified strate-
3. Learner-centered instruction
K12 teachers technology integration gies to overcome the barriers into five
4. Current practices in creating tech-
positively or negatively. Becker (2000) categories: (a) obtaining the necessary
nology-enhanced, learner-centered
argued that certain conditions can help resources, (b) having a shared vision
classrooms
teachers use technology effectively: and technology integration plan, (c)
5. Perceived barriers to creating tech-
facilitating changes in attitudes/beliefs,
However, under the right con- nology-enhanced, learner-centered
(d) professional development, and (e)
ditionswhere teachers are classrooms
reconsidering assessment.
personally comfortable and at 6. Perceived effectiveness of current
Although previous research provides
least moderately skilled in using professional development programs/
useful insights into the factors that affect
computers themselves, where suggestions for improvement
technology integration in general and
the schools daily class schedule 7. Support needs
how to improve professional develop-
permits allowing time for students 8. Addresses
ment efforts, few have examined issues
to use computers as part of class
related to learner-centered technology The researchers developed survey
assignments, where enough equip-
integration. To effectively help teachers items based on an extensive literature
ment is available and convenient
create technology-enhanced, learner-cen- review and feedback from 11 teachers
to permit computer activities to
tered classrooms, it is essential to under- who participated in the pilot testing
flow seamlessly alongside other
stand: (a) how they perceive learner-cen- of the survey instrument. The survey
learning tasks, and where teachers
tered instruction as well as technology; originally included more open-ended
personal philosophies support a
(b) what kinds of barriers they face in questions, but teachers often pro-
student-centered, constructivist
creating technology-enhanced, learner- vided short or vague answers to these
pedagogy that incorporates col-
centered classrooms; and (c) what kind questions. Therefore, the researchers
laborative projects defined partly
of support they need to create such class- added more Likert-style questions and
by student interestcomputers
rooms. Therefore, this study focuses on changed wordings. The Results section
are clearly becoming a valuable
the following: describes more information about the
and well-functioning instructional
survey.
tool. (Becker, 2000, p. 25)
1. Teachers beliefs and attitudes toward The first author sent e-mail invita-
There are many barriers to inte- the use of technology in learning and tions, including the link to the online
grating technology into teaching and teaching survey, to K12 teachers in northeast
learning. Ertmer et al. (1999) classified 2. Teachers perceptions of learner- Texas and southwest Arkansas in the
technology integration barriers in two centered instruction United States. To recruit participants,
major categories: first- and second- 3. Teachers perceptions of barriers the researchers used Wal-Mart gift cards
order barriers. First-order barriers, to creating technology-enhanced, as participant incentives. The research-
which refer to obstacles that are external learner-centered classrooms ers informed the participants that they

Table 1. Technology beliefs (n = 126)

Statement M SD
1. I support the use of technology in the classroom. 4.83 .39
2. A variety of technologies are important for student learning. 4.78 .45
3. Incorporating technology into instruction helps students learn. 4.73 .48
4. Technology enables me to accomplish tasks more effectively and efficiently. 4.64 .61
5. Technology is an important part of teaching and learning. 4.56 .52
6. I am willing to take some time to learn and use new technologies. 4.52 .70
7. Teachers should keep up with new technologies. 4.50 .67
8. Incorporating technology into the curriculum isnt my job. 1.61 (4.39) .75
9. Teachers should focus on content and pedagogy, and technologists should be in charge of the technology. 1.69 (4.31) .71
10. Technology may draw students attention but is not helpful for student learning. 1.76 (4.24) .89
would receive a $10 Wal-Mart gift card if Results Perceptions of Learner-Centered Instruction
they completed the survey and provided The Perceptions of Learner-Centered
their mailing address at the end of the Technology Beliefs Instruction (LCI) section of the survey
survey. This study was supported by a Brush, Glazewski, and Hew (2008) de- included 11 Likert-style items and 3
research grant from the previous institu- veloped 12 items that addressed teachers open-ended questions. Table 2 (p. 58)
tion of the first author. technology beliefs. By adapting them, reports the means and standard de-
The researchers conducted the the researchers developed 10 items to viations in rank order. The numbers
survey, including Likert-style ques- measure K12 teachers technology represent responses on the same 5-point
tions and open-ended questions, from beliefs (see Table 1). A 5-point scale was Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5.
April through May 2010. One hun- used for responses: 1 = strongly disagree, Overall, participants had positive
dred twenty-six teachers participated 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and perceptions of LCI. About 70% of par-
in the study (32% response rate). The 5 = strongly agree. ticipants agreed or strongly agreed that
participants were from 27 schools (14 Findings from the Technology Beliefs they were learner-centered teachers, and
elementary schools, 4 middle schools, section of the survey revealed K12 27.6% were neutral. Only a few teachers
and 9 high schools) in a number of teachers positive attitudes toward the thought that learner-centered approach-
different rural school districts, includ- use of technology in teaching and learn- es are time-consuming, diminish the
ing Texarkana Independent School ing. This is consistent with Brush et al.s amount of content they can teach, are
District (TISD), Texarkana Arkansas (2008) field-test results, even though incompatible with their subject areas, or
School District (TASD), and Pleasant their participants were preservice teach- require too much work. A majority of
Grove Independent School District. ers. Table 1 reports technology beliefs teachers believed that LCI is challeng-
The school environments varied from means (M) and standard deviations (SD) ing but rewarding (M = 4.14, SD = .73).
technology poor to technology rich. are reported in rank order. The numbers Participant responses to open-ended
Of the sample, 93% were female. The represent responses on a 5-point Likert questions also revealed that most par-
teachers had an average of 10.2 years of scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) ticipants had learner-centered beliefs.
teaching experience. They ranged in age to 5 (strongly agree). Items in italics are Whereas about 40% indicated that
from 20s to 60s (2125: 10%, 2630: negatively worded, so the transposed they had enough knowledge about LCI,
21%, 3135: 17%, 3640: 14%, 41-45: value is listed in parentheses. a majority of the participants wanted
14%, 4650: 9%, 5155: 9%, 5660: 6%, Overall, participants believed that to learn more about it (M = 4.14, SD=
6165: 1%). technology, as an important part of teach- .63). This seemed to be contradictory at
The researchers collected both quan- ing and learning, helps students learn first, but qualitative data showed that,
titative and qualitative data from the (M = 4.73, SD = .48) and enables them although many teachers understood
online survey. Quantitative data were to accomplish tasks more effectively and the basic ideas of LCI, they still wanted
analyzed by using descriptive statistics. efficiently (M = 4.64, SD = .61). Most to learn more about learner-centered
Qualitative data were analyzed using the participants indicated that they supported pedagogy, especially practical strategies
constant comparative method (Glaser & the use of technology in the classroom (M for the implementation of LCI.
Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). = 4.83, SD = .39) and were willing to take
All responses were examined, coded, time to learn and use new technologies Current Practices
and constantly compared to other data. (M = 4.52, SD = .70). They also indicated This section of the survey included 18
In the process, some coded data were a belief that incorporating technology into items rated using the same 5-point Likert
renamed or merged into new categories. the curriculum was part of their job. scale ranging from 1 to 5. Table 3 (p. 58)

An & Reigeluth
Table 2. Perceptions of Learner-Centered Instruction

Statement M SD
1. My job is to teach the material. If some students dont learn it, that is their problem. 1.46 (4.54) .61
2. Learner-centered approaches require too much work for me. 1.75 (4.25) .72
3. Learner-centered approaches are incompatible with my subject area. 1.81 (4.19) .83
4. I want to learn more about learner-centered instruction. 4.14 .63
5. Learner-centered instruction is challenging but rewarding. 4.14 .73
6. Learner-centered approaches diminish the amount of content I can teach. 1.87 (4.13) .82
7. Learner-centered approaches are too time-consuming. 1.89 (4.11) .80
8. I am a learner-centered teacher. 3.82 .76
9. I am not very familiar with learner-centered approaches. 2.21 (3.79) .89
10. My students are passive and not always responsible. They are not ready for learner-centered approaches, in which they take responsibility for their learning. 2.35 (3.65) .92
11. I have enough knowledge about learner-centered instruction. 3.15 .99
Table 3. Current Practices in Creating Learner-Centered Classrooms
Statement M SD
1. I provide positive emotional support and encouragement to students. 4.61 .49

2. I have high expectations of every student. 4.61 .53
3. I help students feel like they belong in the class. 4.53 .52
4. I am sensitive to student differences in learning styles, culture, values, perspectives, customs, and so forth. 4.40 .59
5. I allow students to express their own unique thoughts and beliefs. 4.36 .63
6. I encourage students to work collaboratively with other students. 4.31 .63
7. I monitor individual process continually in order to provide feedback on growth and progress. 4.30 .67
8. I provide learning experiences that are relevant and meaningful to individual students. 4.28 .57
9. I provide personalized learning experiences that take into account the different needs of individual students. 4.27 .58
10. I provide learning activities or tasks that stimulate students higher-order thinking and self-regulated learning skills. 4.27 .64
11. I give students increasing responsibility for the learning process. 4.25 .66
12. I provide activities that are personally challenging to each student. 4.23 .62
13. I help students in developing and using effective learning strategies. 4.16 .57
14. I assess different students differently. 4.06 .76
15. I help students develop self- and peer-assessment skills. 3.99 .84
16. I provide structure without being overly directive. 3.96 .80
17. I allow students to work at their own individual pace. 3.90 .78
18. I include students in decisions about how and what they learn and how that learning is assessed. 3.88 .79
reports means and standard deviations count the different needs of individual barrier) to 3 (a major barrier). Table 4
in rank order. All participants indicated students (M = 4.27, SD = .58). In terms reports perceived barriers means and
that they were providing positive emo- of assessment, 82% indicated that they standard deviations ) in rank order. Lack
tional support and encouragement to assessed different students differently (M of technology, lack of time, and assess-
their students (M = 4.61, SD = .49). Most = 4.06, SD = .76). Participants gave the ment were identified as the major bar-
participants indicated that they had lowest ranking to the statements I allow riers to creating technology-enhanced,
high expectations of every student (M = students to work at their own individual learner-centered classrooms, but their
4.61, SD = .53); were sensitive to student pace and I include students in deci- mean scores are relatively low. About
differences in learning styles, culture, sions about how and what they learn 57% perceived lack of technology and
values, perspectives, and customs (M = and how that learning is assessed. time as a barrier or a major barrier. A
4.40. SD = .59); and helped students feel little more than half of the participants
like they belong in the class (M = 4.53, Perceived Barriers (51%) perceived assessment as a barrier
SD = .52). Most (93%) agreed or strongly The Perceived Barriers section of the or a major barrier.
agreed that they provided personalized survey included 11 items rated using In terms of knowledge, about 35%
learning experiences that take into ac- a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (not a indicated that lack of knowledge about

Table 4. Barriers to Creating Technology-Enhanced, Learner-Centered Classrooms

Statement M SD
1. Lack of technology 1.74 .74
2. Lack of my time 1.71 .69
3. Assessment (school and national high-stakes testing) 1.66 .73
4. Institutional barriers (school leadership, school schedule, school rules) 1.46 .59
5. Lack of my knowledge about learner-centered instruction (methods training) 1.44 .59
6. Lack of my knowledge about ways to integrate technology into learner-centered instruction (training in technology integration techniques) 1.44 .59
7. Lack of tech support 1.39 .62
8. Subject culture (the general set of institutionalized practices and expectations which have grown up around a particular school subject) 1.35 .54
9. Lack of my knowledge about technology (tech training) 1.33 .48
10. My attitude toward learner-centered instruction 1.05 .29
11. My attitude toward technology 1.03 .22
Table 5. Perceived Effectiveness of Current Professional Development Programs

Statement M SD
1. They help me improve my technology knowledge. 3.78 .91
2. They help me understand how teaching and learning change when particular technologies are used. 3.47 1.05
3. They help me improve my pedagogical knowledge. 3.46 .91
4. They help me create a technology-enhanced, learner-centered classroom. 3.39 1.02
5. They help me improve my content knowledge about the subject matter I teach. 3.36 1.09
6. They help me create a learner-centered classroom. 3.18 1.05
7. I am satisfied with my current professional development programs and activities. 3.16 1.09
8. They provide subject-specific technology integration ideas. 3.13 1.00
9. They focus primarily on how to merely operate the technology. 2.93 1.07
10. They provide some technology integration ideas but they are too general to be applied easily to my classroom. 2.85 1.00
learner-centered instruction and ways deviations. About 43% indicated that give us are so broad it is hard to target
to integrate technology into learner-cen- they were satisfied with their current it to one specific subject area, especially
tered instruction are barriers to creating professional development programs math, and Not enough subject-specific
technology-enhanced, learner-centered and activities (M = 3.16, SD =1.09). and certain learner-specific informa-
classrooms. Participants gave the lowest Participants gave the highest ranking to tion. We need more ideas for our certain
ranking to my attitude toward technolo- the statement: They help me improve subject areas involving technology.
gy and my attitude toward learner-cen- my technology knowledge. About 70% Programs cram too much information
tered instruction. Most (98%) believed indicated that their professional devel- into short trainings. Participants reported
their attitude toward learner-centered opment programs helped them improve that their current professional programs
instruction were not a barrier. their technology knowledge. provide way too much information at
The researchers identified other bar- Participant responses to open-ended one time, and they dont have enough
riers that Table 4 does not address from questions identified the major weak- time to practice and thoroughly learn
participant responses to an open-end nesses of current professional develop- what is being presented to them.
question. These include lack of funding, ment programs as:
limited resources, student behavior, class In terms of technology training, partici-
size, inclusion of severe-needs students, Programs are too broad and not sub- pants pointed out that many technology
and parents who complain about chal- ject specific. A number of participants training sessions are geared toward new
lenging activities. pointed out that most of their current users, and they often teach about technol-
professional development programs tend ogy that is not available to teachers. Partic-
Evaluation of Current Professional to be very broad and do not provide sub- ipant responses included: They are geared
Development Programs ject-specific information or examples. towards a new user so many times I
This section included 10 items rated us- Participant responses included: Most of find myself bored or attending something
ing the same 5-point Likert scale ranging the professional development we have is that I have already prior knowledge of, or
from 1 to 5. Table 5 reports the per- to merely teach us how to use the spe- have been using already, and The prob-
ceived effectiveness means and standard cific system, and any examples that they lem with our professional development

An & Reigeluth
is that many times we have had to attend classrooms, participants indicated that much cool stuff, but they still have
technology training for technology that they needed (a) more equipment, tech- difficulty applying it for their students
we do not have in the classroom and are nology, or funding; and (b) more train- learning. As noted already, technology
not expected to receive. ing, workshops, models, and examples. integration requires much more than
Several participants reported that They also believed that schools need to technical skills. Technology integration
they had no or few opportunities for (c) focus more on students and learner- training must help teachers develop
professional development. Specifically, centered instruction and (d) focus less TPACK by providing them with subject-
kindergarten teachers mentioned that on state test scores. Specific participant specific technology integration ideas
most professional development programs responses included: and opportunities to explore technolo-
were for older students. On the other gies in authentic teaching and learning
More focus starting in K on learner-
hand, some people mentioned that their contexts. Teachers should be able to
centered instruction.
districts provided many opportunities to build technology skills in the context
Learner-centered strategies need
explore and learn more about technology of designing learner-centered learning
to start in elementary so that they
and learner-centered instruction. activities in their subject areas (Brush &
[students] will be comfortable with
Saye, 2009; Ertmer, 2003; Hew & Brush,
this approach.
2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Koehler &
Support Needs Schools need to focus on students
Mishra, 2008; Polly & Hannafin, 2010).
beginning at the youngest age and
Ways to improve professional develop- More training on learner-centered in-
not on the TAKS test. They need to
ment programs. How could professional struction. Becker (2000) pointed out that
start with the 4-year-olds and build
development programs be improved to teachers are much more constructivist
a base of knowledge using technol-
better help teachers create technology- in philosophy than in actual practice.
ogy. The students with even the most
enhanced, learner-centered classrooms? Research studies have documented
severe disability should be included
Participants suggested that they (a) allow incongruence between teachers beliefs
in all technology decisions.
time for hands-on practice; (b) be subject- and practices (Lim & Chan, 2007; Pe-
Schools need to quit focusing so
specific; (c) provide more training about terson, 1990; Polly & Hannafin, in press;
much on the state tests and more on
learner-centered instruction; and (d) stop Wilson, 1990). It is possible that teachers
the students, and they will see more
telling and show how to create technology- who are learner-centered in philosophy
well-rounded students as well as
enhanced, learner-centered classrooms. are teacher-centered in actual practice.
good test scores.
Specific participant responses included: Learner-centered philosophy does not
A small number of the participants necessarily lead to learner-centered
Give teachers time during in-service
pointed out the need for mindset practice. Many things can cause such
training to really get the hands-on
change, customized or individualized inconsistency. Based on our findings,
training we need to provide effective
support, tech support, more planning it appears that lack of knowledge about
instruction to our students.
time to research and develop ideas, more LCI might prevent teachers from creat-
Break it up into area-specific work-
freedom to incorporate new ideas, lon- ing learner-centered classrooms, even
shops. Right now, all teachers are
ger class periods, and smaller classes. though they are learner-centered in
thrown into the cafeteria together
philosophy. Most participants in this
to all learn the same thing during
Discussion and Conclusion study indicated that they wanted to learn
in-service. That really doesnt work...
The findings of this study are from 126 more about LCI, especially practical
What English teachers need to learn
teachers in northeast Texas and south- strategies. Many of them suggested that
is different than what the Computer
west Arkansas. Their generalizability is professional development programs
teacher or the Art teacher needs to
unknown. However, they provide useful provide more training on LCI. It is clear
know but the district doesnt want
insights into how to support teachers in that there is a need for more training on
to spend the time or money to train
creating technology-enhanced, learner- how to implement LCI.
small groups. They prefer the one
centered classrooms. Customized and learner-centered
size fits all mentality.
training. Pointing out the different needs
More training about learner- Implications for Professional Development
of different teachers, the participants of
centered classrooms
Strengthened links among technology, this study reported that the one size fits
Have someone come in and dem-
pedagogy, and content. The results of this all approach does not work. They also
onstrate this type of classroom. Give
study show that much technology inte- suggested that professional development
lesson plans, activities, and ways to
gration training appears to focus mainly programs provide more time for hands-
organize and get started.
on technology knowledge and skills on practice rather than cramming a
Institutional support. In terms of while overlooking the dynamic relation- large amount of information into a short
institutional support needed to create ships between technology, pedagogy, and training. To better help teachers create
technology-enhanced, learner-centered content. As a result, teachers learn about technology-enhanced, learner-centered

classrooms, professional development development programs is insufficient. examine the issues related to learner-
must take into account teachers needs; As the participants suggested, schools centered technology integration in
provide active, hands-on, and learner- need to focus more on learner-centered greater depth using observation and
centered learning experiences; and instruction and less on state test scores, interviews in addition to an online sur-
provide personalized support. beyond providing technology tools vey. Also, it would be useful to involve
Vicarious experiences. The effec- and training. For this to happen, more students and other stakeholders as well
tiveness of observational or vicarious fundamental changes to our education as teachers. Third, further research is
learning is well known (Bandura, 1997). system would need to occur. Pointing out needed to explore various ways to design
Previous research suggests that vicari- that our current education system was and implement professional develop-
ous experiences, especially observing designed more for sorting than for learn- ment programs that are learner-centered
successful others, can not only provide ing, Reigeluth (1994, 1999b) contends and subject-specific; show how to create
how-to information but also increase that there is a need to change our current technology-enhanced, learner-centered
teachers confidence for performing paradigm of public education to one bet- classrooms; provide hands-on learning
successfully (Ertmer, 2005; Schunk, ter suited to the educational needs of the experiences; and help teachers develop
2000). The participants of this study also information age. TPACK. Finally, future research could
suggested that professional develop- Specifically, Reigeluth and Duffy explore ways to help all stakeholders to
ment programs stop telling and show or (2008) argue that three paradigm chang- evolve their mindsets about education.
demonstrate how to create technology- es must occur in parallel to achieve a
enhanced, learner-centered classrooms. paradigm that is learning-focused rather Author Notes
However, locating high-quality models than sorting-focused: (a) transforming Yun-Jo An is an assistant professor in the Depart-
and exposing teachers to the models are ment of Educational Innovation at the University of
teaching and learning to a paradigm that
West Georgia. She received her PhD in instructional
difficult. Realizing the difficulties in- is customized and attainment-based, systems technology from Indiana University Bloom-
volved in providing various experiences, (b) transforming the school systems ington. She has practical experience in the areas of
researchers have suggested presenting social infrastructure to a participatory instructional design, e-learning course development,
models via electronic media, such as organization design, and (c) trans- corporate training, and multimedia development.
video or web-based tools (Albion, 2003; Her current research focuses on learner-centered
forming the relationship between the
technology integration, teacher education, and
Brush & Saye, 2009; Ertmer et al., 2003; school system and its environment to a problem-based learning. Please send correspondence
Ertmer, 2005). collaborative and proactive stance. As regarding this article to Yun-Jo An, University of
Communities of practice or social they emphasize, the paradigm change West Georgia, Educational Annex, Carrollton, GA
networks. Noting that teachers beliefs requires helping all stakeholders to 30118. E-mail: yan@westga.edu
and practices are continually shaped by evolve their mindsets about education. Charles Reigeluth has a BA in economics from
the values, opinions, and expectations of Even if teachers have all the knowledge, Harvard University and a PhD in instructional
influential others, researchers have sug- skills, attitudes, and tools they need, psychology from Brigham Young University.He
taught high school science for three years.He
gested building communities of practice, they will not be able to create effective
has been a professor in the Instructional Systems
social networks, or collegial groups in learner-centered classrooms if they still Technology Department at Indiana Universitys
which teachers can share and explore new have to cover a large amount of content School of Education since 1988.His research focuses
teaching methods and tools and help each in a short time and focus on preparing on paradigm change in public education utilizing
other (Becker, 1994; Becker & Riel, 1999; students for high-stakes tests. It appears digital technology and brain-based, personalized
educational methods. He is also advising the US Air
Ertmer, 2005; Kopcha, 2010; Marcinkie- that effective learner-centered learning
Force on the application of instructional theory to
wicz & Regstad, 1996; Orill, 2001; Putnam experiences require all those involved improving digital learning.Professor Reigeluth is
& Borko, 2000). Appropriate communities with the system, including administra- internationally known for his work on instructional
of practice or social networks have the po- tion, parents, and students, to support methods and theories.. Please send correspondence
tential to provide ongoing support outside the learning-focused paradigm and be regarding this article to Charles Reigeluth, Indiana
University, W. W. Wright Education Building, Room
the formal training. willing to perform the new roles that the
2236, 201 North Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN
new paradigm requires. 47405. E-mail: reigelut@indiana.edu
Paradigm Change
Interestingly, teachers appeared to face Suggestions for Future Research
References
more first-order barriers, which are Further studies might test the general- Albion, P. (2003). PBL + IMM = PBL2: Problem
external to teachers, rather than second- izability of these results by examining based learning and interactive multimedia
order barriers, when creating technology- K12 teachers beliefs, perceptions, development. Journal of Technology and
enhanced, learner-centered classrooms. barriers, and support needs in the con- Teacher Education, 11, 243257.
American Psychological Association Board of
Lack of technology and time, assessment, text of creating technology-enhanced,
Educational Affairs. (1997). Learner-centered
and institutional structure turned out learner-centered classrooms in differ- psychological principles: A framework for
to be the top perceived barriers. This ent school districts, states, or coun- school reform and redesign. Washington, DC:
suggests that improving professional tries. Second, future research could American Psychological Association.

An & Reigeluth
American Psychological Association Task Force Ertmer, P. A., Lehman, J. D., Park, S. H., Cramer, Reigeluth, C. M. (1994). Envisioning a new
on Psychology in Education. (1993). Learner- J., & Grove, K. (2003) Adoption and use system of education. In C. M. Reigeluth & R. J.
centered psychological principles: Guidelines for of technology-supported learner-centered Garfinkle (Eds.), Systemic change in education
school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: pedagogies: Barriers to teachers implementation. (pp. 5970). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.edci.purdue.edu/ Technology Publications.
Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory. ertmer/docs/EdMedia_TKB_paper.PDF Reigeluth, C. M. (1999a). Visioning public
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery education in America. Educational Technology,
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & ODwyer, L. (2004). of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative 39(5), 5055.
Measuring teachers technology uses: Why research. Chicago: Aldine. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999b). What is instructional-
multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating design theory and how is it changing? In C.M.
of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), technology into K12 teaching and learning: Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories
4563. Current knowledge gaps and recommendations and models: A new paradigm of instructional
Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer- for future research. Educational Technology theory (Volume II, pp. 529). Mahwah, NJ:
using teachers differ from other teachers: Research and Development, 55(3), 223252. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Implications for realizing the potential of Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing Reigeluth, C. M., & Duffy, F. M. (2008). The AECT
computers in schools. Journal of Research on TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation FutureMinds initiative: Transforming Americas
Computing in Education, 26, 291321. and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of school systems. Educational Technology, 48(3),
Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, technological pedagogical content knowledge for 4549.
learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban educators (pp. 329). New York: Routledge. Russell, M., Bebell, D., ODwyer, L., & OConnor,
right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51), Kopcha, T. J. (2010). A systems-based approach K. (2003). Examining teacher technology
Retrieved June 29, 2010, from http://epaa.asu. to technology integration using mentoring and use: Implications for preservice and inservice
edu/ojs/article/viewFile/442/565 communities of practice. Educational Technology teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher
Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (1999). Teacher Research and Development, 58(2), 175190. Education, 54(4), 297310.
professionalism and the emergence of Lim, C. P., & Chan, B. C. (2007). MicroLESSONS Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An
constructivist-compatible pedagogies. in teacher education: Examining pre-service educational perspective (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
Retrieved September 9, 2010, from http:// teachers pedagogical beliefs. Computers & River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/special_ Education, 48(4), 474494. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand:
report2/aerj-final.pdf Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Regstad, N. G. (1996). Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. Using subjective norms to predict teachers Researcher, 15(2), 414.
R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, computer use. Journal of Computing in Teacher Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching:
experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: Education, 13(1), 2733. Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
National Academy Press. McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The Educational Review, 57(1), 122.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009). Strategies for learner-centered classroom and school: Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of
preparing preservice social studies teachers to Strategies for increasing student motivation and qualitative research: Grounded theory
integrate technology effectively: Models and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. procedures and techniques. Newbury Park,
practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological CA: Sage.
and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4659 pedagogical content knowledge: A new Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When
Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., & Hew, K. F. framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers is PBL more effective? A meta-analysis of
(2008). Development of an instrument to College Record, 108(6), 10171054. meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional
measure preservice teachers technology Oblinger, D. G. (2008). Growing up with Google: classrooms. The Interdisciplinary Journal of
skills, technology beliefs, and technology What it means to education. Emerging Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 4458.
barriers. Computers in the Schools, 25(12), Technologies for Learning, 3, 1129. Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from
112125. Orrill, C. H. (2001). Building technology-based, exemplary colleges of education: Factors
Cheang, K. I. (2009). Effects of learner-centered learner-centered classrooms: The evolution affecting technology integration in preservice
teaching on motivation and learning strategies of a professional development framework. programs. Educational Technology Research and
in a third-year pharmacotherapy course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 6381.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Development, 49(1), 1534. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Federal
73(3), Article 42. Peterson, P. L. (1990). Doing more of the same: funding for educational technology and how it
Cornelius-White, J. H. D., & Harbaugh, A. P. Cathy Swift. Educational Evaluation and Policy is used in the classroom: A summary of findings
(2009). Learner-centered instruction: Building Analysis, 12(3), 261280. from the integrated studies of educational
relationships for student success. Thousand Oaks, Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2010). Reexamining technology. Washington, DC: Office of the
CA: Sage. technologys role in learner-centered Under Secretary, Policy, and Program Studies
DiMartino, J., Clark, J., & Wolk, D. (Eds.) (2003). professional development. Educational Service.
Personalized learning: Preparing high school Technology Research and Development, 58(5), Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five
students to create their futures. Lanham, MD: 557571. key changes to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-
The Scarecrow Press. Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Examining Bass.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and how learner-centered professional development Willis, J., Thompson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999).
second-order barriers to change: Strategies for influences teachers espoused and enacted Research on technology and teacher education:
technology integration. Educational Technology practices. Journal of Educational Research, Current status and future directions.
Research and Development, 47(4), 4761. 104(2), 120130. Educational Technology Research and
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: Prensky, M. (2007). Digital game-based learning. Development, 47(4), 2945.
The final frontier in our quest for technology St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Wilson, S. M. (1990). A conflict of interests: The
integration? Educational Technology Research Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new case of Mark Black. Educational Evaluation and
and Development, 53(4), 2539. views of knowledge and thinking have to say Policy Analysis, 12(3), 309326.
about research on teacher learning. Educational
Researcher, 29(1), 415.


Technology Article 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Technology Article 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Creating Technology-Enhanced, Learner-Centered Classrooms:

K12 Teachers Beliefs, Perceptions, Barriers, and Support Needs

Yun-Jo An Charles Reigeluth

54 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 28 Number 2

Volume 28 Number 2 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | 55

56 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 28 Number 2

Table 1. Technology beliefs (n = 126)

Volume 28 Number 2 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | 57

Table 2. Perceptions of Learner-Centered Instruction

Table 3. Current Practices in Creating Learner-Centered Classrooms

1. I provide positive emotional support and encouragement to students. 4.61 .49

58 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 28 Number 2

Table 4. Barriers to Creating Technology-Enhanced, Learner-Centered Classrooms

Table 5. Perceived Effectiveness of Current Professional Development Programs

Volume 28 Number 2 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | 59

60 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 28 Number 2

Volume 28 Number 2 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | 61

62 | Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education | Volume 28 Number 2

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi