Journal o Research on Technology in Education
Volume 42 Number 3Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Letwich
Copyright © 2010, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education), 800.336.5191(U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Int’l), email@example.com, www.iste.org. All rights reserved.
However, this expectation is rarely applied to classroom teachers. each-ers o the 21
century use roughly the same tools as those who came beorethem (Cuban, 2001). Furthermore, whereas the benets o technology inother proessions are determined by comparing the results to the intendedoutcomes (e.g., Did the police ocer arrest the speeding driver who had asuspended license? Did the mechanic accurately identiy the problem andget the car running again? Did the doctor identiy potential health concernsor the baby?), teachers’ uses o technology are rarely linked to the studentlearning outcomes they are designed to acilitate (Lawless & Pellegrino,2007). It is time to shi our mindsets away rom the notion that technology provides a
teaching tool and assume, as with other proessions,that technology is
to successul perormance outcomes (i.e., studentlearning). o put it simply, eective teaching requires eective technology use.Recent research, resulting rom both large- and small-scale eorts (Bauer& Kenton, 2005; Project omorrow, 2008), suggests that we have yet notachieved high levels o eective technology use, either in the United Statesor internationally (Kozma, 2003; Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross, &Specht, 2008; Smeets, 2005; ondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2007a). Further-more, i and when technology is used, it typically is not used to support thekinds o instruction (e.g., student-centered) believed to be most powerulor acilitating student learning (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck; 2001; Interna-tional Society or echnology in Education [ISE], 2008; Partnership or 21
Century Learning, 2007).No doubt, teachers have increased their personal and proessional uses o computers (Project omorrow, 2008; van Braak, ondeur, & Valcke, 2004).In response to the eachers alk ech survey (CDW-G, 2006), 88% o theteachers reported using technology or administrative tasks, whereas 86%reported using technology or communication tasks. Similarly, 93% o theteachers who responded to the Speak Up 2007 survey (n = 23,756/25,544)reported using technology to communicate with colleagues or parents (Proj-ect omorrow, 2008).Alongside these increases in teachers’ proessional uses are increases inthe reported instructional uses o computers in the classroom (NationalEducation Association, 2008; Project omorrow, 2008). Unortunately, whenwe look closer at these data, reported uses still tend to be “low-level” (Mad-dux & Johnson, 2006; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003)—thatis, those that support traditional, teacher-directed instruction (e.g., usingPowerPoint to present a lesson, searching the Web or inormation resources)or that ocus on the development o students’ technical skills (ondeur, vanBraak, & Valcke, 2007b). Based on the results o the Speak Up 2007 nationalsurvey (Project omorrow, 2008), 51% o the responding teachers (n =13,027 / 25,544) reported that their primary uses o technology to “acilitatestudent learning” comprised (a) asking students to complete homework