The Role of Technology in the Classroom in an Era of Budget Cuts and Globalization

John J. Foley
Fordham University
CTGE 6265 - Emerging Issues in Educational Technology
New Media Blog


The Role of Technology in the Classroom in
an Era of Budget Cuts and Globalization


THE REALITY

Arne Duncan is the Secretary of Education for the Obama administration. In a recent opinion paper he said that 100,000 to 300,000 jobs were at risk of elimination in the coming 2010-11 school year due to economic and budgetary constraints in the U.S. (Duncan, 2010). Mirroring this, the New York Times in an April 21, 2010 article wrote that hundreds of thousands of teachers across the country are expected to lose their jobs this June as a result of the recession. Local school districts are losing funding from within their normal source of revenues - state money and local property taxes. In addition to job losses, school programs are expected to be cut and overall classroom size is expected to increase (Lewin & Dillon, 2010). Unlike in other recessions, the constraints on governmental spending (in this case for education) will not go away when this recession ends. Our budget deficits, and the needed cost cutting activities to address and remediate those deficits, will be with us for a generation.

Adding another factor to our educational concerns, as the Department of Education said in their National Education Technology Plan for 2004, the US will face increasing competition from the global economy, and that today’s American students are not academically prepared to face that challenge. The jobs our educated labor force possess now and in the future could be siphoned off to countries that are academically pressing critical thinking and technology skills in their classrooms.
Taken together, our education system has a double crisis. Not only is our current system cost prohibitive, but at this cost structure we are not producing graduates that have the type or quality of education needed to match industry's demand for the next generation of labor.

As defined, we get to the underlying question posed on this blog: how do you cut back on spending, while also increasing the quality of knowledge and cognition in our graduating students?

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION, WHILE REDUCING COSTS:
TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY.


First, let's look at the quality of student learning achieved in school environments that use technology to teach, and also the level in those that do not. Amongst other studies, one research study whose purpose was intended to provide effectiveness evaluation for a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant program (Taylor, Casto, Walls, 2007), found that elementary and high school students had notable gains in knowledge when the subject matter was imbedded within a technological context. Those schools using traditional learning styles saw no improvements. The study found that a key issue for successful cognitive gains by students was that the technology had to be structured to provide the learning content in a usable, contextualized format that promoted problem solving learning theory. This is not the same as putting computers on kids' desks and telling them to use it to take quizzes or to write papers. The key ingredient for success was that the teachers integrated the technology into their curriculum, and had the content of the course presented interactively to the students. That critical caveat is not something that teachers are just going to do. They need to be trained about the potential for technology within a properly constructed e-learning environment.

Ok, so best-practices use of technology looks like it has great potential to increase the learning curve for students. What about the cost effectiveness of using technology in teaching? A truism for all labor intensive enterprises in the United States is that all eventually suffer from cost disease – that is, the tendency for wages to rise faster than productivity. We have that situation currently in health care and in education. We once had that problem in our manufacturing industry. Higher labor costs caused much of our manufacturing to go overseas to low cost areas. Manufacturers in the US stopped this flow of manufacturing activity by introducing highly productive capital equipment to augment high cost labor. The result of this remodeling is a current industry that employs highly educated engineers and staff that produce high value-added goods. Yes, we lost the low value-added manufacturing, but those types of jobs do not create the value that supports American prosperity. Low-value jobs generally don't support minimum living standard wages in the U.S. - that's why we target for and plan to have higher-value industries set up in the States. We have been able to do that because we have good school systems that produce critically thinking, high-value workers. The down-side to this is that the type of highly skilled workers and professionals that industry needs is changing, and schools are not keeping up with the technological skill sets needed for the coming generations. The retooling that manufacturing did to produce high value goods with high quality personnel has not yet occurred in education. The US is still producing highly educated students, whom are very prepared for yesterday's jobs, but the cost structure supporting this is still like manufacturing was in the 19th Century - very labor intensive. We have not changed our formula for education because most people belief that the real value of education is the face-to-face transmission of knowledge between a wise teacher and his or her students.

What researchers have shown is that, with the proper use of technology, we can retain the value of these direct interactions with the teacher, while using technology to excite and motivate students toward self-directed learning. The teacher will still be there, but as a facilitator. The students can use technology to run simulations in history, or interact with the computer to problem solve for math equations (how would math anxiety modify if you could interact with the computer to learn, rather than having other students see your confusion?). The potential applications for learning are only limited by the creativity of the software designers. After development, and while all this technology-based learning is going on, school districts would see the per student costs to educate begin to go down, just like it did in manufacturing (Whitaker, 1998). I do recognize that some parents may express outrage in the misconstrued belief that I am comparing the education of their child to making a good widget. I am not; however, the underlying economics are comparable if the focus of the process transformation is to increase the value of what is being molded. I don't think many parents would resist the thought that they and society at large were committed to molding their children into moral and productive citizens. That is the economics and goals that I address.

The National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT) has as its goal the promotion of technology in schools to increase students' learning, while reducing associated costs. One example of the improved learning/lower costs scenario was a pilot program between them and the University of Alabama (this paradigm works at any educational level), where in coordination they created a mathematics center and introduced interactive technology to the students (Witkowsky, 2008). They did not just provide computers for everyone, they changed the methodology of learning from a teacher-centered to a student-centered problem-solving collaborative environment. After the first year the percentage of students getting a C+ or better jumped 10%. The school found that the new student-centered approach of learning using technology was adapted easily by the students, but they found that the teaching faculty was a bit hesitant at the change. In addition to the performance improvements, the redesign caused huge financial savings. Costs per unit to teach students math was $116 before the program. After, unit cost was $83 per student. The school found that one of the hardest things for the teachers was to let go of their teacher-centric pedagogy and assume the role of coach to facilitate the students as they learned on their own.

Proof exists that introducing properly used technology into the classroom reduces the cost of providing a better education; the key to this is to have the conceptual "buy-in" by the teachers and (more importantly) have the teachers train to use the technology effectively.

TEACHING TEACHERS TO USE TECHNOLOGY TO ENHANCE COGNITIVE THINKING IN STUDENTS

Today’s students at any age are generally far ahead of their teachers in computer literacy. Some teachers are progressive enough to rise to the technological challenge. Most are not. The challenge in preparing our children to compete in the global marketplace lay with teachers becoming aware of how computers can be used to enhance the learning environment. So our first goal should be to effectively train educators in how to incorporate learning based technology into the context of their curriculum (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Computers are in most schools, the challenge is to transform them from a delivery tool (practice tests, tutorials) to true learning tools that assist students in problem solving, showing other contextual perspectives, and in aiding those students to work creatively and collaboratively. Teachers teach the way they were taught when they were in school. They personally know how to use a computer, but not how to integrate the technology into the context of their lesson plan. Teacher mindsets need to be changed through coordinated professional development programs for instructors (Dessoff, 2010).

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

When technology is integrated into the lesson plan, classroom practices tend to become student – centered. In order to transform these classrooms, teachers need to take professional development programs for technology, but not in a fashion where teachers leave with just take-away knowledge. They need a program that allows them to examine their beliefs on how they teach, how students learn, what they teach - all in light of the potential for digital learning. A teacher professional development program needs to be flexible enough to allow educators to custom craft their new paradigm to their specific classrooms, but also structured in a way that eliminates teacher isolation. Historically, due to cost and logistics constraints, teachers did not have opportunities to learn from each other. They developed their system of teaching in isolation, based on how they were taught in school. A professional development program for teachers needs to provide a scaffolding of fellow teachers, researchers, administrators, and technology specialists to not only group-design the professional development program, but also provide participants with ongoing collaborative support for years to come (Marx, Blumenfeld & Krajcik, 1998).

For readers to get an idea of how such a professional development plan should evolve, the National Staff Development Council (http://www.nsdc.org/standards/)produced a good guideline for teacher development programs (King, 2002). These guidelines serve as goals and standards qualifiers for a successful professional development program for teachers. These standards address the usual dimensions of context, content and process for staff development, but also emphasize face-to- face learning, problem solving, collaboration, self-directed research, among other facets for a successful program. In fact, the ingredients for a good teacher program development in technology also mirrors the same success factors for effective student learning programs.

I guess the lesson in that is to not change the formula if it works.

References:
Dessoff, A., (2010). Reaching digital natives on their own terms. District Administration, Retrieved June 9th, 2010, from: http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2380

Duncan, A. (2010) U. S. Department of Education. Keep teachers teaching, students learning, and our economy growing. Retrieved June 7, 2010 from http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/05/keep-teachers-teaching-students-learning-and-our-economy-growing/

King, K. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learning opportunities. Computers & Education, 39, 283-297.

Lewin, T. & Dillon, S. (2010, April 21) Districts warns of deeper teacher cuts. New York Times. Retrieved June,7, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/education/21teachers.html

Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Krajcik, J.S., (1998). New technologies for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 33-52.

Taylor, L.M., Casto, D. J., & Walls, R. T., (2004). Learning with versus without technology in elementary and secondary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 798-811.

U.S. Department of Education National Education Technology Plan (2004) Toward a new golden age in American education. Retrieved June 7th, 2010, from U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/index.html

Whitaker, G. (1998). Cost effective use of technology in teaching: challenges and opportunities. Futures Forum 1998 Papers. Retrieved June 9th, 2010, from http://net.educause.edu/apps/forum/ffp98w.asp

Witkowsky, K. (2008). Increasing learning and reducing costs through technology. Change March/April. Pp 33-37.

New Media Post

Professional Development Plan for New Adult ESL Teachers

Carol Cochi

CTGE 6265: Emerging Issues in Technology

Dr. Kathleen P. King

New Media Paper

June 11, 2010

The purpose of this professional development workshop is to provide opportunities for adult English as a second language (ESL) teachers, whether they are new to the field or seasoned professionals, to learn about current research in the field and how to translate it into classroom applications and practices. There is a need for adult ESL teachers to use research based practices with their students. Both the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Workforce Investment Acts stress the need for adult ESL teachers to use a combination of research based practices and professional experience in their classroom instruction (Smith, Harris, & Reder, 2005). However, there can be a gap between what the research says and how it translates into actual classroom applications (Kessels & Korthagen, 1996). This gap can mean the difference between effective and ineffective classroom practices.

For new teachers, bridging the gap between research and practice can be a confusing and difficult process that hinders instruction (Kessels & Korthagen, 1996). Knowing how to turn research into effective classroom practice is a skill to be taught, nurtured, and encouraged. According to Eisner (1984), research should serve as a framework for teachers to make decisions for classroom use but this is not always the norm. In his research, Eisner (1984) interviewed teachers and administrators who said that research is important to practice yet they were unable to cite examples of how they integrate research into practice. One reason for this gap may be the difference between influence in practice and informing practice. Research may enlighten (inform) teachers but does it compel them to act (influence) on this knowledge?

Baker (1984) responds to Eisner with a resounding yes; research does inform and influence practice but it needs some help. Research into practice is not a linear process because language does not always translate directly to practice; there is not always a direct link (Baker, 1984). Baker says that Eisner’s teachers’ and administrators’ inability to verbalize how research guides their classroom practice does not preclude that it does. What Baker (1984) sees as the biggest obstacle in overcoming the research into practice quandary is language. The language of research can be quite different from the language of practice. Baker’s support for this is that researchers “see engaged instructional time; teachers see children reading” (1984, p. 454). To the untrained eye this may seem a small variation in language, but it can impact how research is understood and used. It is important for research to find its way to teachers and to classroom practice in a timely manner (St. Clair, Chen, & Taylor, 2003). More exchanges between teachers and researchers (Alexander & Knight, 1993) would help to make that possible.

Adult ESL teachers want to see their students succeed; they want to see their students gain proficiency in English (Smith, Harris, & Reder, 2005), but they need help. By creating professional development workshops to address the classroom needs of adult ESL teachers, I hope to bridge the gap that exists between research and classroom practice. Most adult ESL teachers are employed part-time and not all of these teachers have state teacher certification, as standards for adult ESL teachers vary from state to state (McHugh, Gelatt, & Fix, 2007). McHugh, et al (2007), continue on to say this often means that adult ESL teachers receive low pay, no benefits, and little opportunity to take part in professional development workshops. As a result, these Professional Development Workshops will aid adult ESL teachers in staying up-to-date with current research and classroom applications. Although my personal style is to do whatever is needed to stay current and help my students succeed, including attending workshops and conferences at my own expense, not all educators feel this way (Schein, 2009).

The Team

The Professional Development team would consist of a variety of education professional who bring their professional expertise and individual experiences to the workshop. My professional development team consists of a teacher-researcher who brings a knowledge of classroom practices and experience along with some knowledge of research and theory and the language of both. A researcher-teacher brings a good knowledge of theory and research but also has some experience with classroom practices, with classroom needs, and with classroom language. Adult ESL teachers will serve to ground the team and provide real-life scenarios to use in molding the research into practical classroom applications. Classroom teachers can serve as the “reality-check” of learning styles, learner needs, and time constraints that accompany classroom applications. An administrator – whether a principal, program coordinator, or program director – will provide a real-life glimpse into the world of budget restraints, state standards, and physical plant restraints. They will also gain some insight into the classroom needs of their teachers and students.

The final component, and an important one, is the focus groups of students. Teachers attending the workshop would have a chance to practice what they learned with a group of mixed proficiency adult English language learners (ELLs). This could be considered a safe learning environment for the teachers to apply their new-found knowledge in a comfortable, supportive classroom setting. The purpose of the focus group is to provide positive feedback in the form of what worked and what did not work and, more importantly, why. The focus group reinforces the concept of teachers and students as partners in learning.

Philosophy

It is important for everyone on a professional development team to support the vision of translating research into classroom practice in order to facilitate learning with both adult ESL teachers and, ultimately, their students. Although the team members may come from culturally different backgrounds – research, administration, classrooms – they bring their individual knowledge and experience to the group as a whole. Their varied backgrounds will serve to enhance the richness and depth of the workshop and provide a well-rounded final product. As part of a team, it is important to have a knowledge, and understanding, of where each team member is coming from along with where they want to take the project. Sharing ideas and visions can add to the quality of the workshop by establishing an environment of openness, trust, and mutual respect. Part of being on a team is the give-and-take that comes with working together and learning from each other. Another aspect of the team philosophy to consider is the professional standards on which the workshop will be based. Since the TESOL standards are the most commonly used with ESL students and teachers, these will remain the standards of choice.

Resources

When offered in the form of podcasts, these workshops will be made available to teachers and administrations on an as-needed basis. Adult ESL teachers will be able to access the podcasts from work, from home, or from anywhere they can get an internet connection. They can be viewed any time of the day or night and as often as needed to understand the research and practices being presented. The technology and equipment needed to create the initial podcast workshops is available on-site. The team can apply for grant money to support, and ensure, the future of the project. Podcasts can also be viewed on-site with a group of teachers in attendance. This would allow teachers, and administrators, the luxury of sharing ideas and insights into what they learned and how they plan to use this knowledge in their classrooms.

Schedule of Implementation

The workshops will initially be available during the summer months. It is during this classroom “down-time” that adult ESL teachers will likely have the time to view the podcasts and reflect on their content and the implications for their classroom use. The summer months are also a time when adult ESL students may be available to participate in focus groups in order to provide feedback to the teachers when they practice what they learned in the workshop. This translates into a timeline of June through August for teachers to view the podcasts, integrate what they learn into their lessons, and make use of a focus group for feedback. September is reserved for the testing and placement of students into adult ESL classes and lesson preparation. Classes are usually in session from October through December. Teachers can use these months to integrate the research based classroom practices they learned, in the workshop, into their classrooms. The initial goal is for teachers to incorporate at least 50% of what they learned from the workshop into their actual classroom practices. The podcasts will be available for teachers who want to re-view them.

Evaluation Strategies

The assessment of teacher progress in incorporating the research based practices from the workshop will be included in the semi-annual faculty reviews which are conducted by the adult education principal. Since the podcasts will be available for anyone to view, the principal will have time to view the podcast before visiting the teacher’s classroom. Feedback from the focus groups will be used to provide teachers with useful information on how they have adapted their new-found knowledge into the classroom setting. Since the standardized test used for student placement and end of the year review is the TABE CLAS-E, this can also be used to gauge the effectiveness of the research based practices used within the classroom. Adult ESL classes are offered in daytime and evening sessions. As a result, teachers will be invited to observe the classroom practices of colleagues’ who viewed the podcasts in order to learn more about how they incorporate research based practices into their adult ESL classrooms. ESL courses are offered at 3 different levels: Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced. Teachers will be encouraged to observe a variety of proficiency level students in order to get an idea of how to use the research based practices with students of different levels of ability and different [English] language needs.

Conclusion

It is important for adult ESL teachers to be aware of current research and research based practices. However, some adult ESL teachers need help making the connection between research and classroom practices. Professional Development Workshops are one way to familiarize adult ESL teachers with current research and research based classroom practices. In offering professional development workshops, we aid teachers in staying in touch with current research, and we help them make connections between research and classroom practice. Offering the workshops in the form of podcasts allows for greater viewability. Teachers will be able to view the podcasts at their leisure and as often as needed to gain a better understanding of the research and how it can be used in their classroom and with their students. The materials needed to create the podcasts are accessible at minimal to no cost which makes them easy to make and to view. With a dedicated team and a desire to see our teachers stay on top of the latest research and classroom practices, these podcasts will help our adult ESL teachers to stay current with research and practice. The workshops provide yet another tool for adult ESL teachers to use in the goal of helping our students gain proficiency in English.

References

Alexander, P. A. & Knight, S. L. (1993). Dimensions of the interplay between learning and

teaching. The Educational Forum, 57(3), pp. 232-245.

Baker, E. L. (1984). Can educational research inform educational practice? Yes! The Phi Delta

Kappan, 65(7), pp. 453-455.

Eisner, E. W. (1984). Can educational reform inform educational practice? The Phi Delta

Kappan, 65(7), pp. 447-452.

Hilles, S. (1991). Adult education. In Marianne Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a

second or foreign language. (2^nd ed.). (pp. 402-415). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Kessels, J. P. A. M. & Korthagen, F. A. J. (1996). The relationship between theory and practice:

Back to the classics. Educational Researcher, 25(3), pp. 17-22.

McHugh, M., Gelatt, J., & Fix, M. (2007). Adult English language instruction in the United

States: Determining need and investing wisely. Migration Policy Institute. Washington,

DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved on July 23, 2009, from:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/NCIIP_English_Instruction073107.pdf

Schein, E. H. (2009). Organizational culture and leadership. Retrieved on 6/8/10, from:

http://www.themanager.org/Knowledgebase/HR/Corporate_Culture.htm

Smith, C., Harris, K., & Reder, S. (2005). Applying research findings to instruction for adult

English language students. CAELA Brief. Washington, DC: Center for Applied

Linguistics.

St. Clair, R., Chen, C. Y., & Taylor, L. (2003). How adult literacy practitioners use research. (Occasional

Research Paper No. 2) College Station, TX: Texas Center for the Advancement of Literacy and

Learning.

Building a Sustainable Education-Technology Culture in Schools and Institutions

Building a Sustainable Education-Technology Culture

in Schools and Institutions

The world has seen the advancement and possibilities that “modern” technology has provided human beings over the last twenty-thirty years; the popularity of the internet and the worldwide web in the 1990’s led to an increase of professional and home computer use and purchases throughout the United States, Western Europe and Japan (Whittaker, 2010). The use of technology and its relation to education is significant in terms of who uses the internet and the groups that are more comfortable in using it; about 90 percent of adults with a college education use the internet compared to only 22 percent of people without a high school diploma. The age of the user is also a factor; there are cases were grade school youths are more comfortable in using computers than their elder siblings (Whittaker, 2010).

In view of these facts, to insure that the majority of learners and educators are more comfortable and knowledgeable in the use of technology, there needs to be a continued focus on the sustainability of education-technology culture within schools or institutions.

The educator needs educational leadership and the support of a strong professional planning team to establish ed-technology in the schools; the team members usually consist of administrators, faculty developers from various departments/teachers from different subjects, parents active in school programs, and representatives from local businesses or consultants (King, 2002). In order for technology to create change in the teaching and learning process, there has to be a commitment by the administrators to allocate financial resources, provide time to for learning and application, and facilitate a collaborative curriculum development (King, 2002).

There have been large investments made by government for equipping schools with hardware and software, but the integration of computer technologies in the classroom still remain limited. The reason for this is that technology has often been introduced as an addition to an existing, unchanged classroom setting; to bring meaningful innovation to the teaching and learning process, changes are needed in content, organization and management of classroom activity- changes that cannot be accomplished by an educator operating alone (Bottino, Robotti, 2007).

The financial resources being distributed for professional development in educational technology helps in the acquiring of computers and software, however the purchase of equipment does not prepare teachers to use it. Through grants, local and federally funded programs, schools are able to provide faculty development in technology learning (King, 2002). In an article published in 2002, December 13, by Corey Murray, Benton: America’s $40 billion –plus ed-tech investment at risk; the Benton Foundation pointed out in a conference on December 11 that “America, over the past ten years, invested more than forty billion dollars to equip schools with computers and connect classrooms to the internet” (Murray, 2002). The issue, many schools were not using the “new infrastructure” to its potential. According to Norris Dickard, Benton Foundation director of public policy; “Schools need well-trained teachers and [high-] quality curricula that take advantage of the ed-tech investments” (Murray, 2002).

In King (2002), Keeping Pace With Technology: Educational Technology that Transforms, the author states that “Just learning how to use computer hardware and software does not mean that teachers immediately know how to best use technology for educational purposes in their specific teaching content”. According to Bottino, Robotti (2007):

It is pointless from a pedagogical point of view to have computers and educational digital media available in schools if their use is not properly embedded in suitably articulated educational itineraries

in which the whole learning context is taken into account, including the pedagogical and curriculum objectives, the tools and the way in which they are used, the teaching/learning paths, the different actors and their social relationships, etc. (Dias De Figueiredo & Afonso, 2006).

The teachers need training/support, the time to learn how to implement their new ed-tech skills toward developing curriculum for their class, and time to work together in collaborative teams in developing curriculum that build on pedagogical theory and practice (King, 2002). In addition, educators unfamiliar in applying technology towards education undergo 4 stages of the “Journey of Transformation”:

1. Fear and Uncertainty: This stage represents an adult learner who has little experience using technology and is at the beginning stages of learning the possibilities associated with using technology (King, 2002).

2. Testing and Exploration: The adult learner has more confidence exploring and testing the technology, it becomes more familiar to them and they no longer have the nurturing need (King, 2002).

3. Affirmation and Connecting: The learner realizes how technology can be used in the education field, they appreciate that they know more about technology (King, 2002).

4. New Perspective: The teacher makes new connections in combining technology and education. The teacher examines content areas to see if technology can benefit their curricular goals (King, 2002).

The program development/staff development committee is also essential for maintaining an ed-technology culture; if a program has not been designed and prepared properly for your institution, it runs the risk of “derailment” or failure at any point (King, 2002). The Adult Learning model for Faculty Development (Lawler & king, 2000) can guide developers through the stages of:

1. Preplanning: Understanding organizational culture, identify the role of the faculty developer, assessing needs, evaluating resources, and establishing goals.


2. Planning: Selecting a topic, identify a presenter, preparing for delivery, preparing for support and transfer of learning, scheduling event, and beginning the evaluation.

3. Delivery

4. Follow-up

In forming a staff development committee, taking into account the issues of context and needs, and working with a presenter (a person selected to meet the needs of educators, works collaboratively with committee, listens to collegial ideas in forming a program for a school/institution, and develops a professional development program) can lead to a successful ed-technology program in your school (King, 2002).

The technology that is available for educators and learners in the market today is phenomenal; there are always new developments of e-learning software applications, web-sites, and hardware equipment that will sustain the education-technology culture in our schools/institutions for years to come.

The expectation of increased use of mobile devices in higher education classrooms has led some developers to speculate that mobile devices will be an “embedded” tool for supporting student learning the same way a pencil, rulers or calculator does (Ogata, Saito, Paredes, San Martin, Yano, 2008). In a study that consisted of one hundred teachers in Palm-equipped classrooms; ninety-percent of the teachers reported handhelds were effective instructional tools with the potential to affect student learning positively across curricular topics and instructional activities (Rochelle, 2003). The handheld devices were used in coordination with a classroom response system to recall students’ answers; allow teachers to create tables, histograms, and graphs to track student performance; create simulation games for students in various subjects; and language learning applications are available to support second-language curricular (Ogata, Saito, Paredes, San Martin, Yano, 2008).

There is a program named ARI@ITALES, it uses a set of tools for building and implementing mathematics e-learning activities at primary and secondary school levels (grade two-eight). The tools created are: the text Editor, the Microworlds, the Solution Sheet, and the Player. These tools are designed to support the teacher in the preparation of digital content for personalized learning, and development of a new learning management system than educators can use to plan and build their own online courses (Bottino, Robotti, 2007).

Reference:

Bottino, R. M., Robotti, E., (2007). Transforming classroom teaching & learning through

technology: Analysis of a case study. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (4),

174-186. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/

Dias De Figueiredo, A., & Afonso, A.P. (2006). Managing learning in virtual settings:

the role of context, Hershey, PA, USA: Information Science Publishing.

King, K. P. (2002). Keeping pace with technology: Educational technology that

transforms. Vol. One: The challenge and promise for K-12 educators. Cresskill,

NJ: Hampton Press.

King, K. P. & Lawler, P. A. (Eds.). (2003, June). New perspectives on designing and implementing professional development for teachers of adults, New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education, No. 98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Murray, C., (2002, December 13). Benton: America’s $40 billion-plus ed-tech investment

at risk. eSchool News. Retrieved from

http://www.eschoolnews.com/2002/12/13/benton-americas-40-billion-plus-ed-tech-investment-at-risk/

Ogata, H., Saito, N. A., Paredes, J. R. G., San Martin, G. A., & Yano, Y., (2008).

Supporting Classroom Activities with the BSUL System. Educational Technology

& Society, 11 (1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/

Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices [keynote

paper]. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260–272.

Whittaker, R. (2010, March). Computers and The Internet. Cyber College /Internet

College. Retrieved from http://www.cybercollege.com/frtv/www1.htm