Advertisement

The Interaction of Psychological Constructs with Information Technology-Enhanced Teaching and Learning

  • Yaacov J. KatzEmail author
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

Information Technology (IT) has developed into an effective teaching media available to educators. Research evidence clearly indicates that the effective use of IT-based tools by teachers leads to the enhancement of elementary and secondary school students’ learning achievement and all-round educational performance.

However, effective utilization of IT-based tools by teachers for the benefit of their students is almost totally dependent on the existence of relevant constructs in teachers’ and students’ affective arsenals. Constructs that characterize teachers such as teacher change, teacher knowledge, and pedagogical beliefs as well as affective constructs that typify both teachers and students such as autonomy, creativity, flexibility, motivation, satisfaction, and self-efficacy (that includes technological self-confidence) are vital tools in the repertoire of teachers and students needed to maximize the positive effect of IT-based tools in the classroom.

Educational administrators need to formulate pre-service as well in-service teacher training programs that include the enhancement of those constructs needed to successfully mediate the efficient use of IT-based tools that will conceivably lead to the promotion of student achievement and all-round performance in the educational process.

Keywords

IT enhanced teaching IT enhanced learning Psychological constructs of teachers Psychological constructs of learners 

References

  1. Abdallah, S. (2009). Learning with online activities: What do students think about their experience? International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 4(2), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, I. M., & Olivera-Smith, M. (2013). Learning in social networks: Rationale and ideas for its implementation in higher education. Education Sciences, 3(3), 314–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, S. E., & Maninger, R. M. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ abilities, beliefs, and intentions regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appelberg, L. (1997). Communication-learning-information technology applied examples. In D. Passey & B. Samways (Eds.), Information technology: Supporting change through teacher education (pp. 216–221). London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aydin, E. (2005). The use of computers in mathematics education: A paradigm shift from “computer assisted instruction” towards “student programming”. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 27–34.Google Scholar
  6. Azuma, R., Billinghurst, M., & Klinker, G. (2011). Special section on mobile augmented reality. Computers & Graphics, 35(4), vii–viii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133–149.Google Scholar
  8. Baran, M., & Maskan, A. (2013). Examining the influence of technology and project-supported thinking journey on achievement. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 122–130.Google Scholar
  9. Bryant, S. M., & Hunton, J. E. (2000). The use of technology in the delivery of instruction: Implications for accounting educators and education researchers. Issues in Accounting Education, 15(1), 129–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandra, V., & Watters, J. J. (2012). Re-thinking physics teaching with web-based learning. Computers and Education, 58(1), 631–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2007). Students’ perceptions on effective dimensions of interactive learning in a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 133–146.Google Scholar
  12. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers and Education, 51(1), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dreyfus, A., Feinstein, B., & Talmon, J. (1997). The electronic spreadsheet and cognitive skills in inquiry oriented biology. In D. Passey & B. Samways (Eds.), Information technology: Supporting change through teacher education (pp. 278–284). London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goyal, E., Purohit, S., & Bhaga, M. (2011). Study of satisfaction and usability of the internet on student’s performance. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 7(1), 110–119.Google Scholar
  16. Granic, A., Cukusic, M., & Walker, R. (2009). m-Learning in a Europe-wide network of schools. Educational Media International, 46(3), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2015). We teach who we are: Creativity in the lives and practices of accomplished teachers. Teachers College Record, 117(7), 1–46.Google Scholar
  18. Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st century education: A systemic view for change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 27–37.Google Scholar
  19. Himsworth, J. B. (2007). Why resistance? Elementary teachers’ use of technology in the classroom. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/304863569?accountid=14483.
  20. Hosseini, A. S. (2014). The effect of creativity model for creativity development in teachers. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(2), 138–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hsu, P. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology integration: A case study. TechTrends, 60(1), 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ituma, A. (2011). An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in a campus based university. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jarvis, T., Pell, A., & Hingley, P. (2011). Variations in primary teachers’ responses and development during three major science in-service programmes. CEPS Journal: Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(1), 67–92.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, G. M. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends, 50(4), 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kapuler, D. (2011). Top 20 social networks for education. Technology & Learning, 32(3), 32. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/900449930?accountid=14483.
  26. Katz, Y. J. (2014a). The historical relationship between affective variables and ICT based learning and instruction and achievement in the Israeli school system. In A. Tatnall & W. Davey (Eds.), Reflections on the history of computers in education: Early use of computers and teaching about computing in schools (pp. 324–338). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Katz, Y. J. (2014b). Mobile learning delivery via social networks: What platforms do first-year university students prefer? In A. M. Teixeira & A. Szucs (Eds.), Challenges for research into open and distance learning: Doing things better – Doing better things – Proceedings of EDEN 2014 (pp. 249–256). Budapest: European Distance Education Network.Google Scholar
  28. Kaufman, D., & Ireland, A. (2016). Enhancing teacher education with simulations. TechTrends, 60(3), 260–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuiper, E., & de Pater-Sneep, M. (2014). Student perceptions of drill-and-practice mathematics software in primary education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(2), 215–236.Google Scholar
  30. Kumar, P., & Kumar, A. (2003). Effect of a web-based project on pre-service and in-service teachers’ attitude toward computers and their technology skills. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(3), 87–91.Google Scholar
  31. Lúcia, B. B., & Rubens, N. M. (2004). Learning theory and instructional design using learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 343–370.Google Scholar
  32. Malik, K. (2009). Changing profile of teachers in the digital age. I-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 5(4), 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayer, G., Lingle, J., & Usselman, M. (2017). Experiences of advanced high school students in synchronous online recitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 15–26.Google Scholar
  34. Peterson, R. E., & Harrison, H. L., III. (2005). The created environment: An assessment tool for technology education teachers. The Technology Teacher, 64(6), 7–10.Google Scholar
  35. Psotka, J. (2013). Educational games and virtual reality as disruptive technologies. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 69–80.Google Scholar
  36. Ravitz, J., & Becker, H. J. (2000). Evidence for computer use being related to more constructivist practices and to changes in practice in a more constructivist-compatible direction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  37. Riel, M., & Becker, H. J. (2008). Characteristics of teacher leaders for information and communication technology. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 397–417). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rui-Ting, H., Chia-Hua, H., Tang, T. W., & Tsung-Cheng, L. (2014). Exploring the moderating role of perceived flexibility advantages in mobile learning continuance intention (MLCI). International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(3), 140–156.Google Scholar
  39. Sahin, I., & Mack, S. (2008). Considering students’ perceptions: The distance education student satisfaction model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 216–223.Google Scholar
  40. Salomon, G. (1996). Technology based learning environments: A conceptual framework. In Z. Mevarech & N. Hativa (Eds.), The computer in school (pp. 17–38). Tel-Aviv: Schocken Publishing House. (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  41. Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128, 969–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Small, F., Dowell, D. J., & Simmons, P. (2012). Teacher communication preferred over peer interaction: Student satisfaction with different tools in a virtual learning environment. Journal of International Education in Business, 5(2), 114–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tiala, S. (2007). Integrating virtual reality into technology education labs. The Technology Teacher, 66(4), 9–13.Google Scholar
  44. Tijdens, K., & Steijn, B. (2005). The determinants of ICT competencies among employees. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20(1), 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tsai, C. C. (2004). Beyond cognitive and metacognitive tools: The use of Internet as an “epistemological” tool for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tsai, I.-C. (2012). Understanding social nature of an online community of practice for learning to teach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 271–285.Google Scholar
  47. van Rooij, S. W. (2009). Adopting open-source software applications in U.S. higher education: A cross-disciplinary review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 682–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Varol, F. (2013). Elementary school teachers and teaching with technology. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(3), 85–90.Google Scholar
  49. Wang, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Hwang, F. K., Chang, H. Y., Wu, Y. T., Chiou, G. L., Chen, S., Liang, J. C., Lin, J. W., Lo, H. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). A review of research on technology-assisted school science laboratories. Educational Technology and Society, 17(2), 307–320.Google Scholar
  50. Watson, G. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 151–165.Google Scholar
  51. Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 235–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yaprak, K. V. (2014). The relationship between attitudes of prospective physical education teachers towards education technologies and computer self-efficacy beliefs. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 157–167.Google Scholar
  53. Ying-Shao, H., Hsin-Kai, W., & Fu-Kwun, H. (2007). Factors influencing junior high school teachers’ computer-based instructional practices regarding their instructional evolution stages. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 118–130.Google Scholar
  54. Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  55. Zinchenko, Y. P., Chernorizov, A. M., GYa, M., Bayakovsky, Y. M., & Voiskounsky, A. E. (2010). Technologies of virtual reality in the context of worldwide and Russian psychology: Methodology, comparison with traditional methods, achievements and perspectives. Psychology in Russia, 3(12), 11–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education, Bar-Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  2. 2.Michlala – Jerusalem Academic CollegeJerusalemIsrael

Section editors and affiliations

  • Gerald Knezek
    • 1
  • Rhonda Christensen
    • 2
  1. 1.University of North TexasDentonUSA
  2. 2.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations