Mcgrail,+Ewa.+Laptop+Technology+and+Pedagogy

=Mcgrail, Ewa. “Laptop Technology and Pedagogy in the English Language Arts Classroom”= //Journal of Technology and Teacher Education//, v.15 no. 1 (2007): p. 59-85

=Abstract= The English Language Arts teachers in this qualitative study reported somewhat negative outcomes in social and material spaces in the context of laptop technology in their classrooms. These outcomes included: (a) social isolation, (b) limited communication with a teacher or peers, and (c) off-task behavior. In an attempt to uncover the reasons for these rather negative results, the researcher analyzed these teachers' classroom environments and instructional engagements with laptop technology, since these practices are believed to be reflective of these teachers' current beliefs about instruction and technology's role in it. Some of the reasons the researcher uncovered were: (a) limited physical space, (b) cumbersome furniture, (c) poor technology infrastructure, and (d) the largely instrumental use of technology in numerous learning engagements. The study suggests that school administrators and policy makers develop a strategic plan to address physical constraints in each laptop classroom and adopt "a different mindset" about teacher professional development, which would compel them to put more emphasis than they currently do on pedagogy before technology, rather than technology before pedagogy, to help these teachers constructively re-envision both material and social spaces around laptop technology in their classrooms. Meeks (2004) referred to pedagogy as, "the ways in which an instructor designs the material and social spaces that she, her students, and their tools inhabit as they accomplish a curriculum" (p. 1). Although many literacy educators and researchers have argued that literacy pedagogy is inextricably linked with modern technology (i.e., computer technology, telecommunications, and the Internet), and urged teachers to use it in their instruction (Bruce & Levin, 2003), research has consistently shown that many English language arts (ELA) teachers have not yet integrated technology in a meaningful way to support their curricular goals. A recent qualitative study in several high schools in the San Francisco Bay Area by Peck, Cuban, and Kirkpatrick (2002) found that many ELA teachers were still using a great many traditional technologies in instruction, such as overhead projectors and VCRs, to "support, rather than alter, their existing teacher-centered practices such as teacher-led lectures" (p. 10) and textbook-based discussions. Although this situation is complex and thus, certainly, reveals no single explanation of its origin, initial exploration into this complex problem in relevant literature has led the author of this article to identify two possible causes. One is grounded in administrative decisions, both on national and local levels, and the other is situated in conceptual thinking within the English discipline itself. Both reasons need, however, to be seen as interrelated. On an administrative level, English teachers have not been provided with sufficient and meaningful preparation about pedagogy for technology integration into their specific content area (Cuban, 2001). As McKenzie (2004) convincingly argued, state administrators and government officials have pushed computers and peripheral equipment into teachers' classrooms without engaging them first in sustained conversations about the worthy uses of technology for their specific subject matter. To use his words, politicians and administrators have "put carts before horses," technology before "sound pedagogy and learning" (p. 2). In practice, this has meant that teachers frequently were provided with professional development that focused more on technology training, that is, the mechanics of a particular hardware or software, rather than on pedagogy-based technology preparation (Diaz & Bontenbal, 2000). The latter technology preparation would focus on how to teach language arts with technology. On a conceptual level, English teachers have had a hard time implementing technology into their practice because of a narrow conception of technology use in the English discipline that has prevailed among the ELA community for many years (Bruce & Levin, 2003). In this narrow conception, computer technology has often been seen as a device for drill practice on basic skills or merely as a means for word processing, rather than as a literacy of its own. The ELA community has not always seen technology as "a literacy learning tool" (Pope & Golub, 2000) and, thus, they have resisted acknowledging it as an integral part of the English curriculum. If they had, it would have allowed them to engage students in conversations about modern technologies' impact upon what is at the heart of their subject matter--language, text, communication, literacy, and literacy practices (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004). As a result of this narrowness of vision, many English teachers have more typically resorted to merely instrumental technology uses in their classroom practices (Peck et al., 2002). Research has also revealed a strong connection between the instrumental use of technology and traditional conceptions of pedagogy and theories of learning that still prevail within the teacher community. Becker (2001), in a Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey of over 4,000 teachers, grades 4-12, found that teachers with constructivist backgrounds across all content areas, including English teachers, tended to use computer technology more for higher-order thinking and learning than did teachers with traditional transmission-oriented pedagogies. The latter teachers frequently resorted to instrumental technology uses, for low-order ways of learning in their instructional engagements with technology. Complementary to the notions of a narrow construction of technology and the instrumental use of technology in some teachers' practice has been the idea of "division of labor" (Hass & Neuwirth, 1994) among many ELA teachers, who often argue that "the study of English is our job; the study of computers is the work of others" (p. 325). Contrary to this belief, Bowman (2004) contended that work of English teachers is not actually to "teach technology"(p. 2), but rather to teach English content and use technology in meaningful ways to help them accomplish this job. Without an expanded conception of technology, however, English teachers are likely to continue to use technology for instrumental purposes, as a tool to "learn from" (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Marra, 2003), or even worse in some cases, as a tool for "behavior modification" (Bowman, 2004). For example, technology might be used to rewarding students who complete the "real work," supposedly English language arts work (p. 2), rather than as a tool to "learn with," where technologies and learning environments "function as intellectual partners with the learner in order to engage and facilitate critical thinking and higher-order learning" (Jonassen et al., 2003, p. 9). Understandably, instrumental and behavior modification technology uses disservice both the student, who cannot take advantage of the technology's potential to enrich his/her learning experiences, and the English teacher, since he/she is unable to utilize technology's potential to help him/her accomplish higher English language arts curriculum goals.

=Argument= The study suggests that reasons that laptop classrooms do not succeed is not because of the technology itself, but rather the instructor. The laptop classroom English teacher needs to change the way the approach the situation, putting emphasis on pedagogy first, and technology second. Without this restructuring, the laptop classroom will fail. The laptop English classroom must take many things in to consideration such as how will it affect the way one teaches, will one support it and how would one do so?

=Key Passages= “... introduce and infuse technology in context; focus on the importance of technology as a literacy tool; model English language arts learning and teaching while infusing technology; evaluate critically when and how to use technology in the English language arts classroom; provide a wide range of opportunities to use technology; examine and determine ways of analyzing, evaluating, and grading English language arts technology projects; and emphasize issues of equity and diversity. (p. 2)” “Within such a highly structured instructional engagement, there really was not much room left for students' ownership of the project, and consequently, a need for collaborative goals setup and negotiation around these goals, even though Joan asked students to form small groups for the purposes of this assignment. For the most part, to complete these projects, the students did what the teacher told them to do. To allow her students to take ownership and authorship for these assignments, Joan would have had to ask them to make collaborative choices both as to the project content and format, and, eventually, as to the selection of the technology tool, as appropriate for this content. This is because choice, voice, and shared authority are essential elements in most definitions of ownership (Rainer & Matthews, 2002).” “as she reminded her students to make the presentation "a good teaching tool for the student." She also insisted that her students made wise choices as to the technology tool, to serve well their intended meanings. As such, she encouraged her students to look at technology from the content rather than purely technical perspective.”

=Selected Works Cited= Becker, H.J. (2001, April). //How are teachers using computers in instruction.// Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Shakespeare, W. (1997). //Macbeth// (A. R. Braunmuller, Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wallace, R.M. (2004)//. A framework for understanding teaching with the Internet//. //American Educational Research Journal//, 41(2), 447-488.

Wiesel, E. (1961). //Nigh//t (Stella Rodway, Trans.). New York: Hill & Wang.