Strategies for Integrating Emerging Technologies: Case Study of an Online Educational Technology Master’s Program

Abstract

Emerging technologies do not necessarily facilitate or advance learning processes; teaching strategies that are used in the learning process, integration and incorporation methods do. In online instruction, research shows that “effective distance education depends on the provision of pedagogical excellence” (Bernard et al., 2004, p.413). From this perspective, a case study was conducted as a means of preliminary evaluation in a graduate program so that the effectiveness of emerging technologies and their impact on student learning could be understood. The article starts with a description of a case where emerging technologies are integrated throughout the curriculum of an online educational technology master’s program. It then discusses concerns related to the integration practices and whether these practices are in line with the foundational pillars of educational technology as described by Spector (2012). Finally, a set of suggestions are proposed for those graduate programs incorporating emerging technologies in online learning on a regular basis. The analysis of this case study would benefit others in two major ways. First, faculty members can conceptualize emerging technology integration using a recent framework. Second, such a conceptualization would set the stage for deeper analysis of learning effectiveness and program evaluation.

Keywords

• Technology integration, Emerging technologies, Online master’s programs, Program evaluation, Learning effectiveness.

References

1. Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States 2011. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf .Babson Survey and Research Group.
2. Bernard, R. B., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E. Wade, A., Wozney, L. et.al. (2004). How does distance education compare to classroom instruction: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-434. DOI: 10.3102/00346543074003379.
3. Berge, Z. L. (2008, May-June). Multi-user virtual environments for education and training? A critical review of Second Life. Educational Technology, XLVIII(3), 27-31.
4. Chapman, D. (2006, Spring). Building an evaluation plan for fully online degree programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9 (1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/ ~distance/ojdla/spring91/chapman91.htm
5. Contijosh-Escontria, Burns & Candlin (2012). Feedback in the mediation of learning in online language teacher education. In Online Language Teacher Education: TESOL perspectives. England, L. (Ed.) New York: Routledge.
6. Clair, S. S. & Baker, N. C. (2013, April). Faculty use and impressions of courseware management tools; A National survey. Journal of Engineering Education. 92 (2). 123-131.
7. Czerkawski, B. (2011) Digital games: Are they the future of E-Learning? In Wang, H. (Ed) Interactivity in e-learning: Cases and frameworks. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
8. Dede, C. (1996). Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4-36.

9. Delich, P., Kelly, K. & McIntosh, D. (2008). Emerging technologies in e-learning. In S. Hirtz & D. G. Harper (Eds.), Education for a digital world: Advice, guidelines and effective practice from around the globe (pp. 5-22). Vancouver, British Columbia: BCcampus and Commonwealth of Learning.
10. Espasa, A. & Barbera, E. (2011). Regulative feedback in an online environment in higher education: Students’ perceptions and design collaborations. M. E. Paulsen (Ed.) Higher education: Teaching, internationalization and student issues (pp.177-194). New York: Nova Science.
11. Hanson, P. & Robson, R. (2003). An evaluation framework for course management technology.
12. EDUCAUSE Centre for Applied Research, 14, 2-10.
13. Katz, R. N. (2006, December). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Educause Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://my.hamilton.edu/ college/institutional_research/ECAR%202006%20exec%20summary.pdf.
14. Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G. & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and Promise. Journal of Science Education Technology, 17, 560-565). DOI 10.1007/s10956-008-9123-5.
15. Kelly, G. (2008). A collaborative process for evaluating new educational technologies. Campus- wide Information Systems. 25(2), 105-113.
16. Lesgold, A. (2003). Detecting technology’s effects in complex school environments. In G. D. Haertel & B. Means (Eds.), Evaluating educational technology: Effective research designs for improving learning. (pp.38-74). New York: Teachers College Press.
17. Millea, J., Green, I. & Putland, G. (2005, August). Emerging technologies: A framework for thinking. Australian Capital Territory Department of Education and Training. Retrieved from http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/74485/ACT_EmTech_Report_v1_2. pdf.
18. Park, S., Lim, J., McBride, R., McFerrin, K. & Kim, K. (2007). Designing effective on-line learning environments using emerging educational technologies. In R. Carlsen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 464-471). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
19. Ritchie, D. (1996). The administrative role in the integration of technology. NASSPBulletin, 80(582), 42-52.
20. Ross, J. D., McGraw, T. M. & Burdette, K. J. (2001). Toward an effective use of technology in education: A summary of research. ED 462 963.
21. Siemens, G. & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging technologies for learning. Retrieved from: http://elearnspace.org/Articles/HETL.pdf.
22. Singh, N. (2012, June). Integrating technology in 21st century classrooms. Paths towards envisioning the future. Techno LEARN, 2(1): 19-28.
23. Snoeyink R, Ertmer P (2001) Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 30(1), 85-111. DOI:10.2190/YDL7-XH09-RLJ6-MTP1.
24. Spector, M. J. (2012). Foundations of educational technology: Integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Routledge.
25. Stokke, P.R. (2004). New and emerging technologies: Challenges and opportunities for learning and knowledge management in corporate- and higher education. In J. Nall & R. Robson (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2004 (pp. 975-980). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
26. Wieling, M. B. & Hofman, W. H. A. (2010) The impact of online video lecture recordings and automated feedback on student performance. Computers & Education. 54(4), 992-998.
27. Veletsianos, G. (2007). Cognitive and Affective Benefits of an Animated Pedagogical Agent: Considering Contextual Relevance and Aesthetics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36 (4), 373-377.
28. Veletsianos, G. (2010). A definition of emerging technologies for education. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Press.
29. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30. Correspondence: Betul C. Czerkawski, Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, Educational
31. Technology Program, The University of Arizona South, Tucson, Arizona, 85747, United States