top of page
Gradient Background

Module 1: Introduction & Historical Perspectives

  1. A Brief History of Thinking about Technology in the Philosophy of Technology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 

​

Module 2: Can Technology Make Us Smarter?

  1. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (2005). Do technologies make us smarter? Intellectual amplification with, of, and through technology. In Intelligence And Technology: The Impact Of Tools On The Nature And Development of Human Abilities (pp. 71–86). This is an older article but it's a good, optimistic starting point for examining questions of technology and cognition.

  2. Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L. E., & Chein, J. M. (2017). Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 605.
    This is a more recent article and contains interesting links to other articles in both academic journals and the popular press on whether smartphones are having detrimental effect on cognitive functions and human behavior.

 

Module 3: Learning By, With, & Through Technology

  1. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.
    This is an influential and highly article from years back, one that has shaped years of discussion and research on  technology and cognition. Think about the notion that "partners in cognition" implies in the authors' arguments, and how that notion may have changed since the early 1990s.

  2. Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations.Teachers College Record, 100(2), 222–241.
    Another piece from Salomon, this one examining the mutualism between educational psychology and learning by and with technologies.

  3. How technology transforms human intelligence| Richard Yonck | TEDxSnoIsleLibraries
    Author and futurist Richard Yonck contemplates the greatest partnership of all time: humanity and technology. As he posits, "In the end, the merging of the two most powerful intelligences on this planet may one day allow us to seed the universe with those rarest and most precious of gifts: life, intelligence, and consciousness."

 

Select at least one from the following - the rest are optional but encouraged readings aspects of Creativity and Technology

  1. Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., & the Deep-Play Research Group. (2013). A NEW approach to defining and measuring creativity: Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st Century.TechTrends, 57(5), 10–13.
    Punya Mishra and Danah Henriksen put forward a model on assessing creative artifacts in the digital age - note, the word "new" in all caps!

  2. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.
    Mitch Resnick and company's highly influential article on the benefits and learning potential of Scratch programming in learning contexts.

  3. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education.Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.
    Halverson and Sheridan give an enthusiastic account of educational promise of making and makerspaces in education.

  4. Gilbert, J. (2017). Educational makerspaces: Disruptive, educative or neither? New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 14(2), 80–98.
    Jane Gilbert provides a counter-narrative to the makerspace movement, focused on how it's often implemented in education.

  5. Edwards-Groves, C. (2012). Interactive creative technologies: Changing learning practices and pedagogies in the writing classroom. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(1), 16.
    Christine Edwards-Groves investigates how the non-linearity of technologies and other features can transform the way we teach and learn.

​

Module 4: Technology & The Classroom, Part 1

  1. Hicks, S. D. (2011). Technology in today’s classroom: Are you a tech-savvy teacher? The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 188–191.
    Hicks examines the definitions of digital and technological fluency, with added perspectives on so-called "digital natives", i.e. students who have grown up with ubiquitous, technology-rich environments.
     

  2. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
    This is a highly cited article about the nature of technology integration in educational and learning environments that attempts to identify common barriers to and strategies for successful technology integration initiatives.
     

  3. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.
    Lawless and Pellegrino also tackle technology integration activities in yet another highly cited article from AERA's Review of Educational Research - this time, the focus is on teachers' professional development and the role it plays in technology adoption, integration, and use.
     

  4. Leahy, S. M., Holland, C., & Ward, F. (2019). The digital frontier: Envisioning future technologies impact on the classroom. Futures, 113, 102422.
    This is a fairly recent (2019) article that lists a number of emerging technological genres that may bring about massive transformations in our future educational and learning activities. This one is aimed at helping you think about learning, instruction, and potential technologies of tomorrow!

​

Module 5: Technology & The Classroom, Part 2

  1. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
    A classic article on teachers' knowledge growth and development, TPACK is one of the gold standards for framing and examining technology integration in relation to pedagogical-content knowledge.
     

  2. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575.
    Tondeur et al. take a qualitative approach to examining teachers' beliefs toward learning technologies, revealing underlying attitudes and dispositions that can be both barriers and benefits for technology integration in the classroom.
     

  3. Section 2 (pg. 28-40) in U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan update. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
    We're still waiting on the latest version of the NETP, but this update from 2017 charts an idealized vision of technology integration from the perspective of teacher education and practice. The entire document is worth reviewing but you'll want to spend some time on Section 2: Teaching. Along with useful information on tech integration strategies, this section also provides a helpful series of case exemplars that show a range of teacher connectedness with technologies in a variety of content areas.

​

Module 6: Technology & The Student

  1. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. 
    Ng asks a fundamental question about the interconnectedness of learning, cognition, and technology. In doing so, he helps define what we mean by 'digital literacy' in relation to learning and instruction.
     

  2. Edmunds, R., Thorpe, M., & Conole, G. (2012). Student attitudes towards and use of ICT in course study, work and social activity: A technology acceptance model approach: Exploring student perceptions of ICT in three contexts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 71–84.
    Edmunds and company use a very well known framework - the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) - to help explore student perceptions of technology use in three different life domains. Which do you think has the most influence on overall technology acceptance?
     

  3. Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 455–472.
    Lei makes the argument that the quality of how learning technologies are designed and deployed is more important than the ubiquity (quantity) of technologies in a learning context. What does this mean for efforts to integrate technologies in all facets of educational existence?

​

Module 7: The Tech & I

  1. eLearning Hype Curve: Our Predictions for 2021Links to an external site.
    This is an extended conversation among learning technology authors, practitioners, and pundits about future trends in the field. The interesting aspect to note is how these insights, predictions, and assessments are loosely organized around the Gartner Hype Cycle framework. There are several videos here featuring discussions on different technology trends - quality of the insights vary but it is worth listening to how these "experts" view the evolution of their field.
     

  2. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture Intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
    Ertemer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich investigate factors that affect personal to professional technology change in teachers' perceptions and use. Notice the extent to which personal beliefs and values about teaching with technology can affect overall technology integration. 
     

  3. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.
    Inan and Lowther use a sophisticated statistical method - path analysis - to determine the extent to which different factors influence technology integration in learning environments. You don't have to spend much time trying to understand in the ins and outs of path analysis - instead, please pay attention to the findings they present, including the influence teacher beliefs, technology proficiency, and technology readiness have on technology integration efforts. Of particular interest - the extent to which a classroom or school has access to technology is not necessarily a measure of its technology integration in learning and instruction (hmmm...).

​

© 2022 by Angelo Bummer

bottom of page