In his recently published book Is Technology Good For Education? Professor Neil Selwyn encourages us to think critically about the trend of a wide adoption of technology in education and to consider, in a dispassionate manner, the unintended consequences of digital education. He calls for more ‘grown-up debates to take place around the complexities and contradictions of technology and education’ (p.159) and challenges us to reflect on whether technology makes education more democratic, personalised, measurable and commercial.

EDUCATE is a London-based programme that supports the development of research-informed educational technology (EdTech), allowing entrepreneurs and start-ups to create their products and services, and simultaneously grow their companies in a more evidence-informed manner. The programme partners businesses with researchers who mentor, guide and support this research journey, a key aspect of which is the evaluation of the company’s EdTech product or service. However, conducting impact evaluations of technology in education is challenging, particularly for early stage technologies, as rapid cycles of innovation and change are part of their essence. Here, we present the pragmatic approach to evidence-informed education technology design and impact evaluation, as developed and adopted by the EDUCATE programme. The research process is shaped by the core principles of evidence-informed decision making detailed in the paper. The contributions of the paper are threefold. First, it defines and details an academia-industry-education collaboration model centred on a research training programme. Second, it presents emerging impact results of the programme. Third, it provides clear reflections on the challenges encountered during the implementation of the model in the EdTech ecosystem of London, which should be addressed if we are to move towards evidence-informed EdTech globally.

Discussions of technology and education often promise revolution, and freedom from the constraints of campuses and classrooms. There is less discussion of why such infrastructures were needed in the first place, or of the challenges facing learners when these are no longer available. In order to explore such critical alternatives, we can begin to ask different kinds of question. What is the cloud made of? What do learners work with, when they study? Where are they, and what places do they move between? From a sociomaterial perspective, such questions draw attention to the ways in which academic work is encoded, transmitted and stored; how the cloud, far from being nebulous, relies on undersea cables and server farms; and how learners try and coordinate all this as they take bus journeys, sit in class or meet with friends in the bar. These points will be illustrated with examples from a longitudinal study of University students’ uses of technology, in which they recorded and described how, where and when they studied. This analysis has implications for the design of e-learning, raising questions about whose responsibility it is to build the infrastructure that students need to learn, and introducing a note of caution to discussions about the transformational potential of technology.

Educational technologies occupy a significant and high profile position within higher education with some technologies widely used across the sector. However, although the use of new technologies is often encouraged through institutional policy, training and funding, there is significant variation in actual practices - especially with regards to teaching and learning. Research on teacher thinking suggests that this variation is related to university teachers‟ beliefs and knowledge about technology and learning. A mixed-methods approach was used to investigate university teachers‟ thinking about their use of technology. The first stage of data collection was a quantitative survey of 795 higher education teachers from a sample of 27 UK universities. This identified institutional and subject-related differences in teachers‟ perceptions of impact and use of particular technologies in their teaching. The second stage of data collection was a qualitative multi-site case study of eleven university teachers from three universities that identified their perceptions and beliefs about technology and the contexts in which they act. It investigated how these individuals formed and reinterpreted their beliefs about technology and how they made decisions about when and how to use (or not use) technology. The thesis shows how university teachers‟ thinking about technology is situated in the culture and contexts in which they live and work. It explores the relationships between pedagogic beliefs, beliefs about technology and teachers‟ perceptions of „control‟ over how they use technology. It identifies how some teachers used technology to communicate their personality and build relationships with students but, also, how some used technologies despite believing that these did not have a positive effect on student learning. It shows how, in making sense of their use of technology, academics draw on multiple sources including understandings of the impact of technology on culture and society, perceptions of higher education and their institution, their subject disciplinary background and their identity as teachers and academics.

This study investigated the value of technology education to elementary school students’ learning of technology concepts and processes as a result of technology education experiences. The research questions were (1) How do elementary school students learn technology concepts as a result of technology education experiences?, (2) How do elementary school students learn technology processes as a result of technology education experiences?, and (3) What are elementary school students’ beliefs and attitudes toward technology and technology activities? This study employed a qualitative research methodology. Evidence has been collected from several major sources for five months: participant observation; semi-structured interviews with students and teacher; and documents including students’ journals, notebooks, written works, and the teacher’s handouts. I presented the evidence through using inductive analysis and interpreted the evidence through the lens of the constructivist perspective. The findings revealed that technology education provided elementary school students with a constructivist learning context. Elementary school students were introduced to meaningful hands-on activities of technology education and encouraged to involve themselves in creative problem solving processes and social interactions. In addition, they conceptualized technology as making, invention, new things, and computers and perceived technology and technology activities as fun and exciting. This study has two major implications for educational practice and further study. First, classroom teachers’ efforts are needed to bridge the gap between elementary school classrooms and cognitive science throughout technology education activities. Second, continued examination of students’ learning of technology concepts and processes is needed in order to investigate the value of ESTE.

This study determined the level of computer use for instructional purposes by technology education teachers in Ohio public schools. The study also investigated the relationships between the level of use and selected factors: expertise; access; attitude; support; and teacher characteristics. This study derived its theoretical framework from Rogers’ (1995) model of diffusion of innovations. A survey-correlation research design was used. A questionnaire was developed and mailed to all technology education teachers (N = 1170) in Ohio public schools in the 2002–2003 school year. Validity and reliability were established for the survey instrument. The return rate of the survey was 66%. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques were used. The findings of this study indicated that technology education teachers have high levels of computer use in mainstream computer uses such as word processing, e-mail, Internet, and classroom management. Strong positive correlation existed between the level of computer use and teachers’ perceived expertise and teachers’ perceived attitude toward computers as tools. In addition, moderate positive correlation existed between the level of use and teachers’ perceived access to computers. Multiple regression analysis indicated a positive predictive value toward computer use with the demographic characteristics of instructional experience and modular instructional method, and a negative predictive value with age and urban geographic location. The independent variables that explain the greatest amount of variation in the level of computer use were in order of predictive value: teachers’ perceived expertise, attitude, and access. Technology education teachers have high levels of computer use in mainstream applications and low levels of computer use in specialized applications. These levels of use are slightly lower than the state levels. Those teachers that possess expertise are the ones who use the computer for instructional purposes. Positive attitudes toward computers as tools provide a starting point for adoption of computer use. To increase computer use, technology education teachers need to be given more training. In-service training needs to be a top priority. Pre-service programs should include more courses in using computers as tools for teaching and learning.

The widespread use of digital technology has had a remarkable effect on almost every domain of human life. Advanced digital technologies are used for communicating with friends and colleagues; engaging in social media; holding down jobs; paying bills; purchasing tickets for events; listening to music; watching films and making videos; and many other daily activities (Pegrum, 2011). This technological change has caused governments, educational departments, and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) to recognize the need to develop educational plans that would support the social and the cultural changes that have occurred with the ubiquitous permeation of digital technology into our everyday lives. The purpose of this research was to examine several socio-cultural aspects related to the integration of digital technology and education. Specifically, this study aimed to explore how teachers’ understanding of digital technology and the practices used in the classrooms advance or constrain democratic citizenship. This dissertation aimed to bridge theory and practice by developing a philosophical investigation through empirical research. The importance of utilizing empirical research in a philosophy follows Arcilla’s (2002) claim that one needs to reconsider how philosophy can become relevant to educators. Through employing critical, qualitative research methodology, this study provides a comparative examination of teachers’ understanding of digital technologies for education, as expressed by teachers in Israel and teachers in the United States. Conducting a comparative examination helped to reveal the meta-ideological aspects of utilizing digital technology in schools. The heart of this study dealt with the promise of digital technology to transform education in the age of globalization, under the neoliberal apparatus. The analysis chapters examine several assumptions regarding digital technology and education, through critical exploration of educational policies, interviews, and class observations. Drawing from Habermas’ (1981/ 1984; 1981/1987) theory, this study examined the tensions between the promise to transform education through technology and the tendency to utilize digital technology in instrumental and technical ways. The study concludes with the proposal of a theoretical framework for developing digital citizenship.

In this inquiry it is argued that examining teacher issues and needs is profoundly important in understanding the successes and failures in the process of integrating technology into education. Given this argument, the study sought to understand those issues and needs by exploring the implementation process of four teacher educators involved in an implementation grant whose goals were to integrate technology into teacher education programs. This qualitative study (1) described the issues and needs of four teacher educators; (2) examined the processes in which the teacher educators engaged to transform their pedagogy; (3) analyzed what impeded or encouraged a beneficial transformation of pedagogy; and (4) reflected critically upon my role as a researcher-technologist-graduate student in this process. Based upon participant observation, unstructured interviews, weekly group meetings, material culture, and a researcher log, it was seen that the teacher educators implemented a variety of technological processes. Such processes were faculty development, technology exploration in the classroom, asynchronous communication, and on-line courseware. The inquiry found that the teacher educators experienced issues and needs that directly affected the success or failure of their technology attempts. Such issues were time, relevance, centrality, community, and money. It was also asserted that the researcher was often conflicted in her role as a researcher, a graduate student, and an educator. These roles often contradicted each other and affected the manner in which interaction among participants occurred. Further, it was hypothesized that the technological goals for the researcher often varied from those of the teacher educators, and it was asserted that understanding the teachers’ goals, objectives, and philosophical beliefs are essential to a technologist – teacher relationship. Conclusions drawn in this study regarding the teachers’ evolution of technology integration were slightly different from previous findings for K-12 educators. Other findings discuss lessons learned and recommendations for similar technological attempts in teacher education programs. A main conclusion of this study was that understanding the needs and issues of teachers is essential in the success of technology integration in education.

This study examined student's perceptions of different forms of technology use for instruction purposes by faculty and whether these different forms of technology can predict instructional quality. The study sought to explore whether different forms of technology: Productivity Tools, Presentation Tools, Communication Tools, and World Wide Web Tools, reliably predict instructional quality. The study also aimed at examining which of the predictors is more important in predicting instructional quality. Data were collected with an online questionnaire comprising three parts. Part I of the instrument collected demographic information. Part II was designed to measure faculty instructional quality as perceived by students. Part III of the instrument relates to the various forms of technology and the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education (Chickering and Gamson, 1991). A large Midwestern University Teacher Education program was the accessible population from which a convenient sample was drawn. A total of 121 responses were used in the analysis. The response rate of the study was 56.6%. Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. Results of the analysis revealed that approximately 57% of the variance of the student evaluation of Instructional Quality can be accounted for by the linear combination of Productivity Tools, Presentation Tools, Communication Tools, and World Wide Web Tools. The analysis indicated that only two of the independent variables, Productivity Tools and Presentation Tools contributed significantly to the regression. Findings from the supplementary multiple regression analysis of the independent variables: Faculty encourages student and faculty interaction scale - S1, Faculty promotes cooperation among students scale - S2, Faculty promotes active learning techniques scale - S3, Faculty gives prompt feedback scale S4, Faculty emphasizes time on task scale - S5, Faculty communicates high expectations scale - S6 and Faculty respects diverse talents and ways of learning scale - S7 was statistically significant in predicting Instructional Quality. Thirty seven percent of the variance of the student evaluation of Instructional Quality can be accounted for by the linear combination of; S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 and S7 scale. Findings from the null hypothesis and the supplementary analysis converge to indicate combination of Productivity Tools, Presentation Tools, Communication Tools, and World Wide Web Tools can predict Instructional Quality. Among the predictors Presentation Tool emerged as the most important predictor of Instructional Quality. The combination of the independent variables S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 and S7 was statistically significant in predicting Instructional Quality.

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

Individual access to mobile devices has increased dramatically in recent years, and faculty and students are beginning to use smartphones and tablets to support teaching and learning. This correlational study surveys faculty and students at a private, liberal arts university to better understand perceptions about the devices for use in an academic setting. Student and faculty responses are compared using adopter categories and innovation attributes developed by Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations. Two survey instruments were developed for this study. The Faculty Smartphone and Tablet Diffusion of Innovations (FSTDIS) and Student Smartphone and Tablet Diffusion of Innovations (SSTDIS) were created based on a previous survey aimed at faculty adoption of a course management system. The surveys were sent to approximately 250 faculty members and between 1,700 and 1,900 students. Results from the surveys were used to address four research questions comparing faculty and students, as well as perceptions of the value of smartphones and tablets in higher education. Findings from this study can be used by university administrators to increase the adoption of mobile devices for academic purposes. Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of theory provides a framework for technology adoption in organizations.

Research suggests that computer self-efficacy, professional development, and years of teaching experience are critical factors that influence teachers' integration of educational technology in their classrooms. Results of a pilot study conducted by the researcher suggested a strong relationship between the degree of self-confidence teachers demonstrated toward technology and its use in their classrooms. This study builds upon previous research to focus on the relationships among computer self-efficacy and the technology integration perceptions of high school mathematics and science teachers in a Midwestern metropolitan area. This exploratory study selected this particular population to examine factors that may inhibit or encourage technology integration among secondary teachers. These factors were self-efficacy beliefs, professional development, and teaching experience. Data were collected from teachers who volunteered to participate in the study through surveys, semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and teaching materials. The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively to determine whether relationships existed among the factors under consideration, as well as to detect other patterns that emerged. A moderate, statistically significant correlation was found to exist between perceptions of computer self-efficacy and technology integration among the participants, a finding that was supported by qualitative analysis. The results can inform future research, as well as professional development, continuing education, technology training, and teacher education programs.