Teacher Adoption of Technology: A Perceptual Control Theory Perspective
Teacher Adoption of Technology: A Perceptual Control Theory Perspective
复制标题
教师对技术的采用：感知控制理论的视角
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Cziko
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yong Zhao;G. Cziko
在试图将技术融入教育的过程中，存在着一种具有讽刺意味且代价高昂的矛盾。虽然技术给教育带来好处的证据比比皆是，对硬件和软件的投资也大幅增加，但在教学中经常使用技术的教师相对较少，计算机对现有课程的影响仍然非常有限。这种矛盾的背后是什么？为什么教师不更广泛地使用教学技术？在这篇文章中，我们介绍了一种新的目标导向行为模型，感知控制理论（PCT），作为理解教师采用技术的框架。与其他通过研究外部环境来研究这一问题的方法不同，这个新的框架试图从内部理解教师对技术的采用。它通过检查教师的目标以及技术的使用如何帮助或阻碍他们的目标来考虑教师对技术的使用。虽然现在提供系统的研究结果来表明PCT的应用的有用性还为时过早，但我们在这里使用它来解释和综合一些关于教师和技术的研究结果。我们还提出了来自这个模型的技术注入到学校的建议。总结一下主要的主题，为了理解教师为什么使用技术，为什么不使用技术，我们必须把教师看作是目标导向的、有目的的有机体。PCT为理解技术注入提供了一个全面的模型。从PCT的角度来看，教师使用技术必须具备三个条件：1。教师必须相信，技术可以更有效地满足一个更高层次的目标比什么已经使用。2.教师必须相信，使用技术不会对其他更高层次的目标造成干扰，他或她认为这些目标比正在维护的目标更重要。3.教师必须相信他或她有或将有足够的能力和资源来使用技术。在试图将技术融入教育的过程中，存在着一种具有讽刺意味且代价高昂的矛盾。虽然技术的教育效益的证据比比皆是（Bialo和Sivin-Kachala，1995; Education Week，1997;弗莱彻，Hawley，& Piele，1990; Garner和吉灵厄姆，1996; Kulik和Kulik，1991; McKinsey Inc.，一九九六年; Means，1994年; Office of Technology Assessment，1982，1995; Wenglinsky，1998）），硬件和软件方面的投资也大幅增加（Mageau，1991; Heaviside，Riggins，& Farris，1997），相对较少的教师在教学中经常使用技术（McKinsey，1996年; OTA，1995年），计算机对现有课程的影响仍然非常有限（大卫，1994年;教育周，1997年;哈珀，1987年; OTA，1995年）。这种矛盾的背后是什么？为什么教师不更广泛地使用教学技术？有趣的是，尽管人们普遍认识到技术利用不足，教师在有效利用技术方面发挥着核心作用，（古巴，1986年;教育周，1997年;哈珀，1987年;卢克、摩尔和索耶，1998年;麦肯锡，1996年; OTA，1995年; Wenglinsky，1998年），“关于美国教师如何以及为什么使用技术的研究相对较少”（OTA，1995年，第51页）。关于教师为什么不使用技术的研究更少。大多数关于教育技术的研究都集中在技术对学习者的影响上。对教师进行的少数研究通常集中在一个特殊的子集，成功的“有成就的”技术用户（Sheingold和Hadley，1993），而不是大多数，那些不使用技术的人。尽管缺乏实证研究，但关于教师为什么不使用技术的一系列假设确实存在，目前正在作为许多努力的理论基础，帮助教师将技术与教学相结合（Charp，1995; Lauro，1995; Persky，1990; Sammons，1995; Strudler，1994）。…
There is an ironic and costly contradiction in the attempt to integrate technology into education. While evidence of the educational benefits of technology abounds and investment in hardware and software has dramatically increased, relatively few teachers use technology regularly in their teaching and the impact of computers on existing curricula is still very limited. What lies behind this contradiction? Why don't teachers make wider use of instructional technologies? In this article we introduce a novel model of goal-oriented behavior, Perceptual Control Theory (PCT), as a framework for understanding teacher adoption of technology. Unlike other approaches that examine this issue by studying the external environment, this new framework attempts to understand teacher adoption of technology from the inside. It considers teachers' use of technology by examining the goals of teachers and how the use of technology might help or hinder their goals. While it is too early to provide systematic findings to show the usefulness of this application of PCT, we have used it here to interpret and synthesize the findings of a number of studies on teachers and technology. We also make suggestions derived from this model for the infusion of technology into schools. To summarize the major themes, in order to understand why and why not teachers use technology, we must look at teachers as goal-oriented, purposeful organisms. PCT provides a comprehensive model for understanding technology infusion. From a PCT perspective three conditions are necessary for teachers to use technology: 1. The teacher must believe that technology can more effectively meet a higher-level goal than what has been used. 2. The teacher must believe that using technology will not cause disturbances to other higher-level goals that the he or she thinks are more important than the one being maintained. 3. The teacher must believe that he or she has or will have sufficient ability and resources to use technology. There is an ironic and costly contradiction in the attempt to integrate technology into education. While evidence of educational benefits of technology abounds (Bialo & Sivin-Kachala, 1995; Education Week, 1997; Fletcher, Hawley, & Piele, 1990; Garner & Gillingham, 1996; Kulik & Kulik, 1991; McKinsey Inc., 1996; Means, 1994; Office of Technology Assessment, 1982, 1995; Wenglinsky, 1998)) and investment in hardware and software has dramatically increased (Mageau, 1991; Heaviside, Riggins, & Farris, 1997), relatively few teachers use technology regularly in their teaching (McKinsey, 1996; OTA, 1995) and the impact of computers on existing curricula is still very limited (David, 1994; Education week, 1997; Harper, 1987; OTA, 1995). What lies behind this contradiction? Why don't teachers make wider use of instructional technologies? Interestingly, in spite of the widespread recognition of the underutilization of technology and the central role of teachers in the effective use of technology (Cuban, 1986; Education week, 1997; Harper, 1987; Luke, Moore, & Sawyer, 1998; McKinsey, 1996; OTA, 1995; Wenglinsky, 1998), "there has been relatively little research on how and why American teachers use technology" (OTA, 1995, p. 51). There is even less research on why teachers do not use technology. Most research about educational technology has focused on the impact of technology on learners. The few studies conducted on teachers have typically focused on a special subset, the successful "accomplished" technology users (Sheingold & Hadley, 1993), rather than the majority, those who do not use technology. The lack of empirical studies notwithstanding, a set of assumptions about why teachers do not use technology does exist and is currently functioning as the theoretical base underlying many efforts to help teachers integrate technology with their teaching (Charp, 1995; Lauro, 1995; Persky, 1990; Sammons, 1995; Strudler, 1994). …