1. The Global Learn Europe/North
America 2012 Conference
November, 2012

2. Preparing and Training Teachers to
Use Technology in their
Classrooms: Educational
Technology Course Design
Mariam M. Abdelmalak
Department of Curriculum & Instruction
College of Education
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico
United States

3. agenda
• The Problem and a Recommended Solution
• A Learner-Centered Framework
• Implications of a Learner-Centered Framework for
Educational Technology course in Teacher Education
Programs and Professional Development Programs

4. The problem
•Over the past decade, expenditures on and
access to computer-based technologies in USA
schools have increased sharply (Market Data
Retrieval, 2001)
• However, teachers’ use of computers in the
classroom is limited (Cuban, 2001; Russell,
Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003; Judson,
2006).

5. The problem
• Teachers‟ lack of using technology in teaching
could be, in part, a result of teachers‟ lack of
understanding of how technology can be
integrated into regular classroom instructional
practices (Cuban, 2001).

6. The solution
In response to this problem, several scholars
have emphasized the need to provide pre-
service and in-service teachers with better
preparation on how to integrate technology into
their teaching practices .

7. THE SOLUTION
• This need puts demand on educational
technology courses in teacher education
programs and professional development
programs for technology use to provide pre-
service and in- service teachers with the skills
and technology knowledge they need to be able
to appropriately utilize technology to perform a
variety of teaching tasks.

8. But…
How to make an educational technology course
more meaningful and ensure that
students/teachers are learning to integrate
technology in teaching and learning.

9. Learner-centered

10. A Learner-centered framework
• Orienting subject matter to student needs,
interests, and experiences (McCombs, 2000;
Ongeri, 2011; Dewey, 1938).
• Students‟ control over their learning (Weimer,
2002; Cleveland-Innes &Emes, 2005; Yilmaz,
2009).

11. Orienting subject matter to students‟ needs,
interests, and experiences
• McCombs (2000): “learner-centered is the perspective that
couples a focus on individual learners (their heredity,
experiences, perspectives, backgrounds, talents, interests,
capacities, and needs) with a focus on leaning” (p. 4).

12. Students‟ control over their learning
• Learner-centered educators involve students in making
decisions about their learning goals, the content of their
courses (i.e., what they learn), the ways in which the course
topics are learned (i.e., how they learn) and the ways in
which students‟ learning is evaluated (Yilmaz, 2009)

13. So what?
What Are Implications of the Learner-Centered Framework
for Educational Technology course in Teacher Education
Programs and Professional Development Programs?

14. Educational Technology Courses & Students‟
Interests, needs and Experiences
• Educational technology courses based on students‟ priority
concerns can have a lasting effect on the students‟
confidence to use the technology in their future classroom
(Wetzel, Foulger& Williams, 2009).
• Instructors in educational technology courses need to
build on the knowledge, skills, and energy of students to
achieve knowledge that is meant for their personal benefit
in order to make educational technology course more
meaningful and ensure that students are learning to
integrate technology in their future teaching (Wetzel,
Foulger& Williams, 2009).

15. Student control & educational technology
courses
Fulton, Couros and Maeers (2000): one of the effective
features of a technology-rich classroom environment is the
interchangeable role of instructor and students where both
the instructor and students share leadership.
“The teacher has primary responsibility for structuring the
classroom environment, but students can also participate
in the design” (Fulton et al., 2000, p. 320).
The technology-rich classroom environment should be
“characterized as „freedom without license‟ where students
have freedom to make curriculum and learning, and are free
to choose where and how they work within the context of a
structured, respectful, collaborative learning community”
(Fulton et al., 2000, p. 320).

16. Why is it important?
• Increased sense of responsibility
• Increased motivation in the learning process
• Engagement in the course
• Increased learning and excel in the course

17. conclusion
• Students‟ needs and experiences should be a central
consideration when choosing the content of educational
technology courses
• Technology courses should be designed in a way that is
shifted away from directing the students, towards engaging
them, in a way that enables students to have control over
their own learning.

18. references
• Cleveland-Innes, M. &Emes, C. (2005). Principles of learner-centered curriculum: Responding to the
call for change in Higher Education. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, xxxv(4), 85-110.
• Cook, J. (1992). Negotiating the curriculum: Programming for learning. In G. Boomer, N. Lester, C.
Onore& J. Cook (Eds.), Negotiating the curriculum: Educating for the 21 st century (pp. 15-31). London
& New York: The Falmer Press
• Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused computers in the classroom: Computers in the classroom.
United States of America: Harvard University Press
• Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
• Fulton, C., Couros, A., &Maeers, M. (2000). The impact of theory on technology use in the classroom.
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference: Proceedings of
SITE 200 (San Diego, CA).
• Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a
connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597.
• McCombs, B. (2000, September). Assessing the role of educational technology in the teaching and
learning process: A learner-centered perspective. Paper presented at the Secretary’s Conference on
Educational Technology: Measuring the Impacts and Shaping the Future, Washington, DC. Retrieved
January 20, 2012, from http://tepserver.ucsd.edu/courses/tep203/fa04/a/articles/mccombs.pdf

19. references
• Ongeri, J. (2011). Learner centered teaching potential for motivating students of economics: Findings of an
action research study. RHESL, 4(8), 27-40.
• Pettenati, M., Giuli, D., &Khaled, A. (2001). Information technology and staff development: Issues and
problems related to new skills and competence acquisition. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
9(2), 153-170
• Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications
for pre-service and in-service teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 279–310.
• Shelton, M., & Jones, M. (1996). Staff development that works! A tale of four T’s. NASSP Bulletin, 80(582), 99-
• Shor, I. (1996). When students have power : Negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
• Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley
& Sons, In
• Wetzel, K., Foulger, T., & Williams, K. (2009). The evolution of the required educational technology course.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(2), 67-7
• Yilmaz, K. (2009). Democracy through learner-centered education: A Turkish perspective. International Review
of Education, 55(1), 21-37