IDENTIFYING THE DIMENSIONS OF THE PEDAGOGIC TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION IN ISRAELI ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Abstract

Pedagogic-Technological Innovation (PTI) relates to different practices reflecting the changes in the role of teachers and class students today. PTI aims at preparing students for lifelong learning in the knowledge community. The new national Information and Communication Technology (ICT)Program, called "Adapting the education system to the 21st century" has been implemented in twenty-one schools in Israel that incorporated ICT, intended to generate a pedagogic-technological change.

The aim of the current study was to identify the underlying dimensions of the PTI in Israeli elementary schools, and expose the internal relationships between the attributes of this innovation, as well as the factors involved in this change in the school. 283 teachers in these twenty-one schools evaluated the level of incorporationof the ICT innovation in their schools. The teachers completed two questionnaires that were based on the analytical tools necessary for examining the integrated ICT innovation.A Smallest Space Analysis yielded a two-dimensional solution with a Coefficient of Alienation of 14. The axial facet relates to the factor domain, a well-known area of content in research on pedagogic innovation and ICT incorporated. The second modulating facet distinguishes between class components vs. school organizational components. Implementing PTI within the classroom signifies the most complex level and may be located at the center of PTI change in school. The findings of the analysis highlight the importance of the class environment as "the heart" of any educational activity, without which none of the organizational changes in the schools would have occurred.

Keywords: Pedagogic-TechnologicalInnovation,change in the school,class environment

References

Archibald, S. (2005). Getting the Full Picture: A Three level Model of School and Teacher Effects on Student Achievement.CPRE-UW Working Paper Series, U.S.

Avidov-Ungar, O., & Magen-Nagar, N. (2012). The Implications of Teachers' Professional Attributes on Assimilating a Computerized Learning and Management System in an Israeli School: A Case Study. Creative Education, 3, 116-119.[Hebrew]

Bracewell, R. J., Sicilia, C., Park, J. & Tung, I. (2007, April). The problem of wide-scale implementation of effective use of information and communication technologies for instruction: Activity theory perspectives. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of AERA 2007, Chicago, IL, April 9-13, 2007. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tact.fse.ulaval.ca/papers/Bracewell_aera2007.pdf

Chen, D. (2006). Between vision and logic: strategies for change and innovation in education, in: David Chen (ed.), experimental schools: the cradle for innovation in education (pp. 11-40). Tel Aviv: Ramot.[Hebrew]

Cunningham, C.A. (2009). Transforming schooling through technology: Twenty-firs century approaches to participatory learning. Education and Culture, 25 (2), 46-61.

De Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2005). Does E-learning policy drive change in higher education? A case study relating models of organizational change to e-leaning implementation.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Managemen, 27 (1), 81-95.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

Forkosh- Baruch, A., Miodsr, D.,&Nachmias, R. (2011).ICT innovation through the international research looking glass.MaofVeMa’ase, 14, 22-49. [Hebrew]

Friedman, J. (2012). The facet theory: analytical observation into the content worlds. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University. [Hebrew]

Fullan, M. (2007).The New meaning of educational change.(4th edn). New York: Teachers College Press.

Guttman, L. (1982). Facet theory, smallest space analysis and factor analysis: Addendum. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 491-493.

Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2010).How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in school.Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26 (2), 16-49.

Jung, I. (2005). ICT-Pedagogy Integration in Teacher Training: Application Cases Worldwide. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (2), 94-101.

Karagiorgi, Y., &Symeou, L. (2005).Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations.Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 17-27.

Law, N. (2008). Teacher learning beyond knowledge for pedagogical innovations with ICT. In J. M. Voogt& G. A. Knezek (Eds.), InternationalHandbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (PP. 425-434). New York: Springer.

Magen- Nagar, N. & Peled, B. (2013). Characteristics of Israeli school teachers in computer-based learning environments. Journal of Educators Online, 10 (1), 1-34.

Ministry of Education, Israel (2011). The National Program– Adjusting the education system to the 21st century- vision and rationale. Retrieved on September 1, 2012 from http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/MadaTech/hatamat_marechet_21[Hebrew]

Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Tobin, D.,&Forkosh, A. (2006). Pedagogical innovation integrated with information and communications technology. Tel Aviv: Ramot press.[Hebrew]

Oplatka, Y. (2007). The foundations of educational administration: leadership and management in the educational organization. Haifa: Pardes.[Hebrew]

Overbay, A., Patterson, A. S., Vasu, E. S., & Grable, L. L. (2010). Constructivism and technology use: findings from the IMPACTing leadership project. Educational Media International, 47 (2), 103-120.

Rimon, A. (2010). The new program of the Ministry of Education.HedHachinuch, Peh Het (3), 40-49. [Hebrew]

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5^th edition). NY: Free Press.

Rumberger, R. W. ,&Palardy, G. J. (2005). Test scores, dropout rates, and transfer rates as alternative indicators of high school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 42 (1), 3-43.

Salmon, G. (2009).The future for (second) life and learning.British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (3), 526-538.

Sarason, S. (1998).Political Leadership and educational failure. San Francisco, CA :Jossey- Bass.

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26 (1), 65–73.

Shachar, H. (2007). Consultation to the schools as a system.Theory, research and practice.Ramot : Tel – Aviv University.[Hebrew]

Shield- Wenger, N. (2010). The impact of teaching quality, satisfaction and a sense of belonging on the risk for students dropping out of school from elementary to high school levels. Doctoral thesis, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan.[Hebrew]

Solvie, P., &Kloek, M. (2007).Using technology tools to engage students with multiple learning styles in a constructivist learning environment.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7 (2), 7-27.

Strommen, E. F., & Lincoln, B. (1992).Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning.Education and Urban Society, 24, 466-476.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Deci, E., & Sheldon, K. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (2(, 246-260.

Weick, K. (1976). Educational organization as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.