Lapp, D.A. (1997). A theoretical model for student perception of technological authority:
Implementing technology in the classroom. Paper presented at the Third International
Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching, Koblenz, Germany.
Lapp provides a description of his study that “examined the perceptions of students using
graphing technology regarding the authority of the technology in analyzing graphical
relationships of data. Further, [the study probed] the students’ attempts to resolve conflict when
there is a discrepancy between the model of curve-fitting suggested by the machine and the data
presented as a scatterplot” (p. 4). From this study and other relevant literature, Lapp suggests the
“following theoretical model for the interactions among aspects of technology use” (p. 5).
Lapp provides details of how the five components of the model (match of representations,
use of repetition, instructor, creator/human, and mathematics background) contribute to the
perception of authority held by the technology. Lapp concludes with 4 recommendations of
instructional use of technology two of which are:
 Instructors should make a point to provide students with activities that create conflict of
information provided by the technology.
 Instructors should provide students with opportunities that allow them “to fully explore
interesting questions using technology as well as other tools” (p. 12).
Pea, R.D. (1998). Learning and teaching with educational technologies. In Walberg, H.J. &
Haertel, G.D. (Eds.) Psychology and Educational Practice (pp. 274-296). Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
Pea begins his discussion of learning and teaching with technology by arguing that “the
social contexts of the uses of technology are crucial to understanding how technology may
influence teaching and learning. The classroom influences, in particular the teacher, are seminal”
(p. 274). In the chapter, Pea characterizes “components of a socio-cultural framework for
thinking about the uses of educational technologies” (p. 278). These components are: the design
ideology, the design properties and the design interpretation of the technology employed by the
users of the technology, in particular, the teacher.
Using these components, Pea presents “a helpful taxonomy of uses of educational
technologies” (p. 281). This taxonomy is meant to provide descriptors of the design ideology and
resulting interpretations of a variety of educational technologies available at that time. Pea also
discusses the opportunities and obstacles of educational technologies that administrators and
educators should consider when choosing among the different educational technologies
available.
Finally, Pea concludes the chapter by asking the reader to envision a type of “School
Depot” (p. 289). Pea introduces the concept of the School Depot with an analogy to the home
improvement store, Home Depot. “[Home Depot] helps us solve our problems and feel great at
the same time. I trust Home Depot to make sure I succeed every time. Can you imagine nearly
three million schoolteachers saying such things about a program in support of improving their
teaching with technologies?” (p. 289).