|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Research summary
As the ratio of students to instructional computers drops and access to the Internet increases in the nation's classrooms (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000), it is unlikely that either teachers or students will be able to continue to work and learn without integrating technology to some degree into their daily activities. Unfortunately, when computer technologies are adopted, the learning about technologies often supplants learning content with the help of technology (Goldman, Cole, & Syer, 1999). Integration is not simply buying a computer or connecting to the Internet -- supplying the "wires and boxes." Integration demands the incorporation of technology as an integral tool in the learning environment that seamlessly supports teaching and learning. In its report to the President, the Panel on Educational Technology (1997) made two high-level strategic recommendations that it believed to be of utmost importance. The first is that the nation's schools focus on learning with technology, not about technology. This recommendation enforces the concept of technology as an important tool and that simply acquiring technology-related knowledge and skills is not enough. The second recommendation is that schools emphasize content and pedagogy, not just hardware. This may require some schools to rethink the role and use of technology in their schools and focus attention on the potential of technology to help achieve goals pertaining to education reform efforts. New teaching and learning strategies may be necessary to promote the development of higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills (Panel on Educational Technology, 1997; Schmidt, Sasser, Linduska, Murphy, & Grether, 1999). Dockstader (1999) described the many facets of technology integration when writing about the teachers of the 21st Century. She notes that integration can include learning about technology, but that students should do this by applying computer skills in meaningful ways. Software should allow students to use computers flexibly, purposefully, and creatively. Integration also requires having the curriculum drive technology use, not vice versa. She summarizes integration by stating that it is organizing the goals of the curriculum and technology use into a "coordinated, harmonious whole." Further emphasis on the learning environment finds support from Lewis (1999), who writes that considering the needs of the learner is one way of addressing the role of technology. Some of these learner needs include explicit information, recognition of achievement, flexible access to resources and support, opportunities to practice skills and apply knowledge, feedback on performance, and choices in their learning. School leaders play a prominent role in promoting the effective integration of technology in their schools. While some leaders come to accept that some of their teachers may have greater technology expertise, they can continue to learn and use these teachers as resources (Caverly, Peterson, & Mandeville, 1997). School building administrators are faced with many other issues beyond technology integration, however, and find themselves ever more accountable to taxpayers, boards of trustees, central office administration, and parents; and there is a great need to increase the efficiency and productivity of these administrators (Benson, Peltier, & Matranga, 1999). Understanding how technology can impact teaching and learning is an important step for school leaders faced with such issues of productivity and accountability. The impact of technology. "Potentially, technology has the ability to change the way teachers teach and students learn" (Schmidt et al., 1999, p. 2). Technologies can open up the more traditional classroom and provide the opportunity for students and teachers to share, discuss, and exchange ideas with larger communities of learners (Honey & Hawkins, 1999). Technology can enhance and invigorate education and make schools more exciting and richer learning environments (CEO Forum, 1999). How does this expanded opportunity translate into improved student achievement? The answers may not be as concrete as a score on a multiple-choice test, but evidence does exist to indicate that technology positively impacts teaching and learning.
Research documents that effective technology-enhanced pedagogical strategies can result in at least four kinds of improvements in education outcomes: increased learner motivation, mastery of advanced topics, students acting as experts do, and better results on standardized tests (Dede, 1998). While student scores may rise on conventional achievement tests, these results do not occur immediately, and both teachers and students must move beyond learning about technology to effectively integrating technology into the learning environment. Also, conventional achievement tests do not measure the full impact of technology (Dede, 1998).
In reviewing benefits culled from the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow? studies, Kosakowski (1998) reports that students explored and represented information dynamically and in many forms -- communicating effectively about complex processes. Students were more confident and became more socially aware. They worked well together but were also independent learners and self-starters. Students involved in this long-term, technology-intensive program used technology routinely and appropriately. These students also demonstrated increased writing skills, a better understanding and broader view of math, the ability to teach others, and greater problem-solving and critical-thinking skills.
Peck and Dorricott (1994) give a "top 10" list of reasons to use technology. A few examples from this list include that students learn and develop at different rates, and technology can address some of these differences. Technology can foster an increase in the quantity and quality of students' thinking and writing skills, and it can create opportunities for students to do meaningful work. It can also nurture artistic expression.
Technology can help teachers and students explore content in greater depth--moving beyond knowledge and comprehension to application and analysis of information. Finding, synthesizing, and creating information are important skills for the current information-rich world. Technology skills, too, are important and the development of these skills should not take place in isolation, but applied throughout the learning process (Dockstader, 1999).
Teachers who have faced the integration hurdle may have to reconsider some of their underlying philosophies about teaching. These changes could manifest themselves outwardly in the form of new teaching strategies, activities, and forms of assessment, but this may take some time (Bruce, 1999). In their efforts to help teachers enrich classrooms through the incorporation of multimedia, Wise and Groom (1996) found that teachers felt multimedia had the biggest impact on the teachers themselves. They found the material visually stimulating, that it could present more detail about subjects, and that it actually simulated bringing the real subject into the classroom.
Mann and Shafer (1997) found that the success of technology is strongly related to teacher enthusiasm, initiative, and sense of improvement. Teacher interest in technology was highest when they had access to enough hardware, used applications teachers cared about, and received relevant training. These researchers found that high school teachers were often the most positive about technology's ability to contribute to both school reform and their own work, but that some of the strongest supporters of technology were teachers involved in special education, career education, and adult education.
It is important to stress that the mere presence of wires and boxes is not enough to obtain the potential rewards of technology. Bouie (1998) lists several factors that must be present before technology can have a positive impact. These include providing students with significant access to technology and resources on a regular basis, providing teachers with professional development activities that include effective integration and communication training, and having education leaders who propagate an environment that integrates technology as a valued component of learning.
Stages of integration. Teachers follow similar stages of technology adoption as they first learn about the technology and then begin to incorporate it into their teaching and learning. Early activities tend to mirror current teaching activities with which the teachers feel comfortable (Sheingold & Hadley, 1991). As comfort and proficiency improve, teachers may begin to use technology for instruction in novel ways or create activities that better capitalize on the capabilities of the technology.
The pivotal, longitudinal project, the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) began in 1985 and has provided a wealth of information regarding teacher attitudes, practices, and integration behaviors when using technology. Early reports from this project identified a five-stage continuum of technology integration that evolved at all of the project's sites (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991). This evolutionary process consists of five stages:
Whether or not broken into distinct stages, a similar evolution of teaching and learning with technology is found in several sources, such as Sheingold and Hadley's (1991) finding that teachers begin with technology that replicates familiar activities. Similar findings are reported in a later evaluation of the ACOT project (Baker, Gearhart & Herman, 1993) in which teachers immersed in technology chose resources and based pedagogical decisions upon subject area rather than the technological resources that were available.
Entry. Teachers typically learn the fundamental aspects of using new technology, including the basics of configuring hardware and software.
Adoption. Teachers concern themselves with ways to use the technology to support traditional instruction.
Adaptation. Teachers integrate technology into existing classroom activities. The emphasis is productivity. Students use word processors, databases, and some graphics programs to create familiar products of instruction.
Appropriation. Teachers begin to develop new approaches to teaching and learning that make the most of the technology available to them. A teacher's mastery and skill level has developed to allow the creation of new learning activities not possible without the technology.
Innovation. Teachers no longer try to adapt instruction to technology but adjust their fundamental perceptions of instruction. Teachers who reach this stage reflect on the actual craft of teaching, and their fundamental teaching approach may shift.
(Dwyer, Ringstaff, and Sandholtz, 1991)
Word processing, problem-solving, and drill-and-practice applications are often a first step in incorporating software into the instructional process because these applications replicate common seat-based classroom activities, reinforce material already being taught, or provide special opportunities for particular groups of students. However, the lower-order thinking skills addressed by these software applications have garnished negative connotations for instruction, with drill-and-practice software specifically demonstrating little (Haugland, 1997) or even a negative relationship to academic achievement (Wenglinsky, 1998).
As technology experiences grow, teachers are able to incorporate a wider variety of software applications and approaches that provide richer learning opportunities for the larger population of students. These new approaches often shift toward learner-centered rather than content-centered lessons, which replace the traditional classroom activities of lecture-based presentation and seatwork with more project-based and collaborative activities. The more familiar types of activities, which may be addressed by simple word-processing and drill-and-practice applications, give way to the need for curriculum-based software and research tools, which often allow for greater individualized, creative, and interdisciplinary activities.
Sheingold and Hadley (1990) summarize that teachers appear to master many practices and approaches within five to six years of teaching with computers. Dwyer, Ringstaff, and Sandholtz (1991) noted that some of the teachers in the ACOT project moved into the fourth phase of appropriation--incorporating student-centered, project-based instruction--in their second year. While no fixed schedule of development may be applicable to every instructional setting, there is strong research base to support an evolutionary process of teaching and learning with instructional technology. This evolution of practices carries with it the adoption of software types.
Students. School leaders, teachers, and students alike are being exposed to new ways of teaching and learning supported by technology, which require rethinking approaches to education and the roles members of these groups play. Students are the key to any educational model and student learning should be the focus of any change efforts (Lewis, 1999). Through technology, students are performing work that is much closer in scope and quality to that of more advanced scholars, such as conducting sophisticated analyses, syntheses, and simulations (McClintock, 1996).
The digital tools students use require new skills and forms of literacy. Morris and Naughton (1999) state that it is too easy to assume that digital tools are merely an extension or modification of more traditional forms of student interaction. Some new problems are the lack of more traditional cues when utilizing computer-mediated communication as well as problems developing standard protocols and norms of behavior for this type of communication. The amount and accessibility of data now available to students brings up questions of plagiarism and originality and whether students are actually engaged when wading through this material or are participating in what the authors describe as an "advanced form of photocopying." Soloway and Wallace (1997) describe a related problem in which students using the Internet for research often assume "the answer" is available in the ether somewhere and that student engagement requires an infrastructure to support re-search and not just searching.
Teachers. Teachers are on the frontline of technology efforts and are essential elements effecting the successful implementation of any systemic reform (Bertram, 1999; Fulton, 1996; Lewis, 1999). In discussing teacher concerns regarding technological change, Fisher and Dove (1999) acknowledge that many teachers and administrators feel threatened because the change effort represents a journey into the unknown and may not feel adequately prepared to face these challenges.
Training is key to successful technology efforts (Costello, 1997; Fisher & Dove, 1999; Lewis, 1999) and should address more than the acquisition of basic technology skills. Teachers also need training in effective integration strategies, for the potential benefits of technology use go beyond the simple replication of existing activities and strategies and may require teachers to rethink their own underlying philosophies about teaching and how their roles may change. It should be clear that teachers also need time to reflect and adjust their teaching practices (Bertram, 1999).
The Panel on Educational Technology (1997) lists the following ways teachers may use computers and computer networks to support teaching and learning.
In institutions that have embraced technology, Lewis (1999) comments that evidence supports that the teacher's importance has not lessened but that systematic use of technology actually upgrades and enhances the teacher's role. Technology supports teamwork, curriculum development, adaptation and development of materials, action-research and evaluation, and more creative management of learning environments. It can also change the nature of relationships with students by providing closer contact with individuals and small groups.
Administrators. The importance of the role of school leaders in the success of technology integration cannot be understated (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997; Costello, 1997; Fisher & Dove, 1999). Superintendents and principals must be involved in and support technology initiatives. Coley, Cradler, and Engel (1997) note that research has consistently found that, when these school leaders are informed about and comfortable with technology, they become key players in leading and supporting technology integration activities. Costello (1997) supports these important roles and emphasizes that leaders need to model the use of technology. Leaders must become users and must be involved in planning and implementing technology in their own school buildings.
Fisher and Dove (1999) acknowledge that serving as a technology leader may be a difficult position, especially for administrators who may be embarking into areas where they have little expertise and much apprehension. However, these authors suggest that since technology initiatives depend upon human dynamics, school leaders may find support by listening and responding to their teachers' concerns about technology.
Schools may face many barriers prohibiting the effective integration of technology. Fortunately, whether these barriers are physical, such as lack of hardware and software, or less tangible, such as attitudes and perceptions, many schools and districts have already faced some of these problems, and their experiences can suggest strategies for overcoming these barriers. Following are five major barriers many schools have faced and some strategies that may help overcome them.
Purpose. One of the most significant barriers to effective integration of technology is the perception that in many schools technology is still seen as an "add on" rather than an integral part of the curriculum (Charp, 1997; Rockman, 1998). Some teachers may use computer work as a reward for students who have finished other work or for good behavior. Others may view time in the computer lab as release time or neglect to coordinate technology skill development with curricular goals.
The purpose of technology use should be clearly defined in the school or district's technology plan (Anderson, 1996b, Department of Commerce, 1996; Kozma & Schank, 1998). A well-developed plan will outline concrete, time-based goals and outline strategies for achieving these goals, including funding, training, and benchmarks for ascertaining whether the goals were achieved. Overcoming the view of technology as a frill can be achieved through clear communication of the vision presented in the plan by key school leaders. School leaders should demonstrate the value of technology in their own daily work and ascertain the needs of their staff through a variety of data-gathering methods, including but not limited to classroom observation.
Dockstader (1999) describes how teachers in the Jerome School District successfully approached technology integration through a seven-step process. Teachers began with a single core area, then decided what technology skills were most appropriate for this area. Teachers selected a single lesson or unit that could be enhanced by technology, often choosing easier projects at the beginning. Teachers developed that lesson or unit using a software package or other appliance until they were comfortable with it, then taught the lesson. Teachers evaluated the lesson, focusing on what went well and what went wrong, and then refined the lesson for the next time they taught it or applyied those skills to a new lesson or unit. A similar method of piloting lessons and developing prototypes of best practices has been successful elsewhere (Lowe & Vespestad, 1999).
Training. Lack of professional development is often cited as the most common barrier to effective technology integration (Charp, 1997). Training that develops basic technology skills may be important but is not enough. Teachers must also receive training focused on effective integration techniques that support the goals of their curriculum (Charp, 1997; Kozma & Schank, 1998). This need for training is not limited to in-service teachers, as many pre-service teacher candidates leave teacher training programs with insufficient technology skills (Schmidt et al, 1999). Additional factors that impact training decisions include finding release time and substitutes, both of which also carry a cost burden. Another barrier is the lack of training geared to the unique demands of school leaders.
Reflecting 20 years worth of lessons learned in professional development, the National Staff Development Center (NSDC) developed guidelines that relate to the appropriate application and integration of educational technology. These guidelines propose a constructivist approach to professional development and suggest that teachers and administrators collaborate in such activities as action research, conversations with peers about the basic nature of instruction, journal development, and projects that involve family and community members in student learning (as cited in Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997). Improving opportunities for training of administrators is addressed by the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Teacher Development Center Project. Administrators are encouraged to attend the program with a teacher team, and they must commit to providing release time and daily planning time for teachers as well as time for teachers to reflect on their work. Administrators also increase staff awareness through public acknowledgment of their teachers' efforts (as cited in Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997).
Support. Many teachers are still at the early stages of the integration continuum. These stages require support in terms of both pedagogical and mechanical help. Many teachers rely on more advanced or experienced peers -- early adopters who have worked through some common problems. Easy-to-read, print documentation is another need (Charp, 1997) that may be harder to come by as software and hardware publishers continue the trend of on-line help. Novice users may prefer more traditional print to the new industry preference for on-line help. As schools continue to develop Web-based components for teachers, students, and the greater education community, the need for round-the-clock support becomes greater. Cartwright (1996) notes that while many thought the problems associated with technology would dissipate as more teachers became fluent users, these problems have not gone away. Schools must pay attention to continuous training and support for faculty, staff, and students.
A variety of support strategies are presented by Coley, Cradler, and Engel (1997). The advanced or experienced teachers mentioned earlier may actually serve as a valuable resource for other teachers. These master teachers could be trained specifically for the purpose of acting as resources or mentors to colleagues. One school (Lowe & Vespestad, 1999) found the structure of teams to be a successful peer resource model. Expert personnel from libraries or volunteers from business, parent, and student groups may also be available to support teachers. Teacher resource centers can provide both pedagogical and technical help and, as teachers become more familiar with logging on to the Internet, they can reap the benefits of on-line tutorials and telementoring. One school district (Hurst, 1994) found that dedicating one room to continuous inservice helped boost teacher confidence and positively impacted integration. This quiet room was loaded with equipment, software, and manuals and afforded teachers the opportunity to experiment in a private setting. Time. Time places finite barriers on technology integration because teachers may already feel their time has been maximized without trying to learn new teaching strategies or new software. Time cannot be created and, when having to juggle schedules, teachers may resort to tried and tested methods and materials. Training takes time and, if training is going to be supported beyond a few one-day sessions, release time may be required. Time can also be wasted by inefficient technology use--either by teachers or students.
New adopters may also need additional planning time not only to build and practice technology skills but to develop effective strategies to incorporate their new skills (Fisher & Dove, 1999). Inexperienced teachers often underestimate the time and complexity of integrating technology. Novice users may be excited to try new technology-supported lessons, but early efforts usually result in an emphasis on the technology and little on content learning. Many teachers already feel the pressure of too little time to cover the required curriculum. This is what Goldman, Cole, and Syer (1999) refer to as the "technology/content dilemma."
From their experiences helping and observing teachers integrate technology, these researchers found structuring the technology-supported activities to be key in promoting content over technology. In a technology-supported math activity, they helped the teacher structure an activity that encouraged students to notice, name, and reflect on math concepts encountered in their lessons. These researchers also helped teachers structure informal conversations with students during activities by slowing down and spending a few minutes with student groups. Students not only demonstrated desired content outcomes but felt they did so during an engaging activity that had real-world applications due to the technology use.
Supporting teachers with increased planning time or release time is encouraged (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997; Lowe & Vespestad, 1999) but may require educators and policymakers to reconsider some of the traditional constraints of the school structure, such as the bell schedule, the school year, or the requirements of contact time. While new models may not work in all settings, the most successful programs are often those that have developed effective technology plans (Gustaferro in Norman, 1999; Hurst, 1994). Finally, once having reached a certain level of proficiency, technology can help solve rather than create the time problem by helping teachers and staff perform their duties more efficiently and by freeing up time for instruction or professional development (Kosakowski, 1998).
Funding. Insufficient funds affect not only hardware and software purchases but can impact staffing as well. The shortage of teachers proficient in technology may make it difficult for some districts to attract such teachers (Schmidt et al, 1999). The draw for technology workers may also draw the most qualified teachers away from a school district or from teaching altogether.
The cost of technology is often attributed to hardware and networking costs, but too often schools do not budget sufficiently for hidden costs that may compound their problems, such as retrofitting buildings, replacing obsolete or broken hardware and software, professional development, and maintenance and support personnel (Consortium for School networking, 1990; Zeisler, 1997, 1999). Computer prices are dropping, but few schools have yet to reach the recommended ratio of five students per computer or the optimal ratio of one student per computer (Graham, 1997). Schools also face many decisions regarding network configuration. While broadband access requires substantial funding, many schools do not have the infrastructure to support connections through phone lines.
While there is no one answer to the funding question, the best strategy is planning (Anderson, 1996a; Coley, Cradler & Engel, 1997; Consortium for School Networking, 1999; Costello, 1997; Zeisler, 1997, 1999). A well-designed planning document created by key stakeholders not only describes desired learning outcomes but also designates components (e.g., hardware, software, training, and support needs) and suggests methods for funding these components. The planning document does not actually guarantee procurement of funds, but it can suggest steps that must be taken to guarantee sustained funds throughout the program's initiative, whether those steps require a major bond issue or funding through outside sources.
Anderson, L. (1996a). Guidebook for developing an effective Instructional Technology Plan, Version 2.0. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University.
Anderson, L. (1996b).K-12 technology planning at state, district, and local levels. ERIC Digest. (EDO-IR-96-07) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393 448)
Baker, E. L., Gearhart, M. & Herman, J. L. (1993). The Apple classrooms of tomorrow: The USCL evaluation studies. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378 219)
Benson, P., Peltier, G. L., & Matranga, M. (1999). Moving school administrators into the computer age. Education, 120(2), 326.
Bouie, E. L., Jr. (1998). Creating an information rich environment. T.H.E. Journal, 26(2), 78-79.
Bruce, B. (1999). Challenges for the evaluation of new information and communication technologies. International Reading Association, 42(6), 450-455.
Cartwright, P. G. (1996). Planning for academic computing: Important trends and issues. Change, 28(4), 57-59. Available: http://static.elibrary.com/c/change/july171996/planningforacademiccomputingimportanttrendsandissu/
CEO Forum. (1999, February). Professional development: A link to better learning. (Year Two Report). Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.html
Caverly, D. C., Peterson, C. L., & Mandeville, T. F. (1997). A generational model for professional development: Training teachers to use computers. Educational Leadership, 55(3). 56-59.
Charp, S. (1997). Changing teaching strategies through technology. T.H.E. Journal, 24(10), 6.
Coley, R. J., Cradler, J. & Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. Schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Available: http://preservicetech.edreform.net/resource/2296
Consortium for School Networking. (1999). Taking TCO to the classroom. A school administrator's guide to planning for the total cost of new technology. Washington, DC: Consortium for School Networking. Available: http://classroomtco.cosn.org/news.html#release/
Costello, R. W. (1997). The leadership role in making the technology connection. T.H.E. Journal, 25(4), 58-61.
Dede, C. (1998) The scaling-up process for technology-based educational innovations. In C. Dede (Ed.), Learning with Technology. 1998 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 199-215. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 857)
Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st Century know the what, why, and how of technology integration. T.H.E. Journal, 26(6), 73.
Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45-52.
Fisher, S. & Dove, M. K. (1999). Muffled voices: Teachers' concerns regarding technological change. In SITE 99: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432 281)
Goldman, S., Cole, K. & Syer, C. (1999). The technology/content dilemma. Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology-1999. Available: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/techconf99/whitepapers/paper4.html
Graham, D. R. (1997). The classroom computer revolution that hasn't happened--yet! Some reflections on computers. Education Canada, 37(1), 10-14, 52.
Haugland, S. W. (1997). How teachers use computers in early childhood classrooms. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8(1), 3-14.
Honey, M. & Hawkins, J. (1995). Digital archives: Creating effective designs for elementary and secondary educators. The Future of Networking Technologies for Learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/honey.html
Kosakowski, J. (1998). The benefits of information technology. ERIC Digest (EDO-IR-98-04) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420 302)
Kozma, R. & Schank, P. (1998). Connecting with the 21st Century: Technology in support of educational reform. In C. Dede (Ed.), Learning with Technology. 1998 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 857)
Lewis, R. (1999). The role of technology in learning: Managing to achieve a vision. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2), 141-150.
Lowe, M. J. & Vespestad, K. M. (1999). Using technology as a tool to enhance teaching and learning. NASSP Bulletin, 83(607), 30-37.
Mann, D. & Shafer, E. A. (1997). Technology and achievement. American School Board Journal, 184(7), 22-23.
McClintock, R. (1995). Renewing the progressive contract with posterity: On the social construction of digital learning communities. In The Future of Networking Technologies for Learning. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/robbie.html
Morris, D., & Naughton, J. (1999). The future's digital, isn't it? Some experiences and forecasts based on the Open University's Technology Foundation Course. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(2), 147-148.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools. (NCES 2000-090).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Panel on Educational Technology. (1997, March). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k-12ed.html
Peck, K. & Dorricott, D. (1994). Why use technology? Educational Leadership, 51(7). Available: Schmidt, D., Sasser, S., Linduska, S., Murphy, V. & Grether, C. (1999) Collaborative research partners: Technology integration model that supports learning communities. In SITE 99: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432 291)
Sheingold, K. & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322 900)
Soloway, Elliot and Raven Wallace. (1997). Does the Internet support student inquiry? Don't ask. Communications of the ACM, 40(5), 11-16.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1996). Lessons learned from the telecommunications and information infrastructure assistance program. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/top/publicationmedia/lessons/lessons.htm
Wenglinsky , H. (1998). "Does it compute?" The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton: NJ: Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 425 191)
Wise, M. & Groom, F. M. (1996). The effects of enriching classroom learning with the systematic employment of multimedia. Education, 117(1), 61-69.
Zeisler, A. (1997). Are your classrooms computer literate? School Planning & Management, 36(1), 15-17.
Zeisler, A. (1999). Your technology plan: More than wires and boxes. Technology Planning & Management, 38(11), 6-9.
[top] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
