An
Investigation of the Organizational Impact of Computer Technology in
Classrooms: A Community of Practice Approach
Karthigeyan Subramaniam,
Abstract
This study examines the organizational impact that computer technology has on science teachers teaching actions through the community of practice framework (Lave & Wenger, 1999). The organizational impact of computer technology refers to teachers’ personal styles and creativity in constructing personally pertinent individual models of teaching with computer technology (Kerr, 1996a). Data were collected using a variety of qualitative methods: observations, interviews, focus group interviews, and metaphors. Findings revealed that social interactions within the communities of practice were organized around the concept of legitimate peripheral participation. The nature of the legitimate peripheral participation was a determinant of social interactions that were either liberating or domesticating for students.
Introduction
This study examines the organizational impact that computer technology has on science teachers when they teach with computer technology. The organizational impact of computer technology refers to teachers’ personal styles and creativity in constructing personally pertinent individual models of teaching with computer technology (Kerr, 1996a). The construct of community of practice provided portraitures of the organizational impact of computer technology from teachers’ perspectives. Essentially, the adoption of this construct as a theoretical framework gave a view of how teachers provide access, engagement and membership to their students when computer technology became part of the teaching process. In addition, it also gave a view of some of the liberated and domesticated effects (Boyd, 1991) of the organizational impact of computer technology on student learning.
Literature Review
So far, the
educational computing literature in relation to science teaching has been
adumbrated by educational computing as teaching (Anderson & Demetrius,
1993; Ardac & Akaygum, 2004; Bell, 2000; Hakkarainen, 2003; Hickey,
Kindfield, Horwitz, & Christie, 2003; Jorde, 2000; Linn, 1998; 2000; Linn
& Slotta, 2000; Russell, Lucas, & McRobbie, 2004; White, 2000). For
example, research from the “Web-Based Integrated Science Environment” (WISE)
project (Linn & Slotta, 2000) and “Knowledge Integration Environment” (KIE)
project (
On the other hand, others (Carter, 2000; Nickerson, 1995; Perkins, 1985; Perkins, Crismond, Simmons & Unger, 1995) state that teachers possess explanation structures that frame their teaching actions with computer technology. While others (Bigum, 1997; Bromley, 1997; Bromely & Apple, 1998) contend that these explanation structures take the form of programs of actions enabling educative experiences in the classroom. Moreover, some studies (Boyd, 1991; Lauzon, 1999) claim that theses programs of actions in the classroom have the potential to be liberating and/or domesticating for students in terms of the educative experience. Lauzon’s description of students in teaching and learning settings with integration of computer technology captures the issue of liberation versus domestication of students:
Learners are constructed as passive recipients and while they may be engaged in so called active learning, the concept is usually applied as a rhetorical trick designed to deceive-learners may be actively engaged with the technology but they may not be actively engaged with the material in critically meaningful ways. That is, learners may ask how but not why (p. 266).
According to the community of practice theory students must socially participate in a community to acquire knowledge. This community of practice is characterized as a process of social interaction that takes place within a framework of legitimate peripheral participation. This legitimate peripheral participation occurs when students acquire the necessary tools, skills, knowledge, beliefs, and values to actively participate in the community through processes of co-participation with knowledgeable peers (Lave & Wenger, 1999; Lauzon, 1999). The theory further asserts that relevant concepts, ideas, theories, beliefs, values and appropriate actions (the normative ways) (Billett, 1998) held by knowledgeable peers delineates the boundaries of the legitimate peripheral participation and co-participation between knowledgeable peers and learners. Lave and Wenger (1999) state that the teacher (the knowledgeable peer) is a member of the community of practice who structures classroom contexts for teaching-learning processes through the community’s learning resources. By doing so, teachers provide the framework for legitimate peripheral participation: social interaction between students, teachers and the curriculum. The significance of this construct of community of practice, in relation to the study, was that it framed the study from a person-centered vision of technology (Kerr, 1996b; Budin, 1999) adding emphasis to the teachers’ perspective (Bowers, 1990; 1997; 1998a; 1998b; Budin, 1999; Kerr, 1996a; 1996b) of the organizational impact of computer technology in classrooms.
Methodology
Participants
Participants in
this study were six in-service secondary school science teachers in the
Context
Participants’ teaching and
learning actions were strongly centered around the preparation of their
students for the General Certificate of Education
examinations (GCE “O” Level Examinations) jointly administered by the Ministry
of Education, Republic of Singapore, and the Cambridge University, United
Kingdom. Thus, participants’ instructional and classroom foci were
geared towards these examinations. In the
Data Collection
In this study, participants’ teaching actions with the use of computer technology was examined over a five month period. Primary data sources included observation of participants’ teaching actions in their classrooms; transcripts of classroom discourse from aforementioned observations, individual interviews, focus group interviews, and participants’ natural metaphoric language identified within the transcripts from classroom discourse, interviews, and focus groups.
Data Analysis
Analysis as described by Bogdan and Biklen (1998) was used. An analysis template constructed from the major constructs of the community of practice theory was used to inductively analyze the data. Validity was ensured through techniques of multimethods, triangulation, member checking, and tracking of negative evidence (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Findings
Findings revealed that a number of themes framed participants’ perceptions of the organizational impact of computer technology in their classrooms. First, social interactions (access, engagement and membership) within the communities of practice were characterized by three perceptions that centered on the concept of legitimate peripheral participation: legitimate peripheral participation was organized around the imagery of a journey; legitimate peripheral participation required a facilitator role; and legitimate peripheral participation required a guide role. Second, social interactions were shaped by a mutual investment perspective and a motivation perspective. Third, the mutual investment perspective underscored social interactions that were liberating for students and this perspective did not figure in social interactions that domesticated students. Table 1 captures some of the features (science content, classroom activities and the role of the computer technology) of participants’ classrooms and the role of
Table 1
Participants’
Classroom Activities with the Integration of Computer Technology
|
Science
Content |
Classroom
Activities |
Role of
Computer Technology |
|
Describe
the properties of acids and alkalis |
Use of
data-logging probes (pH) sensors to measure pH changes Data
collection, plotting graphs and analysis |
Data
-logging |
|
Interpret
speed-time, velocity and acceleration graphs |
Use of
data-logging probes (motion sensors) to measure motion changes Data
collection, plotting graphs and analysis |
Data-logging |
|
Identify
and name covalent and ionic compounds |
CD-ROM
based activity provided 3D structures of chemical compounds which students
could rotate and have closer views of chemical bonding types |
Modeling/Animation |
|
Describe
the reflection of sound and sound waves |
CD-Rom
based simulation of experiment to measure the speed of sound Use of
data-logging probes (sound sensor) to measure sound and present them as sound
waves |
Data-logging |
|
Determining
the acceleration of gravity: calculating “g” |
Use of
data-logging probes (motion sensors) to measure motion changes Data
collection, plotting graphs and analysis |
Data-logging |
|
State the
factors that affect the rate of diffusion in cells |
CD-ROM
based interactive simulation activity that enables the manipulation of cell
size |
Simulation/Modeling/Animation |
|
Measuring
the caloric values of common foods |
Designing a
bomb calorimeter using PowerPoint™ |
Modeling/Animation |
|
Describe
the female reproductive tract in relation to structure, function and
fertilization |
CD-ROM
based activity that provides an interactive journey into the female
reproductive tract |
Animation |
computer technology in their teaching action during the five month period of the study. It also captures the student, teacher, computer technology and the teaching and learning activities that were extant within this type of community of practice.
Social Interactions
Legitimate peripheral participation as a
journey
Participants’
community of practice was organized around the imagery of a journey. The
imagery of classroom lessons as journeys depicted participants and their
students, together with the computer technology, moving towards a destination:
the fulfillment of lesson objectives. Thus, this journey, like any other,
required landmarks that guided the participants towards that destination. These
landmarks sustained the journey by enabling participants to focus on the very
act of teaching actions. Unique to this imagery of journey was the recurrent
image of a “pitstop” among participants’ verbatim verbal data. This pitstop
imagery depicted a stop along the journey towards the destination. This pitstop
imagery brought about a change in participants’ roles as well: from that of a
facilitator to that of a guide, as participants and students moved along the
journey.
Participants’
imagery of classroom lessons integrating computer technology as journeys were
mediated by a number of features: acquiring a facilitator role; designating
roles for the computer technology; and participation structures for students –
all within the classroom context. These features collectively took the form of
activity structures. Within these activity structures, participants selected
the relevant and prescribed content, organized the content and related it to
what their student audience already knew. By doing so, participants enabled
themselves and their students to gain access to learning and to demonstrate
social academic competence: social participation structures.
Within the
imagery of journey three key events: set the stage for interactive teaching
actions. In event one, participants set up the stage for interactive teaching
and learning actions. In this event participants stated the lesson objectives,
the lesson format and the purpose/role of the computer technology. This event
also included the participants' verbal cues for social participation. Event one
lead to event two the interactive participant-student instruction-cum-learning
phase. This event closely matched the lesson objectives. This event was not a
mere lecture format that incorporated powerful imageries, provided by the
computer technology, to sustain the lecture. It was more a case of using the
computer technology to initiate joint participant-student tasks that revolved
around the academic task. These tasks provided participants and their students
support and guidance structures that allowed students to interact with the
concepts being presented. During these tasks the computer technology provided a
platform for participants to stimulate their students with content that was
animated or had interactive attributes. This situation also gave participants a
platform to listen to and diagnose students' cognitive activities and relate
them to further instructional actions. Students were seen as partners in this
community of practice, as Anthony stated, "like participants in a workshop...we
are co-learners discussing with each other...." Participants seemed to
favor this because they felt that it provided an atmosphere in which they were
at a "closer range" to students’ understanding. The following comment
captured the aforementioned event one and event two:
…there are a lot of group discussions and
the students and me are involved in the activities…the use of computer
technology widens the scope for these activities…not the teacher just doing the
activities…now we are finding out the content together and you get to know
about things…like what they learn…from there you can guide them on and
clarify…of course you cannot do without the teacher definitely…(Angela,
Interview).
Event three,
maintaining accountability within this community of practice did not follow any
recipe and was sought through a number of measures, which were characterized by
a partnership attribute. This plenary phase or the “pitstop” was a
"wrapping up" session where participants or sometimes students
summarized what educative performances had taken place during the instruction
cum learning phase.
Facilitator role
Data revealed
that when participants integrated computer technology into their classrooms for
teaching purposes they took on the role of facilitator. The facilitator role
itself was underscored by two striking characteristics: a functional aspect and
a cognitive aspect. Both functioned to produce and maintain a social system,
where participants and students could be involved in joint activities. The
following comment illustrated the functional and cognitive aspect found within
the role of facilitator:
The teacher puts it all together so that
the students know what to do...we don't want the students to be fumbling ...you
must know what the computer is doing in the class for this particular
lesson...make adjustments as well...sometimes students go off tangent…
(Anthony, Interview 2).
...a facilitator for students' learning
rather than a person who provides information, or delivers facts using the
computer technology. I see myself as a person who facilitates learning in the
classroom… (Sundari, Interview 2).
The
functional aspect of the facilitator role performed several functions. As
facilitators, participants provided the lesson objectives, and provided
guidelines for students' utilization of computer technology or how it was going
to be used for that particular lesson. The cognitive aspect of the facilitator
was closely linked to the designations afforded to the computer technology and
the participation structures for students. For example how the computer
technology was going to function within the instructional processes: what was
it going to contribute and its relationship to the academic tasks.
Data also
revealed that participants held the perception that some teaching functions
were impossible or inefficient when integrating computer technology into
teaching. They reinforced their need to maintain accountability for their
teaching actions, in light of the cultural context in which participants were
situated. Central to this context was the presence of the GCE “O” level exams.
Of course one very important thing right
now is preparing the students for their GCE "O" level exams and so we
are bound by the syllabus so I always make sure that they understand the
objectives of the lesson before they leave; otherwise sometimes they lose focus
and really don't know what they have done for the day...(Tan, Interview).
Guide Role
During the
journey towards achieving lesson objectives, there seemed to be a temporal
recasting of participants' role as a facilitator to that of a guide. Data
revealed the image of the lesson as a moving object slowing down in tune with
the recasting of participants into guides. The slowing down was captured as a
"pitstop" where the participants as guides reconnoitered the steps
taken by students through: checking for students' understanding; reinstating
the relevance of the topic at hand; and wrapping up. The social context in
which this “pitstop” occurred was marked by the assertion of the participants’
roles as teachers who were making sure that what had been done by their
students was in accordance with objectives. This revealed the influence of the
institutional focus. The following quote captures the aforementioned aspect:
The teacher's role now shifts, before the
lesson the teacher does the planning, the background that makes them do the
learning themselves...but now the guiding comes along...is like the summary
part where I have to make sure that the students, after going through all those
CD-ROMs, Internet sites or simulations, are able to...know what they are
supposed to learn...because sometimes they become too out of focus and so the
teacher has to focus them onto the main things again.
(Angela, Interview)
This recasting occurred
in response to actual feedback from classroom actions and experience. First,
participants claimed that there was always a possibility of students
"going off at a tangent". The computer technology's attributes of
animation, simulation and interactivity or the use of Internet itself
encouraged this perception. Participants stated that sometimes students might
be overwhelmed by these attributes and move away from the lesson at hand. The
need to "wrap up" the lesson was also cited as a crucial reason for
this change. As the following comments from participants' lesson extracts
signaled, the role of guide was more in tune with maintaining the relevance to
the topic being covered.
Let’s clarify the molecular structure again
with that depicted on the screen and on your worksheet...Lets summarize what we
have done, look at the ionic bond...refer to the software...are there any
problems...let's look at the structure again...
(Anthony, Field note)
Since you are the experts now in your
designs of finding out "g", please share it with the other groups.
Pick up from one another...what are the factors that you chose or the other
group chose
(Ning, Field note)
...have you considered all the
recommendations given to you by the website? As a scientist you have considered
many factors for the design of the fire alarm or the thermometer...you have to
consider other factors as well...Lets discuss together what we have done so
far. Remember you also have to present your answers...
(Tan, Field note)
The predominant function
of the role of guide was to ensure that students were able to account for their
learning. The guide role was cast within a social context to maintain the
social relations between students and participants.
Legitimate peripheral participation as a
mutual investment perspective
The mutual
investment perspective was an often recurring theme of participants’ personal
styles and creativity in constructing personally pertinent individual models of
teaching with computer technology. This perspective held the common
understanding that both participants and their students had to be partners
within the instructional processes. Students had to be part of an "on
going" instructional process that enabled them to build or make meaning
and not just "pick up" concepts from participants or from the
computer technology. Participants’ adoption of this mutual investment
perspective involved a number of features. The following narrative signified
some of these features.
Sometimes I just present a lesson using
computer technology, just a small part of the lesson I have worksheets and
exercises about it. It is quite structured. For the topic on dissolving I use
the CD-ROM to show the models, to show visual pictures of how sodium chloride
dissolves. Then after that they go onto write the equations. It is visual
presentation, to show the meaning of dissolving, how the water works, how the
water comes into the picture, so it is very difficult to describe without
animation...shows what happens and delivers commentaries so they are seeing the
process and theory at the same time. I use that to develop an idea of how
dissolving occurs. Well with the interactivity provided by the computer
technology I can stop and explain or students join in asking questions. Usually
I make them predict what is going to happen next. You get their conceptions
out. From there we move on, so that is sodium chloride dissolving, what about
the rest like aluminum chloride? So they have the practice of writing that
equation using visuals from dissolving sodium chloride to show how ionic solids
dissolve.
(Anthony, Verification of coding interview)
Data
revealed that participants interpreted the importance of the mutual investment
perspective on the basis that it allowed their students not only to be part of
the instructional processes but also enabled them to contribute to the
instructional processes. For example, in the aforementioned quote, students
were to “predict”, “join in the questioning” and “write the equations”. That
is, the computer technology was factored in as an integral component because it
enabled the participants to accomplish these joint instructional activities.
Thus, the mutual investment perspective seemed to play a crucial role in
positioning students. It provided a focus to situate students in a position
that enabled them to be contributors to the teaching and learning processes and
to gain cultural templates from these processes. The factoring in of the
computer technology as an integral factor was based on this mutual investment
perspective. Participants also held the notion that mutual investment could
also be achieved by the use of student worksheets and the powerful visual
imageries and interactivity provided by the computer technology. This notion
was underpinned by the understanding that this was an extreme form of mutual
investment; it was to enable students to be part of the teaching and learning,
especially those students who were only interested in gaining from the teaching
and learning processes and not to be contributors to them.
Legitimate peripheral
participation through motivation
The
interest/motivation perspective reflected the conception that the integration
of computer technology into teaching actions resulted in student motivation and
interest towards the content being taught. Participants related this conception
to the attributes of interactivity, animations, and simulations that the
computer technology afforded the classroom context. The interest/motivation
perspective was however channeled towards attracting students’ attention to the
lesson objectives. The following narrative illustrated this perspective held by
the participants in this study.
I chose to use the sound file. It is very
sensitive so it responds very well. The girls sort of enjoy it, more fun but at
the same time they are creating the sound waves, the sound or noise they make
gets detected and the sound file picks it up and the sound wave forms on the
screen. They can spot the difference between waves, the rarefaction and
compression...that's good. I guide them along, sometimes we compare sounds and
I ask them to predict the type of wave…I realize that since they are enjoying
and learning at the same time I actually allocated more time although this
lesson could be finished in twenty minutes or less. I actually let them play
with it more.
(Ning, Classroom Case)
This
interest/motivation perspective was interpreted by participants as helping them
to foster student participation based on the attributes of the computer
technology.
Liberating and domesticating social interactions
In addition, some of the participants’
perceptions reflected normative teaching-learning processes that were either
liberating or domesticating to the students in participants’ classrooms. Social
interactions were liberating for students when participants designated the
computer technology with a number of specific roles: first, the computer
technology supported student construction of knowledge through the processes of
interactivity, simulation, and visualization; second, the computer technology,
as a information resource, equipped students with the necessary concepts to
build up their knowledge; and, finally, the computer technology helped students
to develop their conceptual understanding through the processes of
interactivity, simulation, and visualization. The following quote from Sundari,
extracted from an interview captured the aforementioned perspective:
The use of
the CD-ROM (9 month miracle) enabled me to show the actual movement of the ovum
and the sperm ... how the ovum is fertilized ... the path that the sperm takes
... how it fertilizes the ovum and how the fertilized ovum moves down the
fallopian tube towards the uterus and how the embryo is formed. It had a
lasting impression on them because we actually maneuvered down the female
reproductive tract together ... the CD-ROM gave us the opportunity...I am sure
they are able to recall what they had seen ... they become part of the movement
they told me when to stop ... and sometimes they maneuvered in the wrong
direction ... I stopped and they ask me why ... they give me explanations ...
sometimes it is funny but the questions really help ... I can reinforce like a
pointer ... they understand the process not just the textbook diagram...
Within
this context, knowledge construction was seen as a mutual investment made by
both students and participants; and as participants taking on facilitator and
guide roles respectively. The use of computer technology by participants enabled their
students to approach a concept through questioning it; comprehending the explanations
that surround it; to showcase the concept's relationships with other concepts;
and by supporting knowledge construction rather than transmitting the
knowledge. For example, from the above quote, the process of fertilization was
related to students’ knowledge construction through the approaches of
animation, simulation and interactivity provided by the computer technology.
But some of the social interactions
involved the computer technology being assigned with roles like helping
students to consolidate the required content for the lesson: domesticating. The
consolidation was typified by the computer technology reinforcing, and
reiterating the learned content through visuals, and drill and practice tests.
The following quote extracted from an interview with Woo exemplifies this group
of participants’ insights for domesticating teaching actions with computer
technology:
Although it is basically very helpful in terms of teaching and
learning, it will be very good if we have a lot of time to go out and source
out all the best CD-ROMs, and Internet sites but we have very little time for
that. Actually I can incorporate computer technology into every lesson one or
two minutes at the end of the lesson after we have learnt a certain concept I
show them a photograph of tropism and I ask the students what is the stimulus.
Why is it behaving in this way at least there are photographs to help them see
what tropism is.
It is obvious that when the computer
technology is assigned to bring about domesticating actions in the classroom,
students were not actively engaged in the knowledge construction process,
instead they become passive learners engaged with what the computer technology
is providing: visuals and information. In contrast, liberating actions resulted
when the computer technology was supporting student construction of knowledge
through the processes of interactivity, simulation, and visualization.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the organizational impact of computer technology on science teachers as they integrate computer technology into their teaching actions. Findings from this study revealed that participants possessed models of teaching (Kerr, 1996a) or programs of teaching actions (Bigum, 1997; Boyd, 1991; Bromley, 1997; Bromely & Apple, 1998; Lauzon, 1999) for their teaching actions with the integration of computer technology. Participants organized teaching actions around the perspectives of social interactions and roles. Legitimate peripheral participation structures within the social interactions were achieved by participants’ perceptions of teaching actions as a journey, and teaching actions as mutual investment between participants and their students. These perceptions framed the participants’ personal styles and creativity in constructing personally pertinent individual models of teaching with computer technology (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Budin, 1999; Kerr, 1996b; Kerr, 1996a). This particular model of teaching with computer technology was strongly influenced by the cultural context and the institutional focus on state examinations. It must also be mentioned that the organizational impact of computer technology in teaching is also influenced by the motivational aspects provided by computer technology.
The nature of the model of teaching or the program of actions is crucial to understanding the way participants create teaching situations which are liberating or domesticating for students in their classrooms (Lauzon, 1999). Liberating teaching and learning actions took place when the mutual investment perspective, facilitator and guide roles were prevalent within participants’ teaching actions and through their designations of the computer technology to provide animation, simulation and interactivity that enabled their students to approach a concept through questioning it; comprehending the explanations that surround it; and supporting knowledge construction. Domesticating teaching and learning actions lacked the integration of participants’ mutual investment perspective or the facilitator role and was dependent on the participants’ guide role that helped students to be engaged with what the computer technology was providing through its visual and information capabilities. The domesticating effect present among participants teaching actions is attributed to the cultural context and the institutional focus on state examinations.
Finally, the community of practice as built by participants in this study was characterized as a process of social interaction that took place within a framework of legitimate peripheral participation. The legitimate peripheral participation that led to co-participation between participants (the knowledgeable peers) and their students (Lave & Wenger, 1999; Lauzon, 1999) was influenced by the teaching actions as joint activities (a journey taken together by participants and their students); designating roles for participants themselves; and designating roles for the computer technology: the normative ways (Billett, 1998) held by participants that delineated the boundaries of the legitimate peripheral participation and co-participation between knowledgeable peers and learners.
Conclusion
The study is important because the construct of community of practice helped to capture the teachers’ perspective of the organizational impact of computer technology from social aspects like access, engagement, and membership: extensions of human capabilities and contexts for social interactions supporting learning. This is pertinent as the person-centered vision of technology for education is emphasized in contrast to the predominant techno centric explanations for classroom use of computer technology. The cultural context and institutional focus were important determinants that influenced participants’ personal styles and creativity in constructing personally pertinent individual models of teaching with computer technology. The current trend of investigating inquiry-based science teaching was not an overriding factor in this research. Research is needed to derive the knowledge behind the organizational impact of computer technology and inquiry-based science teaching. Answers to questions like “What are the perspectives behind a science teacher’s decision to integrate the computer technology into the four levels of inquiry-based teaching?” need to be investigated.
Implications
Finally, the findings of this study offer interesting landmarks for teacher education and skills training. First, attending to activity structures, for example, is a relevant theoretical perspective to understand the organizational impact that computer technology has on teachers when they teach with computer technology. This study had shown that these activity structures led to authentic tasks in the classroom mediated by the teachers’ personal styles and creativity in constructing personally pertinent individual models of teaching with computer technology.
Second, the findings have shown that teachers’ personal styles and creativity in constructing personally pertinent individual models of teaching with computer technology are very specific and context dependent. The facilitator role, the designation of roles for the computer technology and the participation structures for students are key factors that influence the organizational impact that computer technology has on teachers when they teach with computer technology. Teacher education and skills training need to instill practices that enable teachers to identify these factors and not just rely on “dipping” teachers into computer technology courses and skills.
References
Anderson, O. R., & Demetrius, O. J. (1993). A flow-map method of representing cognitive structure based on respondent's narratives using science content. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 953-969.
Ardac, D., & Akaygum, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317-337.
Billett, S. (1998). Ontogeny and participation in communities of practice: A socio-cognitive view of adult development. Studies in the Education of Adults, 30(1), 21-34.
Bigum, C. (1997). Teacher and computers: In control or being controlled? Australian Journal of Education, 41(3), 247-261.
Bogdan, R. C.,
& Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction
to theory and methods. (3rd Ed.).
Bowers, C. A. (1990). Educational computing and the ecological crisis: Some questions about our curriculum priorities. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(1), 72-76.
Bowers, C. A.
(1997). The culture of denial: Why the environmental movement needs a
strategy for reforming universities and public schools.
Bowers, C. A. (1998a). The paradox of technology: What's gained and lost? Thought and Action, 14(1), 49-57.
Bowers, C. A. (1998b). Toward a balanced perspective on the educational uses of computer: Advantages, myths, and the responsibilities of educators. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1), 75-83.
Boyd, G. (1991).
Emancipative education technology in D. Hylynka and J. C. Belland (Eds), Paradigms
regained: The uses of illuminative, semiotic, and postmodern criticisms as
modes of inquiry in educational technology (pp. 83-92).
Bransford,
J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Bromley, H. (1997). The social chicken and the technological egg: Educational computing and the technology/society divide. Educational Theory, 47(1), 51-65.
Bromley, H., & Apple, M. W. (Eds.). (1998). Education/Technology/Power: Educational
computing as a social Practice.
Budin, H. (1999). Essay review: The computer enters the classroom. Teachers College Record, 100(3), 656-669.
Carter, D. (2000). Articulating curriculum purpose with student assessment using new information technology. Curriculum and Teaching, 15(1), 97-110.
Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072-1088.
Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. T. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 495-538.
Jorde, D. (2000). Knowledge integration environment: Reactions and comments. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 881-883.
Kerr, S. T.
(1996a). Toward a sociology of educational technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp.
143-169).
Kerr, S. T.
(1996b). Visions of sugarplums: The future of technology, education, and the
schools. In S. T. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of schooling
(pp. 1-25).
Lave, J., &
Wenger, E. (1999). Learning and pedagogy in communities of practice. In J.
Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and pedagogy (pp. 21-33).
Lauzon, A. C. (1999). Situating cognition and crossing borders : Resisting the hegemony of mediated education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 261-276.
Lieberman,
A., & Miller, L. (1991). Revisiting the social realities of teaching. In A.
Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff
development for education in the 90's: New demands, new realities, new
perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 92-109).
Lincoln, Y. S.,
& Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry.
Linn, M. C.
(1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and
current opportunities. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International
handbook of science education (pp. 265-293).
Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781-796.
Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). WISE Science. Educational Leadership 58(2), 29-32.
Nickerson, R. S. (1995). Can technology help teach for
understanding. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West, & M. S. Wiske
(Eds.), Software goes to school (pp.
7-17).
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods (2nd ed.).
Perkins, D., Crismond, D., Simmons, R., & Unger, C.
(1995). Inside understanding. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West,
& M. S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes
to school (pp. 70-87).
Perkins, D. N. (1985). The fingertip effect: How information-processing technology shapes thinking. Educational Researcher, 14(7), 11-17.
Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B., & McRobbie, C. J. (2004). Role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in thermal physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 165-185.
Sleegers, P., & Van den Berg, R. (2000). Building innovative schools: The need for new approaches. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 801-808.
White, R. T. (2000). The knowledge integration environment: Commentary on research. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 2000.