October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

More documents

Recommendations

Info

adequate technology resources. Bauer (2001) specified four major funding sources, including foundation funding, corporation grants, individual giving, and federal and state grants. Among these resources, federal and state grants place the greatest impact on technology resources in educational settings. Thus, it is critical to recognize the importance of funding in technology integration, to identify where the funds can be granted, and to identify means to obtain the funds to sustain technology integration. 7. Identify means to collaborate with and gain recognition from national professional organizations and software vendors. At the national level, it is essential to identify means to gain recognition from accreditation agencies, to attend national contests or reviews and meetings of professional organizations, and to disseminate experience by authoring articles in journals, and to develop partnerships with educational software companies for appropriate support. Hsu (2004) identified that positive attention from an accreditation agency was critical in sustaining technology integrations. The faculty members and course instructors within the science education program gained confidence and momentum in technology integration because of recognition by National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), an accreditation organization. Published journal articles and conference papers drew the attention and interest of people working in similar areas of research, which reinforced the accomplishments of faculty members’ and course instructors’ efforts in technology integration. Thus, in educational settings, rewards can accrue in a number of ways and it is not necessary to use money as a form of reward. Software companies can provide technical assistance and buy-in. They can also offer professional development workshops for the potential users and learners. Cooper and Bull (1997) suggested the establishment of partnerships between the educational programs and vendors of educational software to ensure that students receive appropriate exposure to software. They further suggested the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and other organizations that establish technology standards for teacher education standards could take the initiative to implement such arrangements with educational vendors. In Hsu’s (2004) study, software companies were very supportive of the science education program and provided additional tools and professional training for the faculty members and course instructors. The companies also worked diligently to develop compatible technologies and more elementary-friendly tools based on faculty members’ and course instructors’ feedback. You (2001) provided a number of practical suggestions for developing school-business partnerships that promote educational reform in science and technology. These suggestions include aiming for a long-term relationship, getting top-level commitment, deciding on goals, looking for partnership opportunities that fit in school’s situation, being flexible, building on little success and publicizing your efforts, and assigning a staff person or outreach coordinator to develop partnerships. As discussed in the previous sections, the technology integration change process can involve different levels of systems. It is essential to identify the impacts that different systems might have and to exercise strategies to reinforce strengths of and tackle possible resistance from these systems. Conclusion Although we suggest a research-based systemic plan for integrating technology in elementary science education, a number of areas remain to be answered. First, a leadership team has proved as a powerful force in sustaining technology integration in elementary science education. However, it is important to further study methods for recruiting key persons with expertise in science education and keeping them involved in the technology integration change process. It is also important to identify and clarify mechanisms that allow for sharing responsibilities in a leadership team. Second, a learning community can be very powerful in sustaining the technology integration change process in elementary science education. However, we need to identify how to designate experts with vision to serve as catalysts for forming and leading the learning community. Additionally, research and practice must explore the design of a variety of significant, motivating, and relevant activities in which to engage stakeholders. Also, for busy teachers, it is important to identify methods to motivate them to engage regularly in aforementioned activities. Third, the technology integration change process cannot be sustained if support from different systems is insufficient. We identified a number of systems that have influence on technology integration. It is important for 181
the change agents to recognize the resources and inhibitors within the systems and accordingly assign different weights while evaluating the success of the implementation plan in different contexts. This article provided the background of reform in science education in the United States in recent years. This article also addressed major types of technology tools that are responsive to reform efforts. In addition, this article indicated the challenges of elementary preservice teacher education and justified why the technology integration change process is worthy of further examination. Change takes time and efforts; not all change can be sustained. Thus, a systemic perspective was provided for educational researchers, practitioners, and policymakers involved in the change process to plan for successful technology integration in their contexts. References Avraamidou, L. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2002). Making the case for the use of web-based portfolios in support of learning to teach. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1 (2), 1-19. Bannasch, S. (2001). Educational innovations in portable technologies. In Tinker, R. F. & Krajcik, J. S. (Eds.) Portable Technologies: Science Learning in Context, New York: Plenum, 121-166. Bauer, D. G. (2001). Finding the money. Principal Leadership, 1 (9), 24-28. Brush, T., Igoe, A., Brinkerhoff, A., Glazewski, K., Ku, H. Y. & Smith, T. C. (2000). Lessons from the field: Integrating technology into preservice teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17 (4), 16-20. Bombaugh, R., Sparrow, E. & Mal, T. (2003). Using GLOBE plant phenology protocols to meet the “National Science Education Standards.” American Biology Teachers, 65 (4), 279-285. Bull, G., Willis, J., & Bell, L. (2000). A user’s guide to the CITE journal. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1 (1), 4–8. Butler, D. M. & MacGregor, I. D. (2003). GLOBE: Science and education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51 (1), 9-20. Cavanaugh, C. (2003). Information age teacher education: Educational collaboration to prepare teacher for today’s students. Tech Trend, 47 (2), 24-28. Cooper, J. M., & Bull, G. (1997). Technology and teacher education: Past practice and recommended directions. Action in Teacher Education, 19, 97-106. Cosner, S, & Peterson, K. (2003). Building a learning community. Leadership, 32 (5), 12-15. Dana, T. M. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2001, March). Learning to teach with technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Information Technologies in Teacher Education (SITE), Orlando, FL. Dexter, S. & Riedel, E. (2003). Why improving preservice teacher educational technology preparation must go beyond the college’s walls. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (4), 334-346. Franklin, M. E. (1993). Statewide Improvement in Elementary Mathematics and Science Education through Peer Teacher Training (Final Report of Project R 168D00258-92), Chapel Hill, NC: Mathematics and Science Education Network, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Glasson, G. E. & McKenzie, W. L. (1999). The development of a multi-media portfolio for enhancing learning and assessment in a K-8 science method class. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10 (4), 335-344. Grove, K., Strudler, N. & Odell, S. (2004). Mentoring toward technology use: Cooperating teacher practice in supporting student teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37 (1), 85-109. Hargrave, C. P. & Hsu, Y. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8 (4), 303-314. 182
Page 1 and 2:
October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4
Page 3 and 4:
Guidelines for authors Submissions
Page 5 and 6:
How Does Educational Technology Ben
Page 7 and 8:
Adaptivity is one of the most impor
Page 9 and 10:
3. Ease of editing and updating: wh
Page 11 and 12:
Accessible and personalized Learnin
Page 13 and 14:
From this definition, we figured ou
Page 15 and 16:
Verifying contents Figure 3. The pa
Page 17 and 18:
Figure 7. The ISA on line interface
Page 19 and 20:
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
Page 21 and 22:
World Wide Web Consortium (1999a).
Page 23 and 24:
guiding and supporting environment
Page 25 and 26:
As an example, to improve the acces
Page 27 and 28:
option). Although this finding migh
Page 29 and 30:
of eLearning content and enhance th
Page 31 and 32:
Hodgings, W. & Duval, E. (2002). IE
Page 33 and 34:
the entire course of study. This sy
Page 35 and 36:
information useful for the contextu
Page 37 and 38:
Nr of student 25 20 15 10 5 0 a - w
Page 39 and 40:
Vincenzo, a second year student, ne
Page 41 and 42:
Evaluation Recently embodied conver
Page 43 and 44:
The interaction may be performed on
Page 45 and 46:
Poggi, I., Pelachaud, C., & de Rosi
Page 47 and 48:
Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., & Costa
Page 49 and 50:
quality in use, which is measured b
Page 51 and 52:
process of designing high quality c
Page 53 and 54:
eLSE methodology Designers and eval
Page 55 and 56:
Execution phase Execution phase act
Page 57 and 58:
on the inspection process and, cons
Page 59 and 60:
Piccinini, N., & Scollo, G. (2006).
Page 61 and 62:
Answers and reinforcement A.1: Use
Page 63 and 64:
potential project ideas (from pure
Page 65 and 66:
For each column in Table 2, the sum
Page 67 and 68:
educational goals and the various r
Page 69 and 70:
A new computerized Records Manageme
Page 71 and 72:
eflected in artifacts and other str
Page 73 and 74:
any distributed community include b
Page 75 and 76:
message in order to obtain a respon
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 3. Social network after intr
Page 79 and 80:
increased face-to-face collaboratio
Page 81 and 82:
References Bogenrieder, I. (2002).
Page 83 and 84:
Donoghue, S. L. (2006). Institution
Page 85 and 86:
contemplate part-time, rather than
Page 87 and 88:
espective institutions. The primary
Page 89 and 90:
greater flexibility in course selec
Page 91 and 92:
Cost-benefit One distinct benefit o
Page 93 and 94:
Resources The development of online
Page 95 and 96:
courses where it is has little pote
Page 97 and 98:
A fellowship programme, such as the
Page 99 and 100:
Moore, M.G. (1998). Introduction. I
Page 101 and 102:
Software reuse has two dimensions,
Page 103 and 104:
Courseware development process mode
Page 105 and 106:
Didactics analysis This phase consi
Page 107 and 108:
Process didactics design We focus o
Page 109 and 110:
The repository is organized into co
Page 111 and 112:
the analysis and the design phase o
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 12. Weaving content and dida
Page 115 and 116:
complete user-specific (author, ins
Page 117 and 118:
References ADL (Advanced Distribute
Page 119 and 120:
Bender, D. M., & Vredevoogd, J. D.
Page 121 and 122:
(see Figure 2). The incorporation o
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 4: Example of Summary Image
Page 125 and 126:
The competitive nature of design cl
Page 127 and 128:
Dias, L. B. (1999, November). Integ
Page 129 and 130:
materials built into the system. Th
Page 131 and 132:
This theory of multimedia learning
Page 133 and 134:
E-Tutor (with video). Two weeks aft
Page 135 and 136: empirically tested in TML environme
Page 137 and 138: Rieber, L. P., (1990). Animation in
Page 139 and 140: Appendix B The following 44 items r
Page 141 and 142: Appendix C A Sample of Exam Questio
Page 143 and 144: Appendix D Perceived Usefulness Que
Page 145 and 146: Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001) have a
Page 147 and 148: 2001). The system thus aims to assi
Page 149 and 150: a strong agreement between the two
Page 151 and 152: of the dynasty. 3. Information on
Page 153 and 154: Comparing works designed using the
Page 155 and 156: Tselios, N., Stoica, A., Maragoudak
Page 157 and 158: strategies during their interaction
Page 159 and 160: P(B|D) is the probability of a netw
Page 161 and 162: Online help adaptation using Bayesi
Page 163 and 164: AUSM that will return the most prob
Page 165 and 166: direct experimentation with a new s
Page 167 and 168: Figure 7. An example of use of the
Page 169 and 170: Cooper, J. & Herskovits, E. (1992).
Page 171 and 172: Goldberg, A. K., & Riemer, F. J. (2
Page 173 and 174: In addition to convenience, propone
Page 175 and 176: members increased flexibility. They
Page 177 and 178: Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The c
Page 179 and 180: The basis of reform in science educ
Page 181 and 182: technology and are not confident in
Page 183 and 184: participants that learning as a gro
Page 185: A hierarchy of Systems Identifying
Page 189 and 190: Nonis, A. S., & O’Bannon, B. (200
Page 191 and 192: maintaining the interest levels of
Page 193 and 194: Focus group interviews with our stu
Page 195 and 196: course and again at the end of the
Page 197 and 198: second phase of valuing, commitment
Page 199 and 200: Kinzie, M. B., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 201 and 202: Although this work is based on a st
Page 203 and 204: Website Design The MTP website (www
Page 205 and 206: Researchers, for review and coding
Page 207 and 208: quality that are the focus of the M
Page 209 and 210: Kelley, M. A., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 211 and 212: or underserved populations. For exa
Page 213 and 214: 2004 Baruch College Computer Center
Page 215 and 216: professional-level tools and resour
Page 217 and 218: Third, with the exception of the Om
Page 219 and 220: Hepp, P., Hinostroza, E., Laval, E.
Page 221 and 222: The AccessForAll strategy complemen
Page 223 and 224: of people with special needs, or di
Page 225 and 226: (including where their search for r
Page 227 and 228: international standard. The ISO pro
Page 229 and 230: information will be expressed using
Page 231 and 232: DC Metadata Terms: http://dublincor
Page 233 and 234: Choquet, C., & Corbière, A. (2006)
Page 235 and 236: TEL Standards, Specifications and P
Page 237 and 238:
The Resources Management Process ma
Page 239 and 240:
Step 1: Instantiation of the enterp
Page 241 and 242:
Step 5: Instantiation of the techno
Page 243 and 244:
correlation of the different viewpo
Page 245 and 246:
Hummel, H., Manderveld, J., Tatters
Page 247 and 248:
Karagiannidis, C. (2006). Book revi
Page 249 and 250:
Glenn, L. (2006). Book review: Visu
show all

October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?