Home PublicationsJRTEPast IssuesVolume 33 Number 5

Edited by Dr. David J. Ayersman, Mary Washington College, and Dr. W. Michael Reed, New York University

formerly Journal of Research on Computing in Education

Technology-Using Teachers Comparing Perceptions of Exemplary Technology Use to Best Practice, Part II

Teachers’ Visions of Exemplary Technology Practice

When asked to describe their visions of technology integration, teachers emphasized a variety of teaching and learning goals. Whereas some teachers emphasized important computer or information literacy skills that their students needed to know (e.g., how to use a spreadsheet), others focused on helping students learn specific content (e.g., the variety of species populating the world), while still others went beyond content to support students’ development of problem-solving and critical-thinking skills (e.g., using a spreadsheet to predict changing relationships among existing populations and available resources).

Skill-Oriented Visions

Teachers were classified as having skill-oriented visions if they made explicit reference to helping students learn specific technology or information literacy skills. For example, Teresa, a computer lab teacher at a private PK–8 school, stressed: “Technology has a goal in and of itself.” Eleven of our 17 teachers noted that students needed to learn basic technology skills; three of these emphasized skills as their primary focus. However, these three teachers also made comments that suggested additional emphases on content and/or problem-solving skills.

Content-Oriented Visions

Teachers were classified as having content-oriented visions if they described how technology related to their current curricula. For example, Joe, a middle-school music teacher, stated, “We have a body of knowledge to teach. How we do that is sometimes determined by the tools we have.” Maribeth noted, “Content is where it’s at!”

All of the teachers in this study described how technology supported content-oriented goals; nine teachers suggested that content was their primary focus. Among these nine, however, differences were noted in whether teachers used technology to maintain or go beyond current curricula. Joan’s definition of technology integration illustrates the former approach: “Technology integration is looking at technology as if it is not separate. It’s not an extra or an add on. It is part of what you do every day, it’s using technology as a tool to enhance what you are already doing.” In contrast, Bev, a middle school music teacher, described going beyond what was previously possible: “I have become a better teacher, because of technology … because the kids own it (the music). It is not me teaching them; it is me giving them opportunities to expand.” In this study, 12 teachers used technology to support or enhance current curricula whereas 5 teachers used technology to go beyond current classroom work.

Process-Oriented Visions

Teachers were classified as having process-oriented visions if they emphasized helping students gain problem-solving, critical-thinking, or lifelong-learning skills. Thirteen of our 17 teachers made at least some reference to process-oriented visions; 5 teachers embraced this as their primary focus. Sam described his vision of helping students become active, independent learners:

The least important of our goals is that they learn biology. We are really much more concerned that they become independent learners and critical thinkers. And the independent learning happens only if you give them control. …

These kids need to be critical thinkers. They need to distinguish that all information is not equal. And they need to be able to evaluate the likelihood that it is good information. So those are our two primary goals. If they learn some biology along the way, then that’s fine.

Overlapping Orientations

Eight teachers described visions that included references to all three orientations—skill, content, and process. This may simply reflect the fact that teachers adapt orientations to meet the needs of multiple stakeholders, or perhaps that visions are implemented in dynamic ways, reflecting immediate needs as well as future goals. Another explanation is that teachers are still evolving in their uses of technology or, more fundamentally, their beliefs about classroom practice. Melissa, a relatively new second-grade teacher, emphasized both technology and problem-solving skills within the designated curricular content. She described how she was moving away from an emphasis on skills:

I was reading an article about math and how our students are taught things but don’t understand why they’re doing them and how they lack problem-solving skills. And that made me realize, “Am I doing that? Am I holding my students back by giving them—giving, giving, giving?”

As a result of reflecting on this dilemma, Melissa began to encourage more decision making in her classroom and to place a stronger emphasis on cooperative learning activities. Furthermore, every group activity was followed by a debriefing session in which students reflected on what they had learned, as well as how they had learned it. By embedding both technology and process-oriented skills into the mandated second-grade curricular content, Melissa implemented a vision that integrated all three orientations.

In at least one case, a teacher’s practice appeared constrained by existing job responsibilities. Emilie described a vision of technology integration that “provided students with opportunities to see the connections among subject areas.” Yet, in her position as the computer teacher, her primary responsibility was to ensure “that middle school students are taught the various technology skills that are necessary for them to be successful in the Information Age.” Given this particular context, it was difficult for Emilie to achieve her expressed vision of integrated technology use.

Technology: Enabler or Change Agent?

Becker and Riel (1999) noted that “how teachers organize their classes to a large extent reflects their beliefs about good teaching” (p. 10). Similarly, teacher’s visions for and uses of technology reflect these same beliefs. In at least two cases, teachers described how technology enabled them to achieve long-held visions of good teaching. Sam explained:

I have always been devoted to the notion of—you have to be active to learn… Computer technology has simply allowed me to pursue that more. It hasn’t really changed my philosophy, it’s enabled my philosophy; it’s allowed me to live the philosophy that I have had for a long, long time.

Bev made a similar point:

I think my philosophy has always been the same—a real kinesthetic type learning situation—I teach children, I do not teach music. I teach children through music, through technology, through whatever I am doing.

In other cases, technology appeared to provide the impetus to make important changes in beliefs and practices. Joan described this process:

When I came in, I had not thought about how technology would be integrated. … I was thinking of technology for me—what I would do; what activity sheets I would create, not what the kids would do. As I started using it more, I began to say, “OK, the student needs to be the worker a lot more than I do.” It became much more student-centered.

Thus, in this study, we have evidence supporting two views about the role technology may play in reforming teachers’ practices. Sam and Bev provide evidence that technology enables an existing constructivist philosophy to be translated into practice. Yet, Joan ’s story suggests that the use of technology can prompt the emergence of more constructivist practices. Our results suggest that although constructivist practices do not depend on the use of technology, technology may both support and facilitate these practices.

Relationship of Teachers’ Practice to Best Practice

To answer our third research question, we examined the extent to which the teaching practices of our participants were both student centered and student directed, as suggested by best practice (Becker & Riel, 1999). We describe how our teachers designed, implemented, and evaluated technology-based classroom activities, as well as the extent to which they promoted students’ use of self-regulatory learning strategies.

Student-Centered Curricula

Externally mandated versus participant-driven curricula. Becker and Riel (1999) noted that teachers who implement constructivist practices tend to “design activities around teacher and student interests rather than in response to an externally mandated curriculum” (p. 9). In general, teachers in this study implemented a “hybrid” approach to classroom curricula. Although only four teachers specifically mentioned using externally mandated standards to guide their choice of content and activities, all but one teacher described using technology to support the “needs of the curriculum.” The one teacher (a computer lab teacher) who did not make a strong connection to subject area content focused instead on the specific “goals of technology.” Still, this reflects her particular curriculum (technology) as well as her teaching context (computer lab).

Having ties to externally mandated curriculum, however, did not mean that teachers ignored or minimized students’ interests. On the contrary, teachers in this study used technology to both increase and sustain students’ interest in learning, in general, and in the content areas, specifically. As Joe, a music teacher, noted: “I think on the whole, because it [music] is much more relevant [it is done in the tools and language of kids today], it becomes more meaningful for them … kids leave with a much better grasp of what was covered.” Vivian described how she used technology to make lessons more dynamic by actively engaging students in concepts they were expected to learn at that grade level: “Technology is just another tool to make your lesson better. The activity [publishing a Web page] gives students a reason to research, study, and write.” In summary, teachers in this study helped students achieve recommended standards by creating student-centered activities, facilitated through the use of technology.

Teaching isolated facts versus embedding complex ideas within authentic contexts. Becker and Riel (1999) suggested that teachers who use constructivist-compatible activities tend to engage students in collaborative group projects in which skills are taught and practiced in context, rather than sequentially. As a result, instruction is focused on helping students understand complex ideas rather than remembering isolated definitions and facts. In general, the teachers in this study tended to embed technology skills within other curricular content. Emilie, a middle school computer teacher, stated, “Technology skills are taught within content areas so that they are meaningful.” Yet, it is not clear whether content area skills were, themselves, embedded within authentic project-based activities. For example, Melissa taught her first graders how to cut and paste (a technology skill) as part of a lesson on contractions (a language arts skill). However, the contraction lesson appeared to be an isolated, skill-building lesson rather than one related to specific projects the students were completing. Whereas 16 of our teachers seemed relatively adept at embedding technology skills within current curricular activities, relatively fewer (n = 9) embedded content skills within authentic project-based work on a regular basis.

Still, almost all of the teachers in this study had successfully implemented activities that engaged students in authentic, project-based work. For example, Lindsey described how her fourth graders created and marketed a music CD of Christmas songs, enabling them to experience, firsthand, a variety of economic principles. Emilie teamed up with a science teacher to engage seventh graders in an archeological dig in which they learned about the relationships among different Native American cultures, their artifacts, and their environments. Yet, these types of projects were only part of the work students completed. Students also completed worksheets, practiced skills, and learned facts as part of their ongoing classroom activities.

The fact that these teachers stressed both complex ideas and isolated facts suggests that using constructivist-compatible activities does not preclude teachers from using more traditional activities to meet other learning needs. Teachers may enjoy, and even prefer, using constructivist approaches but a sole focus on this approach may be too limiting, given the amount of time needed to complete such activities relative to the total number of curricular requirements. Teachers may feel compelled to combine approaches (use a hybrid approach) in an attempt to meet multiple needs.

Traditional versus alternative assessment methods. In this study, exemplary technology use did not necessarily translate into innovative assessment practices. Furthermore, teachers’ orientations did not consistently relate to the types of measures used. That is, skill-oriented teachers did not always use objective-type tests, and process-oriented teachers did not always use alternative assessment measures. Teachers tended to vary methods, alternating among traditional tests, performance-based measures, worksheets, and project-based activities, basing decisions on specific goals to be measured.

For example, Emilie’s sixth-grade class practiced keyboarding skills using a computer typing program. Students were assessed in terms of both speed and accuracy (performance-based assessment), and their names were added to a keyboarding stars chart when a specified level of mastery was achieved. In contrast, Emilie’s seventh-grade class created Web sites about Native American cultures after researching and gathering relevant information. Technical skills were learned within the specific content area. Student projects were evaluated by both peers and teacher for their thoroughness in content and overall incorporation of technical features (project-based assessment).

Student-Directed Curricula

Becker and Riel (1999) noted that constructivist teachers help students assess their own understanding. Furthermore, they described how constructivist teachers model the learning process by “engaging in learning in front of their students” (Becker & Riel, p. 9). These types of classroom practices promote student attainment of two of the three main components of the self-regulated learning (SRL) process (i.e., monitoring and evaluating) delineated by Zimmerman (1986), with the remaining component being planning. We examined our data to determine the extent to which teachers promoted students’ use of planning, monitoring, and evaluation learning strategies. In addition, we examined relationships among teachers’ promotion of these strategies and their specific teaching orientations, described earlier.

Eleven of the 17 teachers in our study promoted at least some student use of SRL strategies within their classrooms (Table 3) including goal setting, self-paced learning, peer- and self-assessment, as well as journal writing and reflection. Specifically, eight teachers promoted strategies specific to student-directed planning, seven teachers encouraged student monitoring, and eight teachers promoted student self-evaluation. Two teachers employed two of the three types of strategies; five teachers, including the three high school team-teachers, promoted all three.

Table 3. Teachers’ Visions of Technology Practice and Promotion of Student Self-Regulatory Learning (SRL) Strategies
	Teachers’ Visions/Primary Orientation			Teachers’ Promotion of Student SRL Strategies
	Skill	Content	Process	Planning	Monitoring	Evaluating
Kate	x
Lindsey	x
Teresa	x
Don		x			x
Emilie		x				x
Joe		x
Joan		x		x		x
Jessie B.		x		x		x
Mary		x		x
Maribeth		x
Melissa		x			x
Vivian		x
Annie			x	x	x	x
Bev			x	x	x	x
Connie			x	x	x	x
Jamie			x	x	x	x
Sam			x	x	x	x

Sam describes how he helped students become self-directed learners: “At the beginning of every unit, students … are setting goals for themselves and then adjusting what they’re doing based upon how their performance is going. It gets them actively involved in directing their own course through the unit.” Connie, one of Sam’s team teachers, explains further:

We focus very, very heavily on goal setting and on making modifications as you go. If you don’t achieve a goal in a particular area, you need to compensate for it somewhere else in the unit. This really allows students to take a look at themselves. If it’s your plan, your calendar, you devise all of that yourself—then if it is not working, you are the responsible party.

Students in Sam’s classroom were expected to select, implement, and evaluate their own learning activities. Assessments were conducted in a variety of ways. Students self-determined when to take an oral test after completing other unit activities. In addition, students kept research logs and wrote weekly reflections, allowing them to assess progress toward their goals.

In general, teachers who emphasized a process-oriented vision also promoted student self-regulation within their classrooms. Eleven of the 13 teachers who made at least some reference to process-oriented visions promoted students’ use of SRL strategies. Furthermore, the five teachers who emphasized process skills as their primary focus also made the greatest use of SRL strategies. Perhaps, SRL strategies were simply the tools teachers needed to translate their process-oriented visions into classroom practice. In general, teachers who focused on content (n = 9) used a smaller number of SRL strategies, whereas teachers who focused on skills (n = 3) were not observed to directly promote student SRL.

These patterns of strategy use, as they relate to teachers’ visions, may be partially explained by the grade level at which teachers worked. That is, teachers at higher levels of schooling may be in a better position to promote student-directed strategies. In this study, teachers with skill orientations all taught at the elementary level. Teachers at this level, more than at the upper levels, may feel obligated to help students learn basic skills. In addition, younger students may not be intellectually or emotionally ready to assume control for their learning processes.

Summary

In general, the teaching practices and beliefs of the exemplary teachers in this study were both student centered and student directed. Yet, in relationship to best practice, they might best be described as hybrid approaches. For example, teachers in this study implemented externally mandated curricula yet used technology to do so in student-centered ways. Learning activities and assessment measures varied from activity to activity. Although many of our teachers emphasized learning skills in context, many of these same teachers required students to learn facts and skills, sometimes in isolation. Finally, although teachers with process orientations tended to foster self-regulated learning in their students, teachers with skill or content orientations implemented fewer strategies to promote these practices. The results of this study suggest that exemplary technology use, as perceived and practiced by teachers, does not readily align with current descriptions of best practice; rather, it illustrates what happens when visions meet reality in today’s K–12 classrooms.

Discussion

Although it is generally agreed that teachers can be exemplary constructivist teachers without the use of technology, current sentiment suggests that exemplary technology users only operate within a constructivist framework. As expected, teachers in this study, perceived to be exemplary users, were at many points along the instruction–construction continuum. This suggests that definitions of exemplary, held by teachers themselves, are not necessarily based on definitions provided in the literature, but rather such definitions are based on the very real and practical world in which teachers implement their practice. Exemplary technology practice looks and acts differently depending on a host of variables, including the grade level at which teachers work, the visions which they embrace, the relative use of technology by others around them, and the very real constraints under which they attempt to implement their visions, in terms of both curricular expectations and available resources. Perhaps, given a perfect world, these teachers would implement practices that aligned more closely with those described by Becker and Riel (1999). Yet given current classrooms, students, resources, and curricular expectations, they have achieved a more reasonable and workable “best.”

All of the teachers in this study were exemplary in one form or another. They were all motivated, energetic, and dedicated teachers who had gone beyond usual responsibilities to design activities that engaged students in meaningful technology use. In many cases, they had overcome both access and technical support limitations to achieve these goals. Although the majority of our teachers (65%) described visions that included pedagogical elements that supported a constructivist philosophy, only five teachers implemented those visions in alignment with best practice. This is similar to the finding by Berg et al. (1999) in which teachers reported wanting to incorporate higher level uses but not currently being able to do so. Given that visions typically precede practice, it is possible that these teachers will, in time, translate more of their ideas into practice. Perhaps teachers would benefit from observing how colleagues have implemented their student-centered and student-directed visions within realistic environments in which technology is one component. Knowing how others have eliminated or circumvented barriers may help teachers find reasonable methods for achieving their visions under less-than-optimal conditions.

Although the teachers in this study were similar to those described in other studies of exemplary technology users (Becker, 1994; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993), there were also a number of differences. Because of our small number of participants, we were able to examine and describe teachers’ individual situations, as opposed to describing the most common situation. This allowed us to see that, with the exception of high levels of confidence and motivation, no one characteristic or environmental resource appeared to be essential to exemplary use. Our sample included teachers who represented all possible combinations of variables; they were young and old, experienced and new teachers who worked at all levels of schooling (PK–12) and in a range of subject areas and who had variable levels of access to resources and support. However, what was most common across teachers was the belief that technology provided a valuable tool for achieving their visions of teaching and learning (whether they be skill, content, or process oriented). This finding highlights what many educators have known, but perhaps forgotten, in the more recent concern for acquiring resources: high levels of access and support, although desirable, are neither necessary nor sufficient for exemplary technology use to occur. It would be useful if the literature included more examples of exemplary teachers who have done meaningful things without having the latest and greatest equipment, because this is more likely to be the situation for the majority of teachers. It is our hope that the examples included here can provide novice users with powerful visions of use as well as practical strategies to achieve them.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Besides the small number of participants, additional factors may limit the impact of this study. Because of the nature of the application process and the fact that we focused on classrooms within 60 minutes’ travel time, our participants all resided within a fairly small geographical area. Additionally, because our study was conducted within a semester’s time frame, we were unable to observe everyone who applied for the project or spend great lengths of time in any one classroom. Also, as noted previously, there are numerous definitions and interpretations of exemplary technology integration. Perhaps we would have encountered a different population if we had asked principals to recommend exemplary teachers who use technology as opposed to exemplary technology-using teachers. Technology-using teachers tend to be identified relative to what others are doing around them, perhaps placing an unnecessary emphasis on teachers who use technology as opposed to teachers who use it to support best practice. It will be important to compare our teachers’ visions to those of exemplary teachers who do not use technology, or to teachers who use technology but are not considered exemplary users. To what extent do teachers, in general, embrace these different types of visions? Do technology-using teachers, in general, have a greater or lesser tendency to adopt process-oriented visions? These are questions to be explored in future work.

Conclusion

Based on the results of this study, it appears as though no one technology resource or educational experience is necessary for exemplary technology use to occur. Similarly, no one vision of teaching and learning motivates teachers to strive for exemplary use. Teachers in this study embraced visions that encompassed multiple emphases depending on the perceived needs of their students as well as the perceived requirements of their jobs.

Although being able to integrate technology is fast becoming an expectation for all teachers, it is not clear how this translates into practice. Based on the results of this study, however, it is fairly clear that some discrepancy exists between what is advocated in the literature and what occurs in schools, even in classrooms perceived to be exemplary. What is less clear, however, are the reasons for these discrepancies. Are teachers still evolving in their constructivist practices relative to technology use, or are the expectations outlined in the literature unrealistic? To what extent can we expect technology best practice to occur in teachers’ classrooms? As suggested by McLaughlin (as cited in Dexter et al., 1999), best practice may be an unrealistic goal:

Instruction as observed in a classroom at any point in time reflects a teacher’s response to many elements in the school and classroom setting—students, competing demands, instructional goals, norms, and expectations, to highlight just a few. Teaching practice is embedded in … the “nowness” of the teaching context. (p. 223)

If, however, teachers are still evolving, professional development experiences can be designed to support teacher growth. Perhaps the description of exemplary practice included in the literature should be broadened to include more examples of how teachers adjust their constructivist practice to reflect real constraints and conflicting needs. It might also be useful to illustrate teachers at different points in their journeys of technology integration in order to highlight effective strategies for moving forward. By providing realistic visions of what others have achieved, teachers may be motivated to begin their own journeys toward exemplary technology use. Only by working within teachers’ existing situations, can we truly expect best practice to be achieved.

Contributors

Peggy A. Ertmer is an assistant professor of educational technology in the School of Education at Purdue University. Her current research focuses on the effect that teachers’ pedagogical visions and beliefs have on classroom technology use.

Sangeetha Gopalakrishnan is a master’s student in educational technology at Purdue University. Her interests include designing multimedia instructional materials for distributed learning environments.

Eva M. Ross is a doctoral student in educational technology at Purdue University. Her research interests focus on motivational factors that support technology integration in the classroom and workplace.

Download the full-article (PDF, 128 KB, 20 seconds PDF Instructions)

Back to page 1

Contact

Peggy Ertmer
Purdue University
School of Education
1442 LAEB
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1442
pertmer@purdue.edu

Acknowledgements

Portions of this work were supported by the Multimedia Instructional Development Center at Purdue University and the Herrick Foundation of Michigan. The authors wish to thank the participating teachers and their school principals for their hospitality and efforts during this project. In addition, the authors thankfully acknowledge the assistance of D. Scott Brandt, Dennis Dell, Valeria Moschetta, Suzy Steuben, and Olga Weiss during data collection and analysis.

References

Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291–321.

Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (1999). Teacher professionalism, school-work culture and the emergence of constructivist-compatible pedagogies [Online document]. Irvine: University of California, Irvine, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. Available: www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/special_report2/index.htm.

Beichner, R. J. (1993). Technology competencies for new teachers: Issues and suggestions. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 9(3), 17–20.

Berg, S., Benz, C. R., Lasley II, T. J., & Raisch, C. D. (1998). Exemplary technology use in elementary classrooms. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(2), 111–122.

Brown, A. L. (1997). The advancement of learning. In H. J. Walberg & Geneva D. Haertel (Eds.), Psychology and educational practice (pp. 52–76). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Bruer, J. T. (1994). Schools for thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. (1999). Contrasting teaching philosophies among American teachers [Online document]. Available: www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/FINDINGS/internet-use/snapshots/snapshot-1.htm.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record, 95, 185–210.

Dede, C. (Ed.) (1998). Learning with technology: The 1998 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 221–238.

Erickson, R. (1986). Tasks in time: Objects of study in a natural history of teaching. In Zumwalt (Ed.), Improving teaching. 1986 ASCD Yearbook (pp. 131–147). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ertmer, P.A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.

Ertmer, P.A., & Dillon, D.R. (1998). “Shooting in the dark” versus “Breaking it down”: Understanding students’ approaches to case-based instruction. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 605–622.

Ertmer, P.A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E.M. (2000, February). VisionQuest: Helping our future teachers envision and achieve technology integration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA. Available: www.edci.purdue.edu/ertmer/docs/SITE1_2000.pdf.

Ertmer, P.A., & Hruskocy, C. (1999). Impacts of a university-elementary school partnership designed to support technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 81–96.

Fisher, C., Dwyer, D. C., & Yocam, K. (1996). Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Fulton, K. (1993 Autumn/Winter). Teaching matters: The role of technology in education. Ed Tech Review, 5–10.

Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (1996). Integrating technology for meaningful learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalties and distinctive patterns in teachers’ integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261–315.

Hativa, N., & Lesgold, A. (1996). Situational effects in classroom technology implementations: Unfulfilled expectations and unexpected outcomes. In S. T. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of schooling: Ninety-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2 (pp. 131–171). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hoffman, B. (1996). Managing the information revolution: Planning the integration of school technology. NASSP Bulletin, 80(582), 89–98.

Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Theory into practice (pp. 155–170). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Kerr, S. T. (1996). Visions of sugarplums: The future of technology, education, and the schools. In S. T. Kerr (Ed.) Technology and the future of schooling: Ninety-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2 (pp. 1–27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993-1994). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220–237.

Means, B., & Olson, K. (1997). Technology and education reform: Studies of education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Miller, L., & Olson, J. (1994). Putting the computer in its place: A study of teaching with technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 121–141.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods (3rd. ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

President’s Panel on Educational Technology. (1997). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K–12 education in the United States. Washington DC U.S. Government Printing Office.

Roblyer, M. D. (1993). Why use technology in teaching? Making a case beyond research results. Florida Technology in Education Quarterly, 5(4), 7–13.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

U.S. Department of Education (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualificatons of public school teachers. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Development of self-regulated learning: What are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 307–313.

Copyright © 2001, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.