Creating a Framework for Research on Systemic Technology Innovations

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 43-76

  Fishman, Barry ^a,b   Marx, Ronald W ^a   Blumenfeld, Phyllis ^a   Krajcik, Joseph ^a   Soloway, Elliot ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b 610 East University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1042303002     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_3     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy, Project 2061, New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.
4. Anderson, L. S. (1999, Spring, 1996). Guidebook for developing an effective instructional technology plan, version 3. Retrieved June 15, 2001, from http://www2.msstate.edu/̃lsal/nctp/guide.html
5. Anderson, R. E., & Ronnkvist, A. (1999). The presence of computers in American schools (Report No. 2). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine, and the University of Minnesota. Retrieved March 25, 2003, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/findings/Internet-Use/startpage.htm
6. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8.
7. Becker, H. J. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software (Teaching, Learning, and Computing Report No. 3). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine, and the University of Minnesota. Retrieved March 25,2003, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tcl/findings/computeruse/
8. Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). Retrieved March 25, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51/
9. Bell, P., Davis, E., & Linn, M. C. (1995). The Knowledge Integration Environment: Theory and design. In J. Schnase & E. Cunnius (Eds.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 14-21). Bloomington, IN: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
10. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol. 1: A model of educational change (No. R-1589/1-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
11. Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, .35(3), 149-164.
12. Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369-398.
13. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.), (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
14. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
15. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
16. Carvin, A. (2000, February). The E-rate in America: A tale of four cities. Retrieved March 25, 2003, from http://www.benton.org/e-rate/e-rate.4cities.pdf
17. Center for Children and Technology. (2000). The transformation of Union City: 1989 to present. New York: Center for Children and Technology, Union City, NJ, Board of Education. Retrieved March 30, 2003, from http://www2.edc.org/CCT/admin/publications/report/uc_transform00.pdf
18. CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (1999). Professional development: A link to better learning (Year Two Report). Washington, DC: CEO Forum on Education and Technology. Retrieved March 30, 2003, from http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/99report.pdf
19. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
20. Cohen, D. K. (1988). Educational technology and school organization. In R. S. Nickerson & P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 231-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
21. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (CPRE Research Report Series No. RR-043). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved March 30, 2003, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rr43.pdf
22. Collins, A. (1990). Toward a design science of education (CTE Technical Report No. 1). New York: Center for Children and Technology, Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved March 30, 2003, from http://www.edc.org/CCT/ccthome/reports/trl.html
23. Confrey, J., Bell, K., & Carrejo, D. (2001, April). Systemic crossfire: What implementation research reveals about urban reform in mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
24. Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Hadley, W. (2001). Cognitive tutors: From the research classroom to all classrooms. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Technology enhanced learning: Opportunities for change (pp. 235-263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
25. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
26. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
27. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute, Washington, DC.
28. Fishman, B. (2002, April). Linking the learning sciences to systemic reform: Teacher learning, leadership & technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
29. Fishman, B. (2003). Linking on-line video and curriculum to leverage community knowledge. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Using video in teacher education (Vol. 10, pp. 201-234). New York: Elsevier.
30. Fishman, B., Best, S., Marx, R. W., & Tal, R. (2001, March). Fostering teacher learning in systemic reform: Linking professional development to teacher and student learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
31. Fishman, B., Fogleman, J., Kubitskey, B., Peek-Brown, D., & Marx, R. (2003, March). Taking charge of innovations: Fostering teacher leadership in professional development to sustain reform. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research on Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
32. Fishman, B., & Gomez, L. (2000). New technologies and the challenge for school leadership. In M. Honey & C. Shookhoff (Eds.), The Wingspread Conference on Technology's Role in Urban School Reform: Achieving Equity and Quality (pp. 13-21). Racine, WI: The Joyce Foundation, The Johnson Foundation, and the EDC Center for Children and Technology.
33. Fishman, B., Lento, E., Gomez, L., & Despenza-Green, B. (1997, March). Implementing the Internet in a large urban school system: A case study of the CoVis Project in the Chicago Public Schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
34. Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643-658.
35. Fishman, B., & Pinkard, N. (2001). Bringing urban schools into the information age: Planning for technology vs. technology planning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(1), 63-80.
36. Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1992, June). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 745-752.
37. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
38. Goertz, M. E. (2001). Standards-based accountability: Horse trade or horse whip? In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. 100th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II) (pp. 39-59). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39. Goldman, S. R. (2002, April). Learning and instruction research meet the realities of educational systems (Division C Vice-Presidential Address), Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
40. Goldman, S. R., & Cottom, C. (2001, April). Building capacity to sustain teacher learning: Issues of context and the change process. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
41. Gomez, L., Fishman, B., & Pea, R. (1998). The Co Vis Project: Building a large scale science education testbed. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 59-92.
42. Hodas, S. (1993). Technology refusal and the organizational culture of schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1(10). Retrieved March 25, 2003, from http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v1n10.html
43. Honey, M., Carrigg, F., & Hawkins, J. (1998). Union City Online: An architecture for networking and reform. In C. Dede (Ed.), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 1998 Yearbook: Learning and Technology (pp. 121-139). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
44. Honey, M., & McMillan-Culp, K. (2000). Scale and localization: The challenge of implementing what works. In M. Honey & C. Shookhoff (Eds.), The Wingspread Conference on Technology's Role in Urban School Reform: Achieving Equity and Quality (pp. 41-46). Racine, WI: The Joyce Foundation, The Johnson Foundation, and the EDC Center for Children and Technology.
45. Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1994). Making dynamic modeling accessible to precollege science students. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 233-257.
46. Kennedy, M. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development (NISE Brief No. 3(2)). Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Science Education. Retrieved March 25, 2003, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/nise/Publications/Briefs/Vol_3_No_2/Vol.3,No.2.pdf
47. Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning (Research Monograph No. 1). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education, the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved March 30, 2003, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/nise/Publications/Research_Monographs/KNAPP/KnappALL. pdf
48. Koedinger, K. R., Suthers, D. D., & Forbus, K. D. (1999). Component-based construction of a science learning space. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 292-313.
49. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., Bass, K., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). First attempts at inquiry strategies in middle school, project-based science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313-350.
50. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483-497.
51. Lagemann, E. C. (2002). Usable knowledge in education: A memorandum for the Spencer Foundation board of directors (Memorandum). Chicago, IL: Spencer Foundation. Retrieved March 25, 2003, from http://www.spencer.org/publications/usable_knowledge_report_ecl_a.htm
52. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517-538.
53. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
54. Margerum-Leys, J., Fugleman, J., Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Kubitskey, B., Brunvand, S., et al. (2003, January). Professional development for sustainability: Using collaboration to transfer ownership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.
55. Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (in press). When it works: A case study of teacher knowledge of educational technology. Journal of Teacher Education.
56. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1998). New technologies for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 33-52.
57. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
58. McNamara, E., Grant, C. M., & Wasser, J. D. (1998). Using technology to support systemic education reform (Hanau Model Schools Partnership Report). Cambridge, MA: TERC. Retrieved March 25, 2003, from http://modelschools.terc.edu/modelschools/TEMPLATE/Publications/pdf/projdes.pdf
59. Means, B. (1998, April). Models and prospects for bringing technology-supported education reform to scale. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
60. Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C. C., Remz, A. R., et al. (1993). Using technology to support education reform (No. OR 93-3231). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, OERI. Retrieved March 30, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/TechReforms/
61. Means, B., Penuel, W. R., & Padilla, C. (2001). The connected school: Technology and learning in high school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
62. Means, B., Wagner, M., Haertel, G., & Javitz, H. (2000, February 25-26). Investigating the cumulative impacts of educational technology. Retrieved August 12, 2002, from http://www.sri.com/policy/designkt/bmeans3.doc
63. Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). "Maestro, what is 'quality'?": Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-498.
64. Murray, O., Fishman, B., Gomez, L., Williams, K., & Marx, R. W. (2001, April). Building a community of administrators between and within urban school districts in support of systemic reform efforts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
65. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved March 30, 2003, from http://www.nctm.org/standards/introducing.htm
66. National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
67. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
68. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.), (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
69. Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. 100th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II) (pp. 60-80). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
70. President's Committee of Advisors on Science and 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. Retrieved March 30, 2003, from http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/k-12ed.html
71. Regional Technology in Education Consortia. (1996). Guiding questions for technology planning. Retrieved August 12, 2002, from http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/guidewww/gqhome.htm
72. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
73. Ronnkvist, A., Dexter, S. L., & Anderson, R. E. (2000). Technology support: Its depth, breadth and impact in America's schools (Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey Report #5). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine. Retrieved March 30, 2003, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/technology-support/
74. Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children: Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 76-101.
75. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 369-393.
76. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68.
77. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2000, April). The role of educative curriculum materials in reforming science education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
78. Schofield, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (2002). Bringing the Internet to school: Lessons from an urban district. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
79. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
80. Shrader, G., Fishman, B., Barab, S. A., O'Neill, K., Oden, G., & Suthers, D. D. (2002). Video cases for teacher learning: Issues of social and organizational design for use. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community (pp. 708-709). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
81. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
82. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 165-178.
83. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). New York: Falmer.
84. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. Washington, DC: MDRC for the Council of the Great Cities Schools. Retrieved March 10, 2003, from http://www.cgcs.org/reports/Foundations.html
85. Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1996). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402-435). New York: Macmillan.
86. Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36-48.
87. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
88. Squire, K. D., MaKinster, J. G., Barnett, M., Leuhmann, A., & Barab, S. A. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87, 468-489.
89. Supovitz, J. A. (2001). Translating teaching practice into improved student performance. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. 100th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II) (pp. 81-98). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
90. Supovitz, J. A., Mahyer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331-356.
91. Supovitz, J. A., & Zeif, S. G. (2000). Why they stay away. Journal of Staff Development, 21(4), 24-28.
92. The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
93. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No child left behind. Retrieved March 25, 2003, from http://www.NoChildLeftBehind.gov/
94. Wasser, J. D., & McNamara, E. (1998). Professional development and full-school technology integration: A description of the professional development model of the Hanau Model Schools Partnership (Hanau Model Schools Partnership Report No. 5). Cambridge, MA: TERC. Retrieved March 25, 2003, from http://modelschools.terc.edu/modelschools/TEMPLATE/Publications/pdf/ ProfDevPaper.pdf
95. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
96. Williams, S. M., Burgess, K. L., Bray, M. H., Bransford, J. D., Goldman, S. R., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Technology and learning in Schools For Thought classrooms. In C. Dede (Ed.), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 1998 Yearbook: Learning and Technology (pp. 97-119). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
97. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 173-209). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
98. Zhao, Y., Mishra, P., & Girod, M. (2000). A clubhouse is a clubhouse is a clubhouse. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(3), 287-300.
99. Zucker, A., & Marder, C. (1998). A case study of Montana's SSI (SIMMS), 1991-1996. In A. Zucker & P. Shields (Eds.), SSI case studies: Cohort 1: Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, and Montana (pp. 125-163). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.