A Situative perspective on a collaborative model for integrating technology into teaching

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 32, Issue 4 SPEC. ISS., 2005, Pages 315-328

  Franklin, Cheryl A ^a   Sessoms, Deidre B ^b  

^a BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 28044453531     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/BQCM-R7AW-PH1B-KRRE     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Becker, H. J. (1986). Instructional uses of school computers. Reports from the 1985 national survey (No. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274319). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
2. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2001). Standards of program quality and effectiveness for the subject matter requirement for the multiple subject teaching credential. Sacramento: State of California.
3. Fullan, M. (1995). The limits and potential of professional development. In T. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education (pp. 253-268). New York: Teachers College Press.
4. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory into practice. New York: Basic Books.
5. Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2004). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
6. Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow's schools of education. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.
7. International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational technology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
8. International Society for Technology in Education. (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
9. Killion, J. (1999). What works in the middle: Results-based staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
10. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2001. (No. NCES 2002-018). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
11. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2001). Standards for professional development schools. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
12. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
13. Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14. Ringstaff, C., Yocam, K., & Marsh, J. (1996). Integrating technology into classroom instruction: An assessment of the impact of the ACOT teacher development center project. (No. ACOT Report #22). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer Inc.
15. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
16. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
17. Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83-90.
18. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., & Sheldon, S. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.