A systemic plan of technology integration

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 173-184

  Hsu, Pi Sui ^a   Sharma, Priya ^b  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Preservice teacher education; Science education; Systemic inquiry; Technology integration

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845341429     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Bauer, D. G. (2001). Finding the money. Principal Leadership, 1 (9), 24-28.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Butler, D. M. & MacGregor, I. D. (2003). GLOBE: Science and education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51 (1), 9-20.
8. Cavanaugh, C. (2003). Information age teacher education: Educational collaboration to prepare teacher for today's students. Tech Trend, 47 (2), 24-28.
9. Cooper, J. M., & Bull, G. (1997). Technology and teacher education: Past practice and recommended directions. Action in Teacher Education, 19, 97-106.
10. Cosner, S, & Peterson, K. (2003). Building a learning community. Leadership, 32 (5), 12-15.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Hargrave, C. P. & Hsu, Y. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8 (4), 303-314.
17. Horwitz, P. & Christie, M. (2000). Computer-based manipulation for teaching scientific reasoning: An example. In Jacobson, M. & Kozma, R. B.(Eds.) Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education: Advanced Designs for Technologies and Learning, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Howland, D. & Becker, M. L. (2002). GLOBE- The science behind launching an international environmental education program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11 (3), 199-210.
19. Hsu, P. (2004). A Case Study of the Change Process of Integrating Technology into An Elementary Science Methods Course from 1997 to 2003, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
20. International Society for Technology in Education. (2002). NETS for teachers - Preparing teachers to use technology, Eugene, OR: ISTE.
21. International Society for Technology in Education. (2005). The new national education technology plan, Eugene, OR: ISTE.
22. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Starr, M. L., Palincsar, A., Coppola, B. & Soloway, E. (1993). Integrating knowledge bases: An upper-elementary teacher preparation program emphasizing the teaching of science. In Rubba, P., Campbell, L. & Dana, T. (Eds.) Excellencing Educating Teachers of Science, Aubum, AL: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.
23. Land, S. M. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of progress portfolio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (4), 65-84.
24. Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47 (3), 43-62.
25. Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (6), 727-758.
26. Lyon, N. (1998). Portfolios and their consequences: developing as a reflective practitioner. In Lyons, N. (Ed.) With Portfolio in Hand: Validating the New Teacher Professionalism, New York: Teachers College Press, 247-264.
27. McKinney, M. (1998). Preservice teachers' electronic portfolios: Integrating technology, self-assessment, and reflection. Teacher Education Quarterly, 85-103.
28. Morris, J. & Buckland, H. (2000). Electronic portfolios for learning and assessment. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education conference, San Diego, CA.
29. Nakhlen, M. B. (1994). A review of microcomputer-based labs: How have they affected science learning? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 13 (4), 368-381.
30. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32. National Research Council. (200la). Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for the New Millennium, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. National Research Council. (2001b). Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. Nesbit, C. R., DiBiase, W. J., Miller, A. S. & Wallace, J. D. (2001). In their own words: what science and mathematics teacher leaders say are important aspects of professional development, Chapel Hill, NC: Mathematics and Science Education Network, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
35. Nonis, A. S., & O'Bannon, B. (2002). A field-based initiative for integrating technology in the content areas: Using a team approach to preparing preservice teachers to use technology. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Nashville, TN.
36. Royuk, B. & Brooks, D. W. (2003). Cookbook procedures in MBL physics exercises. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12 (3), 317-324.
37. Russel, D. W., Lucas, K. B. & McRobbie, C. (2003). The role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in kinematics. Research in Science Education, 33 (2), 217-243.
38. Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner, New York: Basic Books.
39. Shulman, L. S. (1988). A union of insufficiencies: strategies for teacher assessment in a period of education reform. Educational Leadership, 46, 36-41.
40. Skinner, N. C. & Preece, P. F. (2003). The use of information and communications technology to support the teaching of science in primary schools. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (2), 205-219.
41. Spillane, J. P. Diamond, J. B., Walker, L. J., Halverson, R. & Jita, L. (2001). Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (8), 918-940.
42. Spitulnik, M. W., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J. & Soloway, E. (1998). In Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. G. (Eds.) International Handbook of Science Education, Great Britain: Kluwer, 363-381.
43. Taylor, N. & Wochenske, J. (2001). The San Diego Science Alliance. In Thorson, A. (Ed.), Partnerships with Business and the Community, Columbus, OH: Eisenhower National Clearing House for Mathematics and Science Education, 37-38.
44. Trumper, R. & Gelbman, M. (2001). A microcomputer-based contribution to scientific and technological literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10 (3), 213-221.
45. US Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and Technology: Making the Connections (GPO # 052-003-01409-2), Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
46. Watkins, S. (1996). World Wide Web authoring in the portfolio-assessed, (inter)networked composition course. Computers and Composition, 13 (2), 219-230.
47. Whetstone, L. & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2001). Preparing preservice teachers to use technology: Survey results. Tech Trends, 45(4), 11-17.
48. White, P. J. (2001). Finding Prospective Partners. In Thorson, A. (Ed.) Partnerships with Business and the Community, Columbus: OH: Eisenhower National Clearing House for Mathematics and Science Education, 27-29.
49. White, B. S. & Branch, R. M. (2001). Systematic pilot testing as a step in the instructional design process of corporate training and development. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14 (3), 75-94.
50. Windschitl, M. (2000). Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48 (2), 81-95.
51. You, A. (2001). Guidelines for effective partnerships. In Thorson, A.(Ed.) Partnerships with Business and the Community, Columbus, OH: Eisenhower National Clearing House for Mathematics and Science Education, 21-23.
52. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D. & Friedrichsen, P. (2002). Technology tools for supporting scientific inquiry: A preservice science education course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Charlotte, NC.