We work so hard and they don't use it: Acceptance of software tools by teachers

ITiCSE 2007: 12th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education - Inclusive Education in Computer Science

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 246-250

  Levy, Ronit Ben Bassat ^a   Ben Ari, Mordechai ^a  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Phenomenography; Program animation; Teachers and changes

Indexed keywords

ANIMATION; COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

ANIMATION SYSTEMS; PEDAGOGICAL TOOLS; PHENOMENOGRAPHY; PROGRAM ANIMATION;

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 34548089120     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1268784.1268856     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Ben-Ari, M., Myller, N., Sutinen, E., & Tarhio, J. (2002). Perspectives on program animation with Jeliot. In: Software Visualization: International Seminar, 31-45.
2. Ben-Bassat Levy, R., Ben-Ari, M. & Uronen, P.A. (2003). The Jeliot 2000 program animation system. Computers & Education, 40(1), 1-15.
3. Berglund, A. (2002). How Do Students Understand Network Protocols? A Bhenomenographic Study. PhD. Dissertation. University of Uppsala, Sweden.
4. Booth, S. (1992). Learning to Program: A Phenomenographic Perspective. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
5. Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard Mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 194-222.
6. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In: D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 674-679). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. 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.
8. Demetriadis, S., Triantfillou, E., & Pombortsis, A. (2003). A phenomenographic study of students' attitudes toward the use of multiple media for learning. SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(3), 183-187.
9. Ebel, G., & Ben-Ari, M. (2006). Affective effects of program visualization. Second International Computing Education Research Workshop. Canterbury, UK.
10. Eckerdal, A., & Berglund, A. (2005). What does it take to learn 'programming thinking'?. In Proceedings of the 2005 international Workshop on Computing Education Research, 135-142. New York, NY: ACM Press.
11. Even, R. (2005). Using assessment to inform instructional decisions: How hard can it be? Mathematics Educational Research Journal, 17(3), 51.
12. Fullan, M., & Hargraves, A. (1996). What's Worth Fighting for in Your School? New York: Teachers College Press.
13. Henderson, C. R. (2002). Faculty Conceptions About the Teaching and Learning of Problem Solving in Introductory Calculus-Based Physics. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota. Retrieved January, 10, 2007, from http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/People/charles.htm.
14. Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study. International Journal of Science Education 26(1), 47-62.
15. Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 13(3), 259-290.
16. Marton, F., & Booth, S. A. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Underwood, J. D. M. (1997). Integrated learning systems: where does the management take place? Education and Information Technologies, 2,275-286.
18. van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
19. White, R. T. (2003). Changing the script for science teaching. In R. Cross (Ed.), A Vision for Science Education: Responding to the Work of Peter Fensham (pp. 170-183). London: RoutledgeFalmer.