Constructivism meets technology integration: The cufa technology guidelines in an elementary social studies methods course?

Theory and Research in Social Education

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 429-455

  Molebash, Philip E ^a  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650070377     PISSN: 00933104     EISSN: 21631654     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2002.10473204     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Adamy, P. (1999). An analysis of factors that influence technology integration by math teacher educators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
2. American Council on Education. (1999). To touch the future: Transforming the way teachers are taught. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1998). Radical constructivism and cognitive psychology. In D. Ravitch, (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Educational Policy: 1998(pp. 227-255). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.
4. Barth, J. L., & Sommersdorf, D. L. (1981). A study of pre-service teachers' change in attitude measured by Barth/Shermis social studies preference scale. Journal of Social Studies Research, 5(2). 64-68.
5. Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. L. (1999). The influence of computer and Internet use of teachers' pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356-384.
6. Becker, H. J. (2000, January). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Paper presented for the Council of Chief State School Officers' annual Technology Leadership Conference. Washington DC.
7. Beisser, S. R. (1999). Infusing technology in elementary social studies methods. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 432 294).
8. Bolster, A. S. (1983). Toward a more effective model of research on teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 294-308.
9. Bredo, E. (2000). Reconsidering social constructivism: The relevance of George Herbert Mead’s interactionism. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 127-157). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Brunner, C. (1992). Integrating technology into the curriculum: Teaching the teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 980).
11. CEO Forum of Educational Technology. (1999, February). Professional development: A link to better learning [Online]. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www. ceoforum.org/reports.cfm?RID=2
12. Christensen, L. F., & Sunal, C. Z. (1997). Conceptual shifts: Elementary preservice teachers' perceptions about a social studies methods course. Journal of Social Studies Research, 21(1), 16-21.
13. Cogan, J. J., Grossman, D., & Lei, M. (2000). Citizenship: The democratic imagination in a global context. Social Education, 64(1), 48-52.
14. College and University Faculty Assembly. (http://alliance.utsa.edu/cufa/index.htm)
15. Crocco, M. S. (2001), Leveraging constructivist learning in the social studies classroom: A response to Mason, Berson, Diem, Hicks, Lee, and Dralle. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, [Online serial], 1(3) 386-394.
16. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in Education. New York: Macmillan.
17. Doolittle, P. E. (2001). The need to leverage theory in the development of guidelines for using technology in social studies teacher preparation: A reply to Crocco and Mason et al. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(4) 501-516.
18. Doolittle, P. E., Hicks, D., Lee, J. (2002). Information technology, constructivism, and social studies teacher education. Paper presented for the Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education Conference. Nashville, TN.
19. rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
20. Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21. Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, erspectives and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
22. Gergen, K. J. (1995) Social construction and the educational process. In L. Steffe and J. Gale (Eds.), Construction in education, (pp. 17-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erblaum.
23. Halpin, R. (1999). A model of constructivist learning practice: Computer literacy integrated to elementary mathematics and science teacher education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 128-138.
24. Harrington, H. (1991). Normal styletechnology in teacher education: Technology and the education of teachers. Computers in the 8(1): 49-57.
25. Henderson, J.G., & Hawthorne, R.D. (1995). Transformative curriculum leadership. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
26. Howe, K. R., & Berv, J. (2000). Constructing constructivism, epistemological and pedagogical. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 19-40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. International Society for Technology in Education. (1999a). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology [Online]. Available: http://www.milkenexchange.org/research/iste_results. html
28. International Society for Technology in Education. (1999b). National educational technology standards for students [Online]. Eugene, OR: Author. Available: http://cnets.iste.org/index2.html.
29. Mansfield, B. (1989). Teaching social studies: Learning from past experiences. History and Social Science Teacher, 24(2). 87-88.
30. Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1). 107-116.
31. th-century family. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 11-14.
32. McCarty, L. P., & Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Seductive illusions: Von Glasersfeld and Gergen on epistemology and education. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 41-83). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. Milman, N. B., & Heinecke, W. F. (2000). Innovative integration of technology in an undergraduate history course. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 537-556.
34. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2000). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: Author.
35. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Washington, DC: Author.
36. National Council for Social Studies. (1997).National standards for social studies teachers [Online]. Available: http:www.socialstudies.org/standards/teachers/home. html
37. Owens, W. T. (1997). The challenges of teaching social studies methods to preservice elementary teachers. The Social Studies, 88(3).113-119.
38. Owens, W. T. (1999). Preservice teachers' feedback about the internet and the implications for social studies educators. The Social Studies, 90(3). 133-140.
39. President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. (1997, March). 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.
40. Ross, E. (1987). Teacher perspective development: A study of preservice social studies teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 15(4), 225-243.
41. Theisen, Richard (1999). Social studies education: A challenge, a choice, a commitment. Keynote Address, NCSS Annual Conference, Orlando, November 1999. Retrieved March 1, 2000 [Online] Available: http://www.socialstudies.org/conference/orlando/presaddress.html
42. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
43. von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick, The Invented Reality (pp. 17-40). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
44. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.
45. Willis, E. (1998). An interdisciplinary, problem-centered methods model for preservice elementary teacher education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421 084).
46. Willis, J. (1997). Information technology and education: Whose catechism do we use? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(3), 22-23.
47. Willis, J., & Mehlinger, H. (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. (pp. 978-1028). New York: Macmillan.
48. Wilson, B. G. (1997). Reflections on constructivism and instructional design. In C. R. Dills & A. A. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms. (pp. 63-80). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
49. Yon, M., & Passe, J. (1990). The relationship between the elementary social studies methods course and student teachers' beliefs and practices. Journal of Social Studies Research, 14(1). 13-24.