Be the technology: A developmental model for evaluating technology integration

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 382-401

  Mills, Steven C ^a   Tincher, Robert C ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b Independence (KS) Unified School District   (United States)

Author keywords

Concerns based adoption model; Evaluation; Professional development; Technology integration; Technology standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007781184     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2003.10782392     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Alkin, M. C. (1969). Evaluation theory development. Evaluation Comment, 2(1), 2-7.
2. Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computing-using teachers differ from other teachers: implication for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computer in Education 26(3), 291-321.
3. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, multimedia. Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Chase, W. G. & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind’s eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215-281). New York: Academic.
5. Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
6. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of technology integration. T.H.E. Journal, 26(6), 73-74.
8. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine. New York: Free Press.
9. Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48, 45-52.
10. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335-397.
11. Fulton, K. (1997). Learning in a digital age: Insights into the issues: The skills students need for technological fluency [Online document]. Available: http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME164.pdf.
12. Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers’ integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261-315.
13. Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. D., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.
14. Heck, S, Steigelbauer, S. M., Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1981). Measuring innovation configurations: Procedures and applications. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.
15. Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications.
16. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Mills, S. C., & Ragan, T. J. (2000). A tool for analyzing implementation fidelity of an integrated learning system. Educational Technology Research and Development Journal, 48(4), 21-41.
18. Mills, S. C. (2001-2002). The technology implementation standards configuration matrix: A tool for analyzing technology integration. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 14(2), 26-42.
19. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20. Pea, R, (1985). Beyond amplification: using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20, 167-182.
21. Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 33(4), 413-430.
22. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
23. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. Sheingold, K. (1990). Restructuring for learning with technology. The potential for synergy. In K. Sheingold & M. Tacher (Eds.), Restructuring for learning with technology (pp. 9-27). New York: Bank Street College of Education: Center for Technology in Education.
25. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 57-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Stallings, J. A. (1977, November). A study of implementation in seven follow through educational models and how instructional processes relate to child outcomes. Paper presented at the Conference on Research on Teacher Effect: An Examination by Policy-Makers and Researchers, Austin, TX.
27. Surry, D. W. (1997). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Albuquerque, NM.
28. Winn, W., & Synder, D. (2002). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 112-142). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.