Extending educational computing

Journal of Research on Computing in Education

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 280-291

  Parr, Judy M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009604083     PISSN: 08886504     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08886504.1999.10782255     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Apple, M. (1991). The new technology: Is it part of the solution or part of the problem in education? Computers in the Schools, 8(1/2/3), 59-81.
2. Aston, ML (1988). Professional development and teacher education-Have we got it right? Computer Education, 12(1), 79-83.
3. Beasley, W., & Sutton, R. (1992). A three-tier approach for training teachers: Recommendations based on USA experience. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 4(2), 16-21.
4. Brown, MI., Ryba, K., & Anderson, B. (1992, November). Computer inservice education for teachers: A collaborative whole school approach. Paper presented at the joint Australia and New Zealand Conference for Research in Education, Geelong.
5. Cohen, D. (1988). Educational technology and school organisation. In R. Nickerson & P. Zodhiaces (Eds.), Technology and education: Looking towards 2000, (pp 231-264). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
6. Cohen, D. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Re-searcher, 24(9), 11-17.
7. Collins, A. (1991). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(1), 28-36.
8. Cuban, L. (1988). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Cuban, L. (1994). Public school techers using machines in the next decade. (Report 95-172243). Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.
10. David, J. L. (1994). Realizing the promise of technology: A policy perspective. In B. Mleans (Ed.), Technology and education reform, (pp. 169-189). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11. D'Ignazio, F. (1992). Technology vs restructuring: Beware of the quick fix. The Computing Teacher, 19(5), 54-55.
12. Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, G., Sandholtz, J. (1990, April). The evolution of teachers’ instructional beliefs and practices in high-access-to-technology classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
13. Friske, J., Knezek, D., Taylor, H., Thomas, L., & Wiebe, J. (1996). ISTE’s technology foundation standards for all teachers: Time for a second look? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 12(2), 9-12.
14. Gilmore, A. (1992). Information technology in the classroom: Evaluation of a teacher development program. Christchurch, New Zealand: Canterbury University, Education Department.
15. Gilmore, A. (1994). Information technology in the classroom: An evaluation of professional development for teachers. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 29(1), 21-36.
16. Ham, V. (1995). “If I were the principal.” How can school management help teachers integrate technologies into the secondary school curriculum? Computers in New Zealand Schools, 7(3), 7-9.
17. Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived collegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(3), 227-241.
18. Honey, MI., & Mbeller, B. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs and technology integration: Different values, different understandings, (Technical Report No.6. Center for Technology in Education. Grant No 1-135562167-Al). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
19. International Society for Technology in Education (1995) ISTE Recommended Foundations in Technology for all Teachers [Online document]. Eugene, OR.: Author. Available: www.iste.org/Resources/Projects/TechStandards/index.html.
20. Kimmel, H., & Deek, E P. (1995). Instructional technology: A tool or a panacea? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 327-332.
21. Kober, N. (1994). Teachers and technology: The federal role. (Contract report NTIS 95-170965). Washington, DC: U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
22. Lieberman, A., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 591-596.
23. Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. (1997, March). Methodological implications for examining the impact of technology-based innovations: The corruption of a research design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Association, Chicago.
24. Marshall, G. (1994). Four issues confronting the design and delivery of staff development programs. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 10(1), 4-10.
25. Mayer-Smith, J., Pedretti, E., & Woodrow, J. (1997, March). Learningfrom teaching with technology: An examination of how teachers’ experiences in a culture of collaboration inform technology implementation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago
26. Means, B., Olson, K., & Ruskus, J. (1995, April). Orchestrating innovative uses of technology: Systemic perspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Association, San Francisco
27. Means, B., Olson, K., & Singh, R, (1995). Beyond the classroom: Restructuring schools with technology. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 69-72.
28. Neyland, M. (1992, November). Educational computing: A non-universal methodology. Paper presented at the joint Australia and New Zealand Conference for Research in Education, Geelong.
29. Parr, J. (1992). Report of the evaluation of the desktop and the laptop project at Kings’ College. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland, Education Department.
30. Persky, S. (1990). What contributes to teacher development in technology? Educational Technology, April, 34-38.
31. Ryba, K. (1991). What we've got- Is it right? Computers in New Zealand Schools, 3, 12-16.
32. Somekh, B. (1992). Project INTENT: Final report. Coventry, UK: National Council for Educational Technology.
33. Tuck, B. (1992). Computers in the classroom: Evaluation of a teacher development program. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland, Education Department.
34. U, S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
35. Wiley, S. D., & Chrispeels, J. (1997, March). Elements of organizational support that affect implementation of teaching and learning with educational technologies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Association, Chicago