Technology and Education Change: Focus on Student Learning

8/22/2019 Technology and Education Change: Focus on Student Learning

1/24

Volume 42 Number 3 | Journal of Research on Technology in Education | 285Copyright 2010, ISTE (International Society or Technology in Education), 800.336.5191

(U.S. & Canada) or 541.302.3777 (Intl), [email protected], www.iste.org. All rights reserved.

Technology and Education Change: Focus on Student LearningJRTE | Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 285307 | 2010 ISTE | www.iste.org

Technology and Education Change: Focus on Student Learning

Barbara MeansSRI International

Abstract

Tis study examined technology implementation practices associated withstudent learning gains. Interviews and observations were conducted with staat schools where teachers using reading or mathematics soware with theirstudents attained above-average achievement gains and at schools where

soware-using teachers had below-average gains. Te ndings highlight theimportance o school practices in the areas o principal support and teachercollaboration around soware use and o teacher practices concerning class-room management and use o soware-generated student perormance data.Te issues o instructional coherence and competition or instructional timeare highlighted as challenges to soware implementation. (Keywords: ech-nology, implementation, soware)

Observers o technology use in schools and classrooms have longnoted the relatively modest use o educational technology withinmost schools and classrooms (Cuban, 2001). As the lives o students

and teachers outside o school have evolved to include more and more useo technology, the situation presents a paradox. Despite decades o national,state, and local promotion o educational uses o technology, classroompractice in most schools has changed little rom that o the mid-20th century.Recent large-scale national surveys o teacher practices with technologyound an increase in teacher use o technology as a productivity tool sup-

porting their own work between 2005 and 2007 but no increase in the levelo teacher-assignment o technology-based learning activities or studentsduring the same time period (Bakia, Means, Gallagher, Chen, & Jones,2009). eachers and students use technology more requently outside oschool than they do during class time.

Although many teachers certainly are using todays technologies in in-novative ways, they remain the exception rather than the rule. In terms oMoores (1999) innovation adoption model, ew learning technologies have

managed to cross the chasm rom adoption by technology enthusiasts andvisionaries to acceptance by the vast majority o teachers, who are pragma-tists and conservatives.

echnology adoption and implementation require not just undingresources but also ongoing eort. Te premise underlying this paper isthat teachers and school systems undamental priorities concern student


2/24

286 | Journal of Research on Technology in Education | Volume 42 Number 3

Means

Copyright 2010, ISTE (International Society or Technology in Education), 800.336.5191


Table 1. Recommended School-Level Instructional Technology Practices

Implementation

Recommendation Recommended by

Prior Research Support or Practice

Correlation with

Technology Use

Correlation with

Learning Outcomes

Controlled

Studies on

Technology

Use

Schoolwide Coherence

Technology use integrated

with a consistent school-wide

instructional vision

Barnett (2002)

Means & Olson (1995)

OTA (1995)

Means & Olson

(1995)

Technology aligned with local

curriculum

Barnett (2002)

Ertmer (1999)

Sarama et al. (1998)

Sweet et al. (2004)

Principal demonstration o sup-

port or technology integration

Brand (1997)

Coley et al. (1997)

OTA (1995)

Mann et al. (1998)

ODwyer et al.

(2004, 2005)

Zhao et al. (2002)

Teacher Training

Teachers trained on concepts

o student-centered teaching

and

technology integration

Barnett (2002) Becker (1994,

2000)

Mann et al. (1998)

ODwyer et al.

(2004, 2005)

Zhao et al. (2002)

eMINTS (2003)

Wenglinsky (1998)

Teachers trained on implemen-

tation o the specic sotware/innovation

EETI vendors Becker (1994)

Mann et al. (1998)U.S. Department o

Education (2000)

Mann et al. (1998)

Proessional development is

ongoing, not one-time (e.g.,

mentoring or coaching)

Brand (1997)

Jones et al. (1995)

OTA (1995)

Adelman et al.

(2002)

Becker (1994)

U.S. Department o

Education (2000)

Cole, Simkins, & Penuel

(2002)

Proessional development

involves teachers in designing

technology-supported learning

activities/resources

Martin et al. (2003)

Yamagata-Lynch

(2003)

Technology Access

Computers/Internet accessible

in regular classrooms

Barnett (2002)

Mann et al. (1998)

OTA (1995)

Becker (2000) Mann et al. (1998)

Adequate access to technology

or all students

Barnett (2002) ODwyer et al.

(2004, 2005)

Support for Technology Use

Technical support available at

the school

Barnett (2002)

Sweet et al. (2004)

Becker (1994)

Hill & Reeves (2004)

Zhao et al. (2002)

Cole, Simkins, & Penuel

(2002)

Teachers collaborate around

technology use

Brand (1997) Becker (2000)

Frank, Zhao, &

Borman (2004)

Means & Olson

(1995)

Zhao et al. (2002)


3/24

Volume 42 Number 3 | Journal of Research on Technology in Education | 287

Focus on Student Learning



learning outcomes. Most educators will expend the eort needed to inte-

grate technology into instruction when, and only when, they are convincedthat there will be signicant payos in terms o student learning outcomes.Hence, to make technology an agent o education change, the eld needs tounderstand the kinds o learning outcomes that technology can enhance andthe circumstances under which that enhancement will be realized in prac-tice. Sound guidance on how to implement technology in ways that producestudent learning gains is integral to eorts to use technology as a lever oreducation change.

As illustrated in ables 1 and 2, an extensive literature on best practices

in technology implementation does exist. Te rst column in able 1 listscommon recommendations or school-level practices in support o instruc-tional uses o technology.

Te rst column o able 2 lists commonly recommended teachers class-room practices with respect to technology implementation.

Tese tables also show that, in most cases, the basis or recommendingthe implementation practices is expert opinion or a correlation betweenthe practice and the observed extent o technology use. Only a handul o

articles document a correlation between an implementation practice andstudent learning outcomes. Very ew studies with a rigorous, controlleddesign have examined the eects o one o the recommended technologyimplementation practices on student learning outcomes. A ormal search othe ERIC and PsychIno databases to identiy empirical studies using a con-trol group design (either experimental or quasi-experimental) was conducted

Table 2. Recommended Classroom-Level Instructional Technology Practices

Recommendation (1)

Recommended

by (2)

Prior Research Support or Practice

Correlation with

Technology Use (3)

Correlation with

Learning Outcomes

(4)

Controlled Studies

on Learning

Outcomes (5)

Integration o technology withlearning goals and ofine learn-

ing activities

Becker (1994)Means & Olson (1995)

Wenglinsky (1998)

Technology used requently

Van Dusen &

Worthen (1995)

Mann et al. (1998)

Wenglinsky (1998)

Teacher present and acilitates

learning when technology is used

Sandholtz et al. (1997) Powell et al. (2003)

Teacher reviews sotware reports Powell et al. (2003)

Ecient routines established orshiting in and out o technology

use (classroom management)

Coley et al.(1997)

OTA (1995)

Low student-to-computer ratio in

classroom

Barnett (2002)

Glennan &

Melmed (1996)

OTA (1995)

ODwyer et al. (2004,

2005)

Cavalier & Klein

(1998)


4/24


Means



in support o a large research study (Dynarski et al., 2007) sponsored bythe Institute o Education Sciences. Only a single published study meetingthese criteria (Powell, Aeby, & Carpenter-Aeby, 2003) was identied throughthis search.1 Powell, Aeby, and Carpenter-Aeby (2003) ound that teacher

presence during use o instructional soware and teacher review o sowarereports o student perormance on the soware produced greater studentlearning. Hence, we are urging schools and teachers to implement technol-ogy with little or no empirically based guidance on how to do so in ways thatenhance student learning.

An implication o the discussion above is that technology implementationpractices need to be investigated in conjunction with studies o technologyeects on student learning. Unortunately, ew large-scale studies have mea-sured both eects o technology on student learning and technology imple-

mentation practices. A prominent exception is the congressionally mandatednational experiment on the Eectiveness o Educational echnology Inter-ventions (EEI), which examined the eects o reading soware or studentsin grades 1 and 4 and o mathematics soware or students in grade 6 andalgebra classes (Dynarski et al., 2007). EEI ound that, on average, the eectsize or using reading or mathematics soware was not statistically dier-ent rom 0 at any o the our grade levels included in the study. Within eachgrade level and product, the classes using the soware did better than those

that did not at some schools, whereas the classes using their conventional ap-proaches did better than those using the soware at other schools. Te onlysignicant relationships between eect sizes and soware implementationvariables ound in this study were larger eects in classes with more stu-dents per computer in grade 1 (contrary to a common recommendation ortechnology implementation) and a relationship between eect size and theamount o time students spent using the reading soware in ourth grade(Dynarski et al., 2007).

In contrast, a study o a large urban districts implementation o the Wa-

terord early reading soware by Hansen, Llosa, and Slayton (2004) oundthat the amount o time students spent with the soware was not correlatedwith measures o student learning. A randomized control trial o Acceler-ated Reader conducted by Nunnery, Ross, and McDonald (2006) oundno relationship between the studys quality o implementation index andstudent achievement growth. In short, despite the existence and extensivedissemination o conventional wisdom concerning how technology shouldbe implemented, the evidence base or recommending particular practices is

neither deep nor internally consistent.Te research reported here was conducted with a subset o the EEIschool sample to provide insights or those responsible or implementing

1 Subsequent work with the technology implementation research uncovered a quasi-experimental study (Cole, Simkins, & Penuel, 2002) that

ound student learning benefts associated with teachers receipt o support rom school-based technology integration specialists skilled in

the design o project-based learning activities involving student use o multimedia technology.


5/24





reading and mathematics soware by providing a closer look at school andclassroom implementation practices. Tis study contrasts practices in schoolswhose students had above-average achievement gains in their rst year osoware use as part o the EEI study with those o schools where treatment

classes had below-average gains. Tis correlational analysis used implementa-tion data rom the EEI study as well as data rom a set o ollow-up inter-views and observations conducted with sta at 13 schools continuing to usethe soware they had implemented the prior year as part o the EEI study.

Tis study ocused on two central questions:

What classroom-level practices are associated with higher achieve-ment gains in classrooms using reading or math soware?What school-level practices are associated with higher achieve-

ment gains in classrooms using reading or math soware?

o explore issues o soware implementation, analysts identied thoseEEI schools where soware-using teachers students experienced above-av-erage achievement gains and those whose students had below-average gainsin the rst year o the EEI soware eectiveness study.2 From these twoschool subsamples, 14 schools were selected or ollow-up7 in the above-average group and 7 in the below-average group. Te 14 selected schools

were using seven dierent soware products (our reading products andthree mathematics products) and included an above-average- and a below-average-gain school or each product. For each product, researchers lookedor a high-gain school with a positive eect size and above-average use othe soware or which a low-gain school matched on student demographicvariables could be identied. For each product, schools were selected to beas similar as possible except or their diering levels o student gains.

Te 14 schools selected or case study were contacted in April 2006 toascertain whether they would be willing to participate in this ollow-up data

collection by completing phone interviews or hosting a site visit. All o theschools initially agreed to participate, but one o the low-gain schools subse-quently dropped out o the data collection, resulting in a ollow-up sampleo 13 schools, as shown in able 3 (p. 290).

By virtue o the selection process, the two groups o schools diered inaverage class standardized achievement gain (0.77 or the high-gain groupversus -0.70 or the low-gain group). As intended, they were very similar interms o variables related to their sta and student populations. Te propor-tions o students eligible or ree or reduced-price lunch, or example, were57% and 56% in high- and low-gain schools, respectively.

Te schools in the case study sample were using seven soware productsour reading products and three mathematics products. able 4 (p. 291) shows

2 Identi fcation o the schools or case studies was based on inormation made available rom the Eectivenes s o Educati onal Technology

Interventions (EETI) study (Dynarski et al., 2007).


6/24


Means



the number o classrooms using each product and the instructional eatures othose products, as judged by instructional design experts on the research team.3

Method

One pair o schools (a high- and a low-gain school both using the sameproduct) at each grade level was designated or a site visit, which would

involve interviews with the principal or other school leader and the schooltechnology coordinator (i there was one), as well as with each teacher whohad participated in the treatment condition in the EEI study. Site visitsalso involved observing each teacher twiceonce while using the sowarewith students and once while teaching the relevant subject (math or read-ing) without the soware.4 For ollow-up schools that did not receive a sitevisit, researchers conducted phone interviews with the principal, technologycoordinator, and teachers using the same interview protocols employed onthe site visits. Tey used the same interview protocols or high-gain and low-

gain schools, and site visitors and did not inorm interviewers o the schoolscategorization as high or low gain.

Analysts blind to the level o gains a school or teacher had experiencedduring their rst year o soware use coded the data obtained throughinterviews and observations or descriptions o school practices (such asprincipal support), classroom practices (actions undertaken by individualteachers), conditions (demographic variables and other characteristicsexisting prior to soware implementation), and perceived outcomes. Datacoding began with two analysts independently coding each paragraph o

3 The coding team developed a set o instructional eatures, such as incorporation o practice opportunities, on which all sotware products

could be judged. Two coders independently reviewed products, retaining eature categories or which intercoder agreement was 80 percent

or better.

4 In some cases, this protocol had to be modifed or elementary reading because the implementation model or the product was to have a

portion o the students working independently on computers, whereas another portion worked with the teacher in a small group during all

reading instruction.

Table 3. Characteristics o High- and Low-Gain Schools in the Follow-Up Sample

Variable

High-Gain Schools

(n = 7)

Low-Gain Schools

(n = 6)

Teacher experience level (years) 8.8 12.7

Teacher certication (percent) 79 83

Urban schools (percent) 71 50

Free/reduced-price lunch (percent) 57 56

Arican American (percent) 32 36

Hispanic (percent) 16 31

Special education (percent) 10* 3

Student-to-teacher ratio 18.0 16.0

Pretest score (standardized) -0.14 0.21

Gain score 0.77* -0.70

* Signifcant at p < .05.


7/24





Table

4.

InstructionalFea

tureso

fCase

Study

So

ftwareProducts

ProductType

/

Code

No

.Case

Study

ClassesUsing

Learning

Opportunities

Individualization

TypesFeedbacktoTeachers

TypesFeedbackto

Students

Automatic

TeacherInput

StudentInput

Immediate

Mastery

Diagnostic

Tutorial

Practice

T

P

A

T

P

A

T

P

A

Student

Mastery

Learning

Paths

Class

Performance

P

A

P

A

P

A

Grade1

ReadingA

5

Many

Many

Grade1

ReadingB

5

Many

Many

Grade4

ReadingA

4

Some

Many

Grade4

ReadingB

2

Some

Many

Grade6

Pre-

AlgebraA

4

Many

Many

AlgebraA

4

Few

Many

AlgebraB

3

Many

Many

Source:Staffreview.

Key:T=Tutorialmode;P

=

Practicemode;A=Assessmentmode

Defnitions:

Immediateeedback:Learneristoldwhetherresponseiscorrectimm

ediatelyatercompletingmodule

Masteryeedback:Learne

rinormedonumbercorrectandwhethero

rnotaskillsorconcepthasbeenacquireda

tercompletingasequenceoitems

Diagnosticeedback:Learnerreceiveshintsorotherinormationconcerningprobablysourceoerror


8/24


Means



the data orms or two schools. Interrater agreement or the independentcoding was greater than 75%. A single analyst conducted the remainingcoding. Te coded data was entered into a qualitative analysis sowaredatabase (ALAS.ti) to acilitate identication o examples o particular

practices and analysis o dierences between high- and low-gain schoolsin terms o both teachers classroom practices and schoolwide supports orsoware implementation.

Results

Te dierences the analysts identied between high- and low-gain schoolsare reported below or teachers classroom practices as they use the sowareand or schoolwide supports or soware implementation.

Teacher Implementation Practices

Level of software use. eachers participating in the EEI soware eective-ness study received training on use o the soware, which included specica-tion o the amount o time they should give students on the soware eachweek. Soware vendors recommendations or weekly use o their productsranged rom 75 to 135 minutes. When each teachers reported use was com-pared to the usage recommended or the product in that class, the propor-tion o teachers meeting or exceeding vendor usage specications in high-gain schools, at 64%, was not signicantly dierent rom that in low-gainschools (50%). Te average weekly number o minutes teachers reported inhigh- and low-gain schools was roughly equivalent (119 and 102 minutes,respectively). eacher reports indicated that the great majority o teacherswere making a good-aith eort to have their students spend a signicantamount o time with the soware, and thus it is possible that level o usewould be more strongly associated with achievement in implementationswhere usage levels varied more widely.

Although the amount o time that teachers reported having their stu-dents use the soware was not associated with student gains in the casestudy sample (or in three o our grades or the EEI sample as a whole),there was a signicant relationship between student gains and the point inthe school year when classes started soware use. On average, teachers inthe high-gain case study schools started soware implementation 4.5 weeksaer school started, whereas teachers in low-gain schools did not begin until7.7 weeks into the school year. Te later start in low-gain schools did notappear to decrease the total number o hours the average student received on

the soware, as logged by the six soware products rom which such recordcould be obtained. Te average annual soware exposure was 23.1 hours orstudents in high-gain schools and 23.3 or students in low-gain schools. Itmay be that the speed with which a school ramped up or soware imple-mentation was inuenced by other actors that can also inuence technology


9/24





implementation, such as the quality o the schools technology inrastructureand support or the schools overall management eciency.

Classroom management. In interviews, teachers talked about the need todevelop classroom routines or moving onto and o the soware. A num-

ber o the teachers said that students needed to learn how to execute thistransition and log on and o the soware independently or the class to runsmoothly. When asked what advice they would give another teacher usingthe soware or the rst time, teachers were more likely to provide recom-mendations on classroom management than on any other topic.

For those teachers who were observed in the act o teaching, all o theteachers in high-gain schools were rated as eective in terms o classroommanagement compared to just 17% o observed teachers in low-gain schools.5

Tus, eective classroom management routines or soware use appear to be

important. In observed classrooms, eective classroom management appearedto allow greater ocus on the instructional activities o the soware rather thanthe logistics o its use. Ironically, this aspect o implementation is seldom men-tioned in the literature on educational technology best practices.

Facilitation during software use. Soware vendors recommend that theregular classroom teacher be present while their students use instructionalsoware. In addition to managing classroom behavior and activity ow,teachers also provide more or less substantive support or students learn-

ing during periods when they are using the soware. Soware products aretypically designed so that students can use them independently, but technol-ogy advocates oen make the case that by engaging all students in learningindependently, the soware provides the opportunity or teachers to interactone on one with those students needing the most help.

Nearly all o the case study teachers (25 o 27) reported being present inthe room while their students used the soware. Observed teachers varied,however, in the amount o substantive support they provided or studentslearning during soware use. Some o the case study teachers were observed

rotating through the room o soware-using students, identiying studentswho were experiencing diculty and working with them one on one. Forexample, in one sixth grade mathematics class using soware in a com-puter lab, the teacher circulated around the room, interacting not only withstudents who raised their hands but also with students she observed to beprogressing slowly(Means et al., 2006):

Te teacher helped one student who asked, When you have a + and -sign, which do you keep?

Tink about what the sign needs to be to get you to +2x, the teacher saidas she directed the students attention to what he had written on a piece o

5 Classroom management quality was judged on the basis o the proportion o time the class spent in learning and instruction, as opposed to

moving around, preparing materials, or student disruptions.


10/24


Means



scrap paper. Tink about that. Tat gets you to -2x + x.Tere you go,look at that! Good.

Te student responded, Right, right, thank you, and the teacher moved

on to another student who had looked up or help.In a sixth grade mathematics classroom at another school, the teacher

was in the room as students worked with the soware but spent about hal othe class period on activities such as grading homework and talking on thephone that did not support students work with the soware.

Te observed quality o teacher acilitation was measured or only the sixteachers in the ollow-up sample who could be observed teaching with thesoware during the school site visits, and two thirds o the observed teachers

in both high- and low-gain schools engaged in acilitation o learning in thesoware sessions the researchers watched.Articulation and integration of instruction with and without software. Coor-

dination o learning done through the soware with instruction in the sametopic that does not involve soware emerged as an issue in interviews withthe case-study teachers. None o the classes did all o their reading or math-ematics learning through soware. Five o the seven soware products inthis study were designed as supplements to regular instruction rather thanas the core reading or mathematics curriculum. Even in classrooms using a

mathematics product intended as the core curriculum, the product includedofine as well as technology-based activities and materials. For productsintended as supplements, the soware was not a component o the core cur-riculum, and thereore teachers were using soware produced by one vendorand a textbook or other set o core-curriculum instructional materials romanother source. Tis situation raised several challenges or the teacher. First,the teacher must coordinate the topics across the two sets o instructionalmaterials. Most o the soware products allow teachers exibility in sequenc-ing soware modules so that the use o soware on a given topic or skill can

be t into a logical place in the core curriculum. Although quite easible, thiseort does take time. eachers at some o the case-study schools reportedthat they had not worked through the soware themselves or compared itscoverage to that o their core curriculum to identiy areas o overlap prior toimplementing the soware with their students. In some cases, teachers wereaware that they could change the sequence o the soware modules to matchwhat they were doing in class, but had not done so. As one teacher said, A loto times we just let it [the soware] roll the kids into the next level.

Other teachers did take the time to become amiliar with the soware andthink about how to articulate the soware modules with classroom activi-ties. A high school algebra teacher, or example, chose the soware modulesher students would use each week based on what she would be teaching inthe classroom. In addition to instances o adapting the sequence o sowareactivities to match what was happening in the core curriculum, there were


11/24





also instances o teachers adapting what they did in class on the basis o

insights gained rom observing students working with the soware.

Tis observation rom a rst grade class implementing reading soware

illustrates the way in which students soware-based activity can inuence a

teachers core instruction(Means et al., 2006):

Te rst grade teacher began by reviewing the vowels. In her interview,

the teacher said she did this because she had heard one o the students

singing an a-e-i-o-u song rom the soware during lunch. She said that

she oen listened to students humming to themselves or singing songs

rom the soware and used that as an indication o where they were in the

soware and where their skills might need reinorcing.

A second issue related to integrating soware use and other instruction

is the way that concepts or procedures are presented. Tis appeared to be

particularly troublesome in mathematics, when dierent terminology and

dierent procedures or handling problems o the same type were likely

to be conveyed in the textbook and in the soware. Mathematics teachers

at one school ound this discrepancy to be so conusing to their students

during the rst year o using the soware that they decided not to teach the

same topic with the textbook and the soware in close temporal proximity

in the second year, reasoning that students would be less conused by the

representation o something in the soware i they had had time to orgethow it was presented in the text.

Analysts coded teachers observed practices as their students were us-

ing soware (where available) or evidence that the teachers were helping

students integrate ideas and representations covered by instruction with and

without soware so that students could make connections between what

they learned through the two modalities.6 A high school algebra class pro-

vided an example o a teacher bringing content rom the soware into her

classroom instruction (Means et al., 2006):

Te high school algebra class returned rom the computer lab and sat

down in rows o desk chairs acing the blackboard. At 2:55 p.m. the class

began with the teacher saying, Some o you were looking at this in the

computer lab. She then began talking about simpliying rational expres-

sions and went through some problems on the board.

We also observed examples o teachers reerring to what the students

had experienced in class as the students were working with soware in thecomputer lab, as illustrated by the observation below rom a middle school

mathematics class (Means et al., 2006):

6 Unless there was evidence o a lack o implementation o nonsotware components, those teachers who used a core curriculum product

with both computer-based and non-computer-based material were coded as having integrated sotware use and other instruction.


12/24


Means



As students worked with the math soware in the computer lab, their

teacher looked or students with raised hands or puzzled looks and pro-vided individual assistance. Te students were working with problemscalling or them to do arithmetic operations with combinations o posi-

tive and negative integers. Aer noting that several o the students werestruggling, the teacher addressed the class as a whole: Remember whenyou add integers, use those algebra tiles we talked about in class. Red wasor positive numbers and blue or negative numbers. (Te soware usesa number line depiction rather than algebra tiles, but it also uses red ornegative numbers and blue or positive numbers.)

Tere were too ew observations o soware use during the ollow-upstudy to support rm conclusions, but teachers responses to interview items

about integration o soware-based and other instruction did suggest arelationship between integration and gains. Eighty-six percent o teachers inhigh-gain schools said that they had done this kind o integration, comparedto 77% o teachers in low-gain schools.

Tose teachers who actively acilitate their students work with sowareare in a position to adapt their non-technology-based instruction by draw-ing on insights gained rom interactions with the soware. Te soware inessence provides the teacher with ormative assessments, which researchsuggests can improve learning i the teacher uses them to guide uture in-

struction (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Some o the case study teachers describedthis kind o practice. An algebra teacher, or example, reported that she ndsthat helping students individually while they are using the soware is a goodway o gauging their understanding and identiying areas to reteach. Shesaid that students who wont ask questions in the classroom will ask in thecomputer lab because they dont eel so much on the spot. She described herpractice o taking the questions that students asked in the computer lab backinto the classroom and reteaching concepts as needed.

Use of software data to inform instruction. Soware vendors have longurged teachers to run the automated reports provided by their productsand review them on a regular basis. ypically, these reports provide data on

individual student progress through and mastery o the various soware

skill modules, as well as summary-level inormation or the class as a whole.Although the vendors recommendation is rooted in concerns over teach-

ers support or soware use and the desire to make sure the soware is used

appropriately, this practice appears to have broader benet. eachers at thehigh-gain schools in the ollow-up sample reported doing requent review o

the student perormance reports the soware generates. Seventy-eight per-cent o the teachers in high-gain schools said they looked at soware reportsor all their students once a week or more, compared to 17% o teachers in

low-gain schools. Tus, use o soware-generated data reports was one o


13/24





the largest dierences between high-gain and low-gain implementations.Although it may be that achievement-oriented teachers implement many

useul practices in addition to looking at data, our qualitative data are con-

sistent with the hypothesis that the use o student perormance inormation

generated by soware products helps teachers target their instruction to thethings that students need to learn. wo examples illustrate teachers use o

the detailed student progress reports generated by soware systems(Meanset al., 2006):

A ourth grade teacher reported that she looked at the soware studentperormance reports on a monthly basis to monitor student progressand check what students were working on. She used the results o onereport to group students during the core reading instruction time by topic

mastery, allowing her to dierentiate the pacing o her core instruction.Tese kids are working on similes; these kids are working on contextclues. I tried to coordinate it, she said. She also used soware reports dur-ing parentteacher conerences to emphasize or clariy a point she wantedto make with parents about their childs progress.

A teacher at another elementary school said she looked at the sowarereports oen and used the data to decide how to group students in herclass. She said she also looked at the soware to help with words or class

and give students individualized spelling words based on where they arein the soware. Te reports helped her decide what to teach, based onwhere students were in the soware and how they were doing. I love us-ing those reports and being able to see exactly where kids are, she said.I can sit down with a parent in a conerence, and theres no guessing onmy part.

Developing a system to motivate soware use. Some o the soware ven-dors recommend instituting a motivational system around soware use

creating a visible chart showing modules completed, giving certicates oraccomplishments on the soware, or using soware perormance in grad-ing. Some o the individual teachers in both the high-gain and the low-gainschools described setting up such systems, usually in the orm o a publicchart showing each students record o soware module completion. Te di-erence between teachers in high-gain schools and those in low-gain schoolsin use o this technique was not signicant. Moreover, when the correlationbetween this technique and gain score is computed or all EEI treatment

classrooms, a negative relationship between this practice and student gains isound (perhaps because teachers whose students are not progressing resortto extrinsic rewards).

able 5 (p. 298) summarizes the dierences between teachers in high- andlow-gain schools in terms o teacher-level soware implementation practices.


14/24


Means



School-Level Implementation Practices

In addition to teacher behaviors and choices that teachers make about howto implement soware with their students, the school as a whole providessupports or soware implementation. Te interviews that researchersconducted with school sta participating in the ollow-up study addressedsome broader school implementation issues that had not been covered inthe EEI data collection. Tese include integration o technology use with

a schoolwide instructional vision, principal support or use o the soware,and teacher collaboration around soware use. Additional schoolwide prac-tices related to soware implementation that were documented as part o theeectiveness study include the technology inrastructure, technical support,and receipt o additional ormal training on soware use or implementation.High- and low-gain schools were contrasted in terms o all o these school-wide practices.

Consistent instructional vision. In schools with a consistent instructionalvision, the principal and the treatment teachers expressed similar coherent

views o how the subject (reading or mathematics) should be taught and therole that the soware should play in implementing that instructional vision.Such consistency can be illustrated by reports rom the sta o a large middleschool serving a low-income student body that included many students whowere not yet uent in English(Means et al., 2006):

All o the interviewed sta indicated that their top priority was to achievethe state/district content standards on the schedule designated in thedistricts instructional guide and pacing chart. Te principal and both

soware-using teachers noted in separate interviews that many o theirstudents did not come in with the skills that the districts instructionalguide assumed and that, although they were supposed to be teaching themore advanced skills in the district instructional guide, they also neededto work on basic skills or students who had not yet mastered them. Tey

Table 5. Teacher Implementation Practices in High- and Low-Gain Schools

Practice Teachers in High-Gain Schools Teachers in Low-Gain Schools

Teacher-Reported Practices a

Met vendor sotware weekly usage guideline 64% 50%

Reviewed sotware reports or all students weekly 78% 17%

Integrated sotware use with other instruction 86% 77%

Instituted motivational system 64% 46%

Observed Practices b

Managed classroom eectively 100% 17%

Facilitated learning during sotware use 67% 67%

a Number of teachers responding to interview item varied between 12 and 14 for the two sets of schools.

b Number of teachers observed and scored on a variable varied between 3 and 6 for the two sets of schools.


15/24





all cited the soware as useul or this purpose. Tey thought it wouldbe better i students acquired basic skills beore being moved to moreadvanced mathematics, but had concluded that they had to teach bothtogether and saw the soware as a useul tool or doing so.

Te majority o high-gain schools (our o seven) were coded as havinga consistent instructional vision. In contrast, only two o six low-gainschools were judged to exhibit this kind o consistency. Lack o a consis-tent view o the sowares role was illustrated by the sta in a low-gainschool, as described below (Means et al., 2006):

Te principal had little involvement with the study and was unsure howwell the soware t with current schoolwide initiatives. One o the two teach-

ers using the soware taught low-skilled and English-language-learner stu-dents and said that the soware would be good or honors students but not orhis students because the language and concepts were too advanced. Te othersoware-using teacher taught honors students and said that they got boredwith it, but he expected that the soware would be good or remediation.

Principal support. In addition to being instrumental in orging a consistentinstructional vision, principals can provide support or use o instructionalsoware, not just in the orm o permission and supportive verbal state-ments but also in terms o concrete actions, such as giving the classes using

the soware priority access to computer resources and arranging or jointplanning periods or other paid opportunities or teachers to gain prociencywith the soware and to plan or its use. Te majority o high-gain schoolsin the ollow-up sample (ve o seven) had principals who supported thesoware implementation in those ways; the majority o low-gain schools(our o six) did not.

Teacher collaboration. Beyond the support rom the principal, supportrom ones colleagues appears to be another actor present in schools that

achieve learning gains with technology. All seven o the high-gain schoolsthat could be scored or this variable reported that their teachers collaboratedand supported each other on use o the soware product. Only one third othe low-gain schools (two o six) reported this kind o teacher collaboration.

wo teachers at an elementary school implementing the reading sowareillustrated the kind o teacher collaboration ound in the high-gain schools(Means et al., 2006):

Collaboration between the two teachers using the soware at this elemen-tary school was very close. Te younger teacher, who was in her secondyear o teaching, handles the technical side, does reports, registers kids.Te older, veteran teacher mentored her younger colleague on instruc-tional strategies or elementary reading. Tey planned together at thebeginning o the year and got together throughout the year to look atsoware reports and discuss student progress. One o the teachers noted


16/24


Means



that they even get in competition a little with the scores. Te schoolstechnology coordinator commented that they work well together; theyre

both committed to the program.

A number o researchers have suggested that the presence o strong tiesamong teachers who view themselves as a learning community will acili-tate the adoption o technology (Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004; Strudler &Hearrington, 2008). In these case studies, however, there was no dierencebetween the proportions o high- and low-gain schools in the ollow-upsample that were judged to emphasize teacher collaboration generally (veo seven high-gain schools and our o six low-gain schools described them-

selves as collaborative). Tis nding suggests that the ocus o the collabora-tion, not just a generally supportive climate, is important.

Technology infrastructure and technical support. In implementing the EEIeectiveness study, the research team took steps to make sure that eachschool had the technology inrastructure needed to implement the sowareassigned to treatment classrooms. Te study team worked with districtsto identiy hardware and soware needs such as computers, headphones,memory, and operating system upgrades, and the study purchased the up-

grades as needed. Tus, all o the schools in the case studies (as well as thosein the larger EEI study) had technology inrastructures that were, at least intheory, adequate or running the assigned reading or mathematics soware.

When we asked case study teachers about the technology support avail-able to them, we ound that high-gain schools nearly always had on-sitetechnical support that teachers considered good (six o seven high-gainschools). Hal o the case study low-gain schools (three o six) were similarlyhappy with their on-site support while hal were not. Hence, the qualitativedata suggest that the quality o on-site technology support, rather than itsmere presence, is important and that good local support is not sucient butmay be necessary to ensure positive outcomes with technology.

Receipt of additional training and support. In a typical implementation ocommercial soware, the school or district purchasing the soware has theoption o obtaining training and support services rom the vendor. In the

Table 6. Proportion o Schools with Schoolwide Practices and Supports, by Gain Status

Practice or Support High-Gain Schools (n = 7) Low-Gain Schools(n = 6)

Consistent instructional vision 4 o 7 2 o 6

Principal support or sotware use 5 o 7 2 o 6

Teacher collaboration around sotware use 7 o 7 2 o 6

Satisactory onsite technical support 6 o 7 3 o 6

Receipt o additional ormal training 3 o 7 1 o 6

Receipt o inormal ace-to-ace support 5 o 7 3 o 6

Access to help desk, e-mail, website 6 o 7 5 o 6


17/24





EEI study, these services were provided by vendors as part o the agreement

around their participation. All o the commercial vendors with a product inthe study conducted ormal initial training or the teachers who would beimplementing their soware. In addition to this ormal training, vendors

were permitted to provide additional ormal training sessions during theschool year, ace-to-ace inormal support as part o school visits, or assis-tance through a help desk, email or a web site. Somewhat larger proportionso the high-gain schools received additional ormal training and ace-to-aceinormal support rom the soware vendors, but the dierences were not dra-matic and the samples are small. A similarly large majority o teachers in bothhigh- and low-gain schools reported having access to technical assistance inthe orm o a help desk, e-mail, or website supporting use o the soware.

able 6 summarizes the dierences between high- and low-gain schools

in terms o schoolwide implementation practices.

Changes in Implementation Practices from Year 1 to Year 2

Many changes in implementation practices in teachers second year with thesoware appeared to reect teachers increased knowledge and condencearound soware use. Nearly hal o the teachers reported that technologyproblems were reduced in their second year o soware implementation.eachers at six o the 13 ollow-up schools reported ewer technology prob-

lems in Year 2. One o these schools had gained a technology coordinator,and two schools that had had major start-up delays in Year 1 did not havethis same problem in their second year o implementation. eachers alsocredited their own increased amiliarity with technology and with the pro-grams or a decrease in technology problems. echnology problems do notalways disappear with experience, however; two schools said that they hadhad more rather than ewer technology problems in Year 2. In both cases, achange in the schools technology inrastructure required reconguration othe technology or running the soware.

One might expect teachers increasing comort with the technology tolead to more soware use in their second year o implementation, but thiswas not the case. Nine teachers rom ve dierent schools reported us-ing the soware or less time in Year 2 than in Year 1, and only one teacherreported increased use. ime pressures and competition with other schoolimprovement initiatives were the most requently cited reasons or reduc-ing the amount o time devoted to soware use during the second year oimplementation. Tree o the schools where there was less soware use inthe second year had introduced a new core curriculum in the area coveredby the soware. eachers said that the new curriculum required adjustmenton their part and integrating the soware with the new curriculum was di-cult. At one o these schools, or example, teachers elt the new curriculumrequired them to do more whole-class instruction, making it more dicultto nd time or soware use.


18/24


Means



Discussion

Te ndings rom this study generally are consistent with the usual rec-ommendations or school-level supports or technology in the educationliterature but are less similar to common recommendations or practices

within classrooms implementing technology. Te our school-level practicesor which the study ound support were:

Establishment o a consistent instructional visionPrincipal support or soware useeacher collaboration around soware use andSatisactory on-site technical support.

Tese recommendations are among those commonly made in the educa-tional technology literature (as shown in able 1, p. 286).

Te classroom-level practices receiving the strongest empirical supportrom this study were:

Reviewing soware reports or all students weekly andManaging the classroom eectively.

Similar practices can be ound in able 2 (p. 287; eacher reviews so-ware reports and Ecient routines established or shiing in and out otechnology use), but there are ewer citations or them in the literature thanthere are or other practices, such as a low student-to-computer ratio, that

did not receive empirical support either in the qualitative study o 27 class-rooms reported here or in the large EEI study involving 132 classrooms.

One implication o this study or classroom practice and soware im-plementation eorts is that teachers should be urged to capitalize on theassessment data that instructional soware makes available. Most instruc-tional soware will adapt the learners experience to the results o embeddedassessments automatically. But teachers can use the soware assessmentreports also to identiy specic areas where they can do more to support

students during their regular classroom instruction, as was described by anumber o case study teachers. Soware reports can also bring to light indi-vidual students motivational issues or learning disabilities that might havegone unnoticed during whole-class instruction.

A second implication is that training and support around instructional so-ware should pay more attention to the details o classroom management. each-ers work with classes o dierent sizes, in dierent physical settings, and withdierent kinds o students. One o the teachers in the EEI study, or example,taught pre-Algebra to a large class o students in a space intended as a lecture hall.

Students were widely spaced out in seats with small ip-up arms designed to holda pad o paper. Distributing laptop computers and juggling papers and computersat the same time under such conditions is a challenge. eachers also have dier-ent habitual routines or organizing and orchestrating class activities. All o theseactors can inuence the ease with which students can be transitioned into and


19/24





out o technology-based activities. As with proessional development on otheraspects o teaching, it would be helpul or teachers to be able to observe exampleso ecient routines or transitioning in and out o soware use within the kind osetting in which they teach, and then to try out their transition strategy in their

own classroom and school, with the opportunity to receive eedback and sugges-tions or improvement rom experienced soware-using coaches.

Te study has implications also or uture research. It raises but does notresolve questions about how teachers can best acilitate their students workas students are engaging with soware designed or independent individualuse. Te literature on classroom implementation o technology highlightsthe role o the teacher as a acilitator o students technology use. Tis acili-tative role is usually described as a move toward student-centered instruc-tion and away rom the more typical teacher role o directing classroom

activities. However, other than giving students more responsibility, there isactually very little guidance in the literature about the most eective teacheracilitation practices when students are working with soware. In these casestudies, researchers categorized an identical percentage (67%) o observedteachers in high- and low-gain schools as acilitating students use o so-ware. It would be premature to suggest that teachers acilitative behaviors donot aect student-learning gains, but this null result does suggest a need ora more precisely dened concept o teacher acilitation during soware use.

In interviews, teachers report gaining insights into their students think-ing by observing or working with students who are engaged with instruc-tional soware. But how should the teacher interact with the student to bestsupport his or her learning with the soware? When should teachers giveanswers and when should they give hints to students struggling with theonline content? Should teachers attend primarily to motivational and be-havioral issues or treat their students soware use as a teachable momentor individual students? Establishing an empirical basis or making recom-mendations in these areas requires theory development around acilitation,

the development o reliable measures o dierent aspects o acilitation, anda program o systematic research.

Given the relatively small number o case study schools and o soware-implementing teachers within those schools, ndings rom the present studyshould be interpreted with caution. Certainly ailure to nd signicant dier-ences between high-and low-gain schools in terms o an oen-recommendedimplementation practice could be attributable to limited statistical power. Butthose implementation variables or which signicant dierences did emerge,

especially in cases where the case study data and the larger EEI data set pro-vide converging evidence, merit attention. Here we have evidence that the prac-tice is associated with learning gains, not just more requent use o technology.

Te descriptive data presented in the appendixes also highlight larger is-sues having to do with the way teachers juggle the requirements o sowareimplementation with everything else they are trying to do in the classroom.


20/24


Means



Case study interviews and observations point to the need or more contex-tualized studies and a broader view o technology implementation. Ratherthan treating technology as a thing which is present or absent, researchersand educators need to look at instructional activity systems in context. Any

piece o hardware or soware is but a part o the instruction that studentsare exposed to in a given domain. Te importance o teacher managemento transitions onto and o o soware, teachers articulation o connec-tions between online and ofine instruction, and teachers struggles to ttechnology-based learning activities into schedules dominated by corecurricula that are not technology-based underline the importance o takingthis broader view.

Building on the concept o an instructional regime, as described byCohen and Ball (1999), educators and policymakers need to stop thinking

o learning soware as an intervention in and o itsel and to think insteado broader instructional activity systems (Roschelle, Knudsen, & Hegedus,2009) dened by:

Learning contentLearning activities, only some o which are technology-basedArticulation between a given learning activity sys-tem and other systems the student is exposed toeacher proessional development and collaboration around

implementation o the instructional activity systemAssessments or learningUse o data to rene the instructional activity on an ongoing basis.

Such a ramework has obvious implications or intervention design andwhat may be less-obvious implications or research. We need to get beyondthe simplistic what works view o learning technology as a pill that willhave the same eect on outcomes or anyone in any context. We have ampleevidence that implementation practices matter, and the instructional activity

system ramework suggests basic categories or the kinds o data that shouldbe collected in any study o a technology-supported intervention in action.

Te learning technology eld needs implementation research contrastingthe student outcomes produced by dierent implementation strategies andpractices or the same intervention, not just comparisons o treatment versusno-treatment conditions. Education policymakers and practitioners need tothink about the implementation o technology-supported interventions as aprocess o iteration and renement rather than as a pill to be selected on thebasis o what works evidence. Partnerships between the teachers, schools,and districts implementing technology-supported reorms and those whodesign and research such reorms can support a process o collaborativeelaboration and adaptation o the intervention to t local circumstances, ol-lowed by a cycle o implementation with monitoring o both the implementa-tion process and outcomes or students. Findings o the implementation cycle


21/24





can then inorm another round o intervention renement, again ollowed byimplementation, monitoring, and improvement. Only by dening, measur-ing, and analyzing implementation variables and context along with studentoutcomes (Means & Penuel, 2005) can we gain the understanding that will

support the implementation o technology-supported interventions in a waythat optimizes student learning.

Author NoteBarbara Means directs the Center or echnology in Learning. Her research ocuses on ways inwhich technology can support students learning o advanced skills and the revitalization o class-rooms and schools. She specializes in dening issues and approaches or evaluating the implemen-tation and efcacy o technology-supported educational innovations. Correspondence concerningthis article should be addressed to Barbara Means, SRI International, 333 Ravenswood Ave.,

Menlo Park, CA 94025. E-mail: [email protected]

ReferencesAdelman, N., Donnelly, M. B., Dove, ., iany-Morales, J., Wayne, A., & Zucker, A. (2002).

Te integrated studies o educational technology: Proessional development and teachers use otechnology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Bakia, M., Means, B., Gallagher, L., Chen, E., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation o the EnhancingEducation through echnology Program: Final report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department oEducation.

Barnett, H. (2002). How to guarantee a learning return on your technology investment.Retrieved March 30, 2006, rom http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showstory.

cm?ArticleID=3678Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers dier rom other teachers:

Implications or realizing the potential o computers in schools.Journal o Research onComputing in Education, 26, 291320.

Becker, H. J. (2000). Whos wired and whos not: Childrens access to and use o computertechnology. Te Future o Children, 10(2), 4475.

Brand, G. A. (1997). What research says: raining teachers or using technology.Journal oSta Development, 19(1). Retrieved on July 18, 2006, rom http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/brand191.cm

Cavalier, J. C., & Klein, J. D. (1998). Eects o cooperative versus individual learning and

orienting activities during computer-based instruction. Educational echnology Researchand Development, 46(1), 517.Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. CPRE Research

Report No. RR-043. Philadelphia: University o Pennsylvania, Consortium or PolicyResearch in Education.

Cole, K., Simkins, M., & Penuel, W. R. (2002). Learning to teach with technology: Strategiesor inservice proessional development.Journal o echnology and eacher Education, 10(3),431455.

Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: Te status otechnology in U.S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational esting Service. Retrieved on August13, 2006, rom http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pd/PICCOMPCLSS.pd

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, ., Carey, N., Means, B., et al., (2007).Eectiveness o educational technology interventions. Report prepared or Institute oEducation Sciences, U.S. Department o Education. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc.


22/24


Means



eMINS Evaluation eam. (2003, January). Analysis o 2002 MAP results or eMINSstudents. Retrieved July 29, 2006, rom http://emints.org/evaluation/reports/map2002.pd

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing rst- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies or

technology integration. Educational echnology Research and Development, 47(4), 4761.Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diusion o innovations

within organizations: Application to the implementation o computer technology inschools. Sociology o Education, 77(2), 148171.

Glennan, . K., & Melmed, A. (1996). Fostering the use o educational technology: Elements o a

national strategy. Santa Monica, CA: Critical echnologies Institute, RAND.Hansen, E. E., Llosa, L. L., & Slayton, J. (2004). Evaluation o the Waterord Early Reading

Program as a supplementary program in the Los Angeles Unied School District: 200203.

Planning, Assessment and Research Division Publication No. 177. Los Angeles: Los AngelesUnied School District, Program Evaluation and Research Branch.

Jones, B. F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging in: Choosingand using educational technology. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Educational Research

Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED415837)Mann, D., Shakesha, C., Becker, J., & Kottkamp, R. (1998). West Virginia story: Achievement

gains rom a statewide comprehensive instructional technology program. Santa Monica, CA:

Milken Exchange on Educational echnology.

Martin, W., Culp, K., Gersick, A., & Nudell, H. (2003, April). Intel each to the Future: Lessons

learned rom the evaluation o a large-scale technology-integration proessional development

program. Paper presented at the annual meeting o American Educational Research

Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved December 2009 rom http://cct.edc.org/report_summary.asp?numPublicationId=167

Means, B., Murphy, R., Shear, L., Gorges, ., Hu, P., & Sussex, W. (2006). Implementing readingand mathematics soware. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available at http://ctl.sri.

com/projects/displayProject.jsp?Nick=NA

Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). echnology and education reorm: echnical research report.

Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Means, B., & Penuel, W. R. (2005). Research to support scaling up technology-basededucational interventions. In C. Dede, J. P. Honan, & L. C. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success:

Lessons rom technology-based educational improvement(pp. 176197). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Moore, G. (1999). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream

consumers. New York: Harper Business Essentials.

Nunnery, J. A., Ross, S. M., & McDonald, A. (2006). A randomized experimental evaluation

o the impact o Accelerated Reader/Reading Renaissance implementation on readingachievement in grades 3 to 6.Journal o Education or Students Placed at Risk, 11(1), 118.

ODwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. (2004). Identiying teacher, school, and district

characteristics associated with elementary teachers use o technology: A multilevel

perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48). Retrieved August 13, 2006, romhttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n48/

ODwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. (2005). Identiying teacher, school, and district

characteristics associated with middle and high school teachers use o technology: Amultilevel perspective.Journal o Educational Computing Research, 33(4), 369393.

Oce o echnology Assessment (OA), U.S. Congress. (1995). eachers and technology:

Making the connection (OA-HER-616). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oce.Powell, J. V., Aeby, V. G., Jr., & Carpenter-Aeby, . (2003). A comparison o student outcomes

with and without teacher acilitated computer-based instruction. Computers & Education,40, 183191.

Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., & Hegedus, S. (2010). From new technological structures to

curricular activity systems: Advanced designs or teaching and learning. In M. J. Jacobson &


23/24





P. Reiman (Eds.), Designs or learning environments or the uture: International perspectives

rom the learning sciences (pp. 233262). New York: Springer.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringsta, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). eaching with technology: Creating

student-centered classrooms. New York: eachers College Press.

Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., & Henry, J. J. (1998). Network o inuences in an implementation

o a mathematics curriculum innovation. International Journal o Computers orMathematical Learning, 3(2), 113148.

Strudler, N., & Hearrington, D. (2008). Quality support or IC in schools. In J. Voogt & G.

Knezek (eds.), International handbook o inormation technology in primary and secondary

education, (pp. 579596). New York: Springer.

Sweet, J. R., Rasher, S. P., Abromitis, B. S., & Johnson, E. M. (2004). Case studies o high-

perorming, high-technology schools: Final research report on schools with predominantly

low-income, Arican-American, or Latino student populations. Oak Brook, IL: North Central

Regional Educational Laboratory.

U.S. Department o Education. (2000). Does proessional development change teaching practice?

Results rom a three-year study. Washington, D.C.: Author.Van Dusen, L. M., & Worthen, B. R. (1995). Can integrated instructional technology

transorm the classroom? Educational Leadership, 53(2), 2833.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2003). How a technology proessional development program ts into a

teachers work lie. eaching and eacher Education, 19(6), 591607.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? Te relationship between educational technology

and student achievement in mathematics (Policy Inormation Report). Princeton, NJ:

Educational esting Service Policy Inormation Center.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions or classroom technology

innovations. eachers College Record, 104(3), 482515.


24/24

Technology and Education Change: Focus on Student Learning

Documents

Transcript of Technology and Education Change: Focus on Student Learning