Abstract: Using a multiple-case embedded research design (Yin, 1994), this study examined the nature of teachers' learning during technology professional development activities and the extent to which their subsequent technology-supported pedagogy was innovative. Four English language arts teachers, who ranged in teaching and technology experience, served as contrasting case studies. Results suggested that the power to develop innovative technology-supported pedagogy lies in the teacher's interpretation of the newly learned technology's value for supporting instruction and learning in the classroom; learning experiences grounded in content-based, technology examples were most effective toward this end. Furthermore, teachers with less professional knowledge (e.g., preservice or novice) and/or less intrinsic interest in identifying uses for technology may need guided or collaborative, content-specific technology learning opportunities, while teachers with more professional knowledge (e.g., veteran) may be able to develop innovative technology-supported pedagogy by bringing their own learning goals to bear in professional development activities. Collaborative, subject-specific technology inquiry groups are proposed as professional development that supports all teachers' learning to integrate technology into their subject areas. ********** We are at a decisive juncture in terms of technology use in elementary, middle and high school education. There is educational promise in the accumulating technological resources that are increasingly available to teachers and school children that contribute to innovative practice and learning across subject areas (e.g., Chen & Armstrong, 2002; Duhaney, 2000). Simultaneously, technology is being used in ways that replicate traditional instructional strategies and learning (Cuban, 1993, 2001). Given the community support for technology use in the classroom (Starkweather, 2002), it is unlikely, even with Cuban's depictions of uninspired technology use in schools, that technology resources will be extracted from schools. Thus, while education is poised for innovation that will allow students to engage in learning with technology in ways they, their teachers, and their parents have never experienced, we still need to reflect on how to make those practices a reality in classrooms today. Indeed, increasing the effectiveness of technology-supported content area teaching has been a national goal (Riley, Holleman, & Roberts, 2000). Yet, only one-third of public school teachers feel "well prepared" or "very well prepared" to integrate the use of computers into their teaching (NCES, 2000), and professional preparation for practicing teachers to integrate technology resources in support of subject area learning has been scant (Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 2000). An essential question concerning this issue lies in how some teachers learn to infuse technology innovatively into subject area instruction and learning while other teachers adopt technologies in ways that do not significantly change student learning or instruction. Thus, we need to better understand how to best support and promote technology integration among subject-matter teachers in both informal and formal learning contexts. The current study builds upon relevant literature on teacher learning and the factors that may enhance the likelihood that teachers will use technology innovatively to support subject matter learning. LITERATURE REVIEW Teacher Learning There are many teachers for whom the use of technologies for educational purposes is unfamiliar and, in some cases, a daunting prospect. Technology integration requires practicing teachers to assume a learning stance. From a constructivist perspective, "teacher-learners" engage in learning that is a "constructive and iterative process in which the person interprets events on the basis of existing knowledge, beliefs, and dispositions" (Borko & Putnam, 1996). …

Abstract: Executive summary * Part I: Mapping the terrain * Development as learning * How science and technology can contribute to achieving the Goals * Innovation and economic advance * Part II: Gearing up * Platform technologies with wide applicability * Adequate infrastructure services as a foundation for technology * Investing in education in science and technology * Promoting technology-based business activities * Part III: Forging ahead * Acquiring knowledge in a globalizing world * Advising governments on science, technology, and innovation * Governing global technology * Conclusions and outlook *

Abstract: Stuart Selber’s project in Multiliteracies for a Digital Age productively bridges two fields that would intuitively seem to resist bridging: humanities education and computer literacy. Selber’s approach is not overly ponderous or theoretical beyond any application; rather, he first provides the exigencies for treating computer education and computer literacy as humanistic and critical endeavors. He then develops pragmatic and professional heuristics for, primarily, teachers of writing and communication in departments of English. I say “primarily” because in academic and professional publishing, it is often unclear how scholars and practitioners might respond to a particular piece of work from their own contexts and perspectives. The book will also be useful for curriculum-development committees, graduate students in writing studies, and researchers in professional communication. Selber’s Multiliteracies provides an opportunity to reflect on some of those academic-industry gaps, especially, in this case, when the material deals with such pressing concerns as 21st-century technology applications, the people who use them, and the people who teach them.

Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education sponsored a summit that addressed the need for scientifically-based evidence on the use of technology in teaching and learning. One hundred leaders from the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) federal initiative were invited to participate in the meeting, held in Fall 2003. The recommendations from that meeting offer a framework for future discussion of this topic. These educational leaders agreed on the need for identification through research of the best practices in the use of technology in teacher education. Studies to determine the generalizable effects of technology in teacher preparation programs are essential because of the key role of the teacher in education and because of the existing evidence on the need for in-depth preparation of teachers to use technology effectively.The full range of research approaches and methodologies are essential to find out what works in the Information Society, where rapidly increasing adoption of technology...

Abstract: With the publication of standards for teaching, learning, and the inculcation of technological literacy (International Technology Education Association, 2000), technology education in the United States has made a significant leap forward toward greater acceptance as a valid school subject. Standards represent content terrain claimed by a community of practitioners, and once stakes are put down, it is left to adherents to move in seeking title. It is doubtful whether we will witness a rush towards bio-technology or medical technology, new areas in the standards that do not naturally issue from our accustomed traditions. But for design there will be great interest since this is a content area over which the field has long toiled. Design is arguably the single most important content category set forth in the standards, because it is a concept that situates the subject more completely within the domain of engineering. Four of the 20 standards address the question of design directly. Standard 8 deals with the “attributes of design;” Standard 9 with “engineering design;” Standard 10 with “trouble shooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experiment in problem solving; and Standard 11 with the “design process.” It is not inconsequential that the foreword heralding the standards is authored by William Wulf, in his capacity as President of the National Academy of Engineering. This is a significant benediction for a subject whose advocates have for the past decade or so been of the view that its acceptance by the public and by the dominant academic culture of schools turned on the degree of rapprochement that could be worked out with the science as well as the engineering communities. The Project 2061 curriculum standards acknowledged the common epistemological ground shared by science and technology as school subjects, embodied in the designed world (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; Johnson, 1989). With ties with science thus formalized, engineering was but a step away. The sentiments expressed by Bensen & Bensen (1993) foreshadowed what appears now to be a significant opportunity for the field of technology education to lay claim to aspects of engineering as part of its curriculum purview. Arguing that the subject should

Abstract: Mission Statement: This volume will highlight papers presented at the second Nebraska Symposium on Information Technology in Education. With chapters focusing on the latest research findings and theoretical principles for using technology in education, the volume will extend findings from current research on technology-mediated instruction into a set of practical principles for designers, teachers, and managers of educational technology. Contributors will identify technical and design features required for sharing of content and assessment tools and will target promising areas for future research and development in technology-based learning, instruction and assessment.

Abstract: There was a time--not long ago--when a discussion of educational technology conjured up relatively predictable images of children sitting at desks in front of computer screens In this tradition, "technology" meant "the computer"--and a rather standard view of the computer at that, consisting of a CPU, keyboard, screen, and perhaps a couple of additional peripheral devices During the past decade, this traditional portrait was augmented to include a connection to the World Wide Web; but the image of the child at the screen remained the standardThis image is rapidly becoming superseded by a multitude of unexpected, provocative, and creative portraits of the ways in which children employ technology For one thing, the term "technology" itself has begun to encompass more varied terrain: mobile and ubiquitous computing, embedded computation, novel sensors and actuators, fabrication tools, "smart" materials of various sorts, and newly accessible interaction techniques (for, eg, speech or gesture recognition), just to name a few In turn, this more expansive definition of technology suggests a view of children's activities that includes, but is not limited to, the classroom As a research community, we can now begin to integrate the creative design and assessment of children technology with a variety of settings--city streets, playgrounds, museums, and parks We can re-examine children's relationship with other sorts of "technology", including clothing and toys We can create new and enabling artifacts for children with various sorts of physical or cognitive disabilities We can make hitherto inaccessible ideas, techniques, and devices available to children, thus empowering them and democratizing technologyThe traditional view undeniably remains a powerful one: there are tremendous opportunities yet to be explored in the world of desktop machines and "keyboard-andscreen- based" software Moreover, much has been learned within this tradition, and continues to be relevant as children's activities take new forms and as technology expands Indeed, there are many opportunities for productive integration of desktop computers and the welter of new technologies mentioned above The IDC conference represents a gathering of researchers who are respectful of, and knowledgeable about, the field of children's technology as it has existed up until now At the same time, these researchers, in collaboration with today's children, are exploring directions in design that promise still more creative and satisfying lives for children yet to come

Abstract: Subjects for which aesthetics and creative performance are critical curricular dimensions (such as art, physical education, music, and technology education), and which are accommodative of students across the range of intelligences (Gardner, 1999) are not readily or completely captured by content standards. Therefore content knowledge in these fields that target student achievement as conventionally conceived must be complemented by treatment of more subjective and elusive goals such as the development of connoisseurship, appreciation, or creative insight. With the publication of standards for the subject (International Technology Education Association, 2000), the need for focus upon creativity in technology education has been made more urgent than before because of the prominence given to the teaching and learning of design. Four of the standards (8, 9, 10, and 11) address design directly. Technological design is a medium through which dimensions of children's creative abilities can be stimulated and augmented. This creative potential of design teaching can be seen in the work of Druin & Fast (2002), where Swedish children who are included in the design of technology reveal inventive dispositions in their journaling. It can be seen also in the work of Arguably, stimulating creative impulses in children through design and problem-solving activities is as grand a goal of curriculum as is the achievement of particular design-based, measurable outcomes. But how do we get children to improve upon the quality of their designs? What makes one design solution more elegant than the other? There are no easy answers here because creativity does not quite respond to the accustomed inquiry questions that we pose in discussion of curriculum, instruction and assessment questions in technology education. As Bruner (1962) pointed out, creativity is a silent process which by its very nature will not be responsive to the processes ordinarily employed to determine content standards. Instead, it requires its own set of questions, including examination of its nature. This article seeks to stimulate a conversation about the inculcation of creativity as an important goal of technology education, and as a concomitant of

Abstract: I sometimes ask graduate students —as an informal measure of their baseline knowledge at the beginning of a semester —what “technology integration” means to them. Here’s a sample re sponse written by a teacher enrolled in the first week of her first educational technology course: A classroom that has successfully integrated technology into the curriculum would be one where you would not really notice it because it would be so second nature. The teacher would not have to think up ways to use whatever tools were available, but would seamlessly use them to enhance the learning of whatever content was being covered. Technology [would be] used to assist in acquiring content knowledge, and t he acquisition of technology skills [would be] secondary. Contrast this depiction with what the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS -S; ISTE, 2002) say about technology inte gration: Curriculum integration with the use of technology involves the infusion of technology as a tool to enhance the learning in a content area or multidisciplinary setting….Effective integration of technology is achieved when students are able to select technology tools to help them obtain information in a timely manner, analyze and synthesize the information, and present it professionally. The technology should become an integral part of how the classroom functions —as accessible as all other classroom tools. Though both explanations acknowledge a necessary link with curriculum, the latter depiction emphasizes how students would use tools to obtain information, while the former emphasizes how students’ content learning would be assisted with tool use. T he distinction is more than semantic, and its import may well point to one of two primary reasons why many —if not most —large-scale technology integration efforts are perceived to have failed: technocentrism and pedagogical dogmatism. In this editorial, I o ffer thoughts about each of these phenomena and invite you to respond.

Abstract: This investigation sought information about principals and their relationship with computer technology. Several questions were fundamental to the inquiry. Are principals prepared to facilitate the attainment of technology's promise through the integration of computer technology into the teaching and learning process? Are principals prepared to use computer technology to accomplish administrative and managerial tasks? What can be stated about principals' current expertise to use computer technology? Principals' responses to items on the Computer Technology Survey enabled an examination of their (a) role in facilitating and participating in the integration of computer technology into teaching and learning, (b) perceptions about computer technology for managerial and administrative tasks, (c) expertise acquired to use computer technology, and (d) professional development needs to enhance computer technology skills.

Abstract: This handbook is intended to help decision makers in developing-country governments and donor agencies in their efforts to combine information and communications technologies (ICT) and teacher professional development (TPD). To the extent possible in a brief work, the handbook combines a global perspective-including information about best practices and successful projects-with attention to the challenges faced by education policymakers, teachers, and students in Less Developed Countries (LDCs) and countries attempting to meet the goals of Education for All (EFA). This handbook will help decision makers improve their abilities to: 1) Understand the complex relationships between ICT use, professional learning, types of TPD and classroom implementation so as to aid the development of requests for proposals (RFPs); 2) Recognize best practices and essential supports in the use of ICTs for TPD in order to evaluate proposals of national, regional, and local scale; 3) Propose ways of using ICTs to support TPD that can achieve specific objectives in relation to educational improvement; 4) Identify cost considerations, potential partnerships, evaluation requirements and other factors essential to the planning of effective ICT-enabled TPD; and 5) Communicate effectively with researchers, representatives of NGOs, policymakers, donor-agency personnel, and others about the roles played by TPD and ICT in educational reform.

Abstract: Technological tools, which meet the needs of the society, have become more addictive for people with the rapid development of technology. These tools have also been used in the field of education and improved through the Internet where there is continuous information exchange. Educators needed the attitudes of the students towards technological tools, especially the Internet, and have developed scales in various structures. The aim of this study is to develop a “the scale of attitude towards technology” in order to assess the attitudes of pre-service chemistry teachers towards technological tools. In the light of the examined data, a 5-point Likert type scale consisting of 50 items was developed and administered to 162 students, who formed the sampling. At the end of the analysis, a scale with a reliability coefficient of 0,8668 consisting of 19 items and 5 subscales called “not using technological tools in education, using technological tools in education, the effects of technology in educational life, teaching how to use technological tools and evaluating technological tools.”

Abstract: WHILE GLOBAL WARMING toward women in academia (in this case a desirable trend) may be occurring in some academic departments or institutions—most notably in community colleges—the same cannot be said for many colleges of Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET colleges). There, the climate for women is very chilly indeed. As Cathy Ann Trower reports in Science magazine (2001), 42 percent of full professors in two-year colleges are women; however, women comprise only 17 percent of the full professor ranks at doctoral-granting institutions. For SET colleges, the figures are even lower. “In 4-year colleges and universities,” Trower reports, “women SET (science, engineering and technology) faculty hold fewer high-ranking posts than men, are less likely to be full professors, and are more likely to be assistant professors” (1). Even though there are increasing numbers of women graduates in the pipeline, the statistics for women’s representation at the higher ranks and in the SET colleges have been largely unchanged for the past twenty years. The situation is no better in Europe. “Although women constitute more than half of the student population across Europe, they hold fewer than 10% of the top positions in the academic system” (Dwandre 2002, 278). In the 1970s, Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977) wrote about the adverse effects that can occur when women or minorities are tokens in their departments. Many subsequent studies also have found that when women represent less than 15–20 percent of a department they are more likely to feel the effects of gender stereotyping. More recently, Virginia Valian (1998) has developed cognitive analyses to explain the persistent inequalities in academia. She claims that both men and women operate under certain stereotypical gender schemas that affect our expectations of men’s and women’s roles. For example, Valian cites research showing that, after reviewing identical curricula vitae but with different names attached, men and women academics both consistently rate the women as less competent for an academic position than the men. Gender schemas go a long way toward explaining the subtle dynamics at work during recruitment and promotion on university campuses. Other analyses have revealed additional aspects of chilly campus climates that help to account for women’s failure to thrive in academia (see Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, and Uzzi 2000). One of these is the “death by a thousand paper cuts” P E R S P E C T I V E S

Abstract: This study examined the extent to which women and men majoring in science, math, engineering, and technology (SMET) fields engaged in a broad array of effective educational practices. Women in SMET fields were generally as, or more, engaged in educationally fruitful activities as their male counterparts. The results of this study, when combined with other research, suggest that women may experience greater gender parity in math and science fields in college than in either high school or the post-college SMET workplace.

Abstract: The field of Artificial Intelligence in Education has continued to broaden and now includes research and researchers from many areas of technology and social science. This study opens opportunities for the cross-fertilization of information and ideas from researchers in the many fields that make up this interdisciplinary research area, including artificial intelligence, other areas of computer science, cognitive science, education, learning sciences, educational technology, psychology, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and the many domain-specific areas for which Artificial Intelligence in Education systems have been designed and built. An explicit goal is to appeal to those researchers who share the perspective that true progress in learning technology requires both deep insight into technology and also deep insight into learners, learning, and the context of learning. The theme "Supporting Learning through Intelligent and Socially Informed Technology" reflects this basic duality.

Abstract: This article describes how concepts related to the use of technology in education have evolved with particular emphasis on their implications for people with learning disabilities (LD). The article reflects my personal perceptions as a "participant observer" in a variety of activities related to technology applications in special education beginning in the early 1960s (Blackhurst, 1965, 1967). At that time, educators were focused on the potential that audio-visual aids, such as 16mm film projectors and tape recorders, had for instruction. Researchers and instructional designers also were engaged in developing programmed instruction materials that had their foundation in Pressey's 1926 invention of the first teaching machine (Blackhurst & Edyburn, 2000). As mainframe computers and their applications became more prevalent, technology gradually emerged as the terminology of choice. In the mid- to late 1960s, conceptualizations about technology were broadened to media and materials, and a national network of Special Education Instructional Materials Centers was established to provide practical assistance on the use of instructional materials to teachers throughout the nation (Warfield, 1968). By 1970, instructional technology emerged as a topic of interest (Commission on Instructional Technology, 1970), and two broad categories of technology were commonly acknowledged: systems technology and media technology (Blackhurst & Hofmeister, 1980). Advances in both instructional technology and mainframe computer technology continued in the early 1970s. The late 1970s and early 1980s saw the introduction and refinement of the microcomputer, undoubtedly the most influential technology of the late 20th century. The 1980s also witnessed an increased emphasis on assistive technologies and the emergence of technology literature and computer software targeted directly at special education. Significant technology legislation, such as the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act (P. L. 100-407) was passed, among others (Blackhurst, 1997). Major technology advances, such as the evolution of the Internet, occurred during the 1990s. Additional in-depth information about historical developments may be obtained elsewhere (e.g., Blackhurst, 2005; Blackhurst & Edyburn, 2000). Technology Types and Education Over the years, historical events have led to a broadened view of technology--one that goes far beyond the focus on machines. My current perspective is that six distinct types of technology impact education. Following are brief descriptions of each, accompanied by illustrations of their use and potential for people with LD, some being more directly pertinent to LD than others. The technology of teaching refers to instructional approaches that are systematically designed and applied in very precise ways. Such approaches typically include the use of well-defined objectives, precise instructional procedures based upon the tasks that students are required to learn, small units of instruction that are carefully sequenced, a high degree of teacher activity, high levels of student involvement, liberal use of reinforcement, and careful monitoring of student performance. Instructional procedures that embody many of these principles include approaches such as direct instruction (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1990), applied behavior analysis (Alberto & Troutman, 1995; Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988), learning strategies (Deshler & Schumaker, 1986), and response prompting (Wolery, Ault, & Doyle, 1992). Most often, machines and equipment are not involved when implementing various technologies of teaching; however, they can be, as will be illustrated later. There are differing opinions about the nature of instructional technology, but a presidential Commission on Instructional Technology (1970) provided the following definition: Instructional technology is a systematic way of designing, carrying out, and evaluating the total process of learning and teaching in terms of specific objectives, based on research in human learning and communication, and employing a combination of human and nonhuman resources to bring about more effective instruction. …

Abstract: In ""Creating High-Tech Teams: Practical Guidance on Work Performance and Technology,"" leaders in science and industry explore the state-of-the-art in technology and teamwork and how to translate this information into the best possible guidance for industrial - organizational practitioners. Contributors who work with specific types of technology, such as groupware and data visualization, describe their understanding of how that technology affects teamwork and how to use it. Contributors provide the reader with a review of the most prevalent tools used today and how to apply them in a number of industries. The final section of the volume provides a glimpse into the future by discussing various applications of ""virtual"" teammates, where part of the team is the technology. The problems that arise with technology and teamwork - and sometimes even their solutions - often never make it into the pages of scientific journals. Thus much of the information collected in this volume is appearing for the first time anywhere. This, combined with the accessibility of the writing and the fascinating range of fields and technology covered, makes ""Creating High-Tech Teams"" an invaluable resource for industrial - organizational psychologists and others working to make teams more effective through technology.

Abstract: This paper reports on a 3-year study of a half-day urban magnet high school founded upon a desire to provide rigorous science, math, and technology experiences to students who would not otherwise have access to such educational opportunities. Using the theoretical lens of how a model of an educated person gets culturally produced within the school setting, I attended to: (1) the institutional construction of preferred student identity, (2) ways in which students in the school both took up and transformed this identity, and (3) how these student initiatives played a role in gradual institutional shifts in student expectations. Four constructs—learning, achievement, resistance, and success—were found to play significant roles in how the qualities of an educated person were negotiated through practice in attempts to create a culture of academic success in science and mathematics. These findings have implications for teaching and learning in other urban school settings. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed, 89:392–417, 2005

Abstract: Social technology is that the social subject transformsso cial world ,adjust the socialrelation ships,control the society ,solve the practicality knowledgesystem of the social contradiction Socialtechnologyandnaturaltechnologyallhaveconnectionanddifferences,thetwounifyandtransform theworldgreatpracticetothemankind Therelationquestionsofpeopleandsocialtechnologyareasimportantastherelationquestionsofpeopleand naturaltechnology ,allbasicproblemsoftechnologicalphilosophy

Abstract: This study examines the technology integration practices of post-secondary math teacher educators. Four math teacher educators in the Commonwealth of Virginia were interviewed and observed teaching to form a picture of how they have developed as technology users, and identify the factors that have promoted or inhibited their adoption of technological innovations. Organizational culture theory and symbolic interactionism make up the conceptual framework used to identify the participants as individual members of a larger organization who interact to define the technological cultures at their institutions. Analytic induction is used to generate and support a main empirical assertion about the technology adoption practices of these math teacher educators. Results of the study suggest that technology integration by math teacher educators in a school of education is a social process that must have administrative and institutional support to succeed. ********** There is an oft-repeated expression in education that people tend to teach the way they were taught (Bull & Cooper, 1997; Handler, 1993). Professors who work in teacher education prepare those who will be responsible for the education of future generations. Handler (1993) emphasized this point: "Consider that the students who are graduating from teacher training programs throughout the United States will be in classrooms, impacting on students, for the next 30 years" (p. 147). If students emulate the practice of their teachers, then preservice teachers' use of technology in education will be based, in large part, on the examples set for them in university teacher education programs. This means that the role of the teacher educator in technology integration in schools is vital. The impact they can have on preservice teachers is significant, and maximizing that impact can help improve the integration of technology in K-12 classrooms. The technology integration model that classroom teachers follow in their own practice directly affects how they use technology with their elementary and secondary students. Thus, focusing on teacher educators and models of technology integration is important for understanding and shaping what happens in the classroom. The purpose of this study was to investigate the beliefs and practices of math teacher educators in the area of technology integration. An examination of the factors that have promoted or inhibited the use of technology in teacher educators' careers adds to the understanding of how they decide to adopt or reject technological innovations, how they use technology in teacher education programs, and how to best structure attempts to change their practice by promoting the integration of technology in their teaching. While the unit of analysis for the study is the individual math teacher educator at each of four universities, the conceptual framework emphasizes the need to look beyond the individual educator to their larger organizations, and to examine how their interaction with other members affects their technology integration practices. The literature on innovation diffusion in organizations points to a difference between adoption by organizations and by individuals, because often it is not possible for an individual to adopt an innovation until it has first been adopted by the larger organization (Rogers, 1995). As with individuals, however, the innovation-decision process in organizations tends to occur in a series of stages. The initiation phase, leading up to the decision to adopt or reject an innovation, consists of identifying organizational problems that can be addressed through adoption, and then matching those problems up with potential innovations. Once the adoption decision is made, implementation occurs. During this phase, the innovation is modified to fit the organizational structure and procedures, and is gradually incorporated until it is no longer innovative (Gross, Giacquinta, & Bernstein, 1971; Huff & Dickson, 1991; Rogers, 1995). …

Abstract: This paper briefly examines the literature on (a) problem-based learning (PBL), including constructivism and problem solving, and (b) learning in context, including mediation, embodiment, distribution, and situatedness. We use this literature, our previous research [Hill & Smith Journal of Technology Education 9(1), 29–41 (1998)], and some initial findings from our present research as a basis for a theory that we call authentic learning. The Theory of Authentic Learning provides a theoretical framework on which to scaffold purpose and value for the study of technology in secondary school curriculum. Initial results from Year One of our present three-year study contribute to the refinement of our Theory of Authentic Learning. First, we present some relevant literature, then we illustrate the Theory of Authentic Learning, and finally we conclude with some preliminary findings from our present research.

Abstract: Background The National Science Foundation established the Centers for Learning and Teaching (CLT) program to address national needs in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. NSF recognized two problems, the large number of educators expected to retire over the next decade, and the growing number of educators inadequately prepared to teach STEM courses. They also highlighted the growing number of doctoral-level professionals needed to educate the K-12 instructional workforce and to conduct research related to learning and teaching in STEM areas. Finally, as the K-12 student population becomes increasingly diverse, the K-12 instructional workforce has not reflected the diversity of the student population. Nor has the K-12 instructional workforce substantially increased its ability to provide appropriate instruction for diverse learners.

Abstract: Issues related to technology, including diffusion, acceptance, adoption, and adaptation, have been the focus of research for different disciplines including Information Systems (IS), System Dynamics, Psychology, and Management Science. Of all research conducted and models developed to study technology related issues, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) stands out as most prominent, particularly in the field of IS. However, technology acceptance research has been relatively limited in its application to the public sector. Therefore, there is a concurrent need to develop and gain empirical support for models of technology acceptance within the public sector, and to examine technology acceptance and utilization issues among public employees to improve the success of IS implementation in this arena. In this paper we present a more comprehensive, yet parsimonious model of technology acceptance and suggest testing it both in public and private sectors to help understand the similarities and differences (if any) between the two sectors.

Abstract: In Sub-Saharan Africa millions of school-age children have no access to schooling; in a small number of countries, fewer than one in four are in school. Giving all children of the appropriate age access to school implies that large numbers of additional teachers must be recruited and trained. However, getting children into school is not sufficient to meet the MDG; children need help to persevere and complete their primary education. One of the main sources of this help is likely to be committed and qualified teachers. Therefore, working teachers need support, unqualified teachers need to be trained, and trained teachers will need career-long professional development and updating. Yet recruiting, and then providing education and training for these teachers, is a significant strategic challenge in many countries. Teaching as a career option has to compete with new sorts of jobs in the growing knowledge economies. HIV/AIDS is impacting on the demographic profile of the teaching force. In this context the need to provide new qualification routes into teaching, the importance of upgrading the millions of unqualified teachers, and the ongoing professional support required by all teachers represents a significant challenge of scale and logistics.

Abstract: Despite the rapid growth of distance learning programs, faculty are often resistant to moving their courses into a distance learning format. This article synthesizes the common sources of concern among resistant faculty as identified in the literature, the mechanisms to bridge those concerns, and evaluates the effectiveness of the administrative solutions for faculty support that have sought to address them. Introduction Universities around the world have made significant investments in educational technologies. Though the number of faculty adopting these technologies has been increasing, there remains a large number who express reluctance to adopt them (Jacobsen, 1998). Universities are currently in a position where there is inconsistent adoption of educational technology, and many are searching for ways to promote its use for instruction. Technology holds great potential for enhancing teaching, but faculty must be willing and prepared to use it. This paper proposes an approach to faculty development for technology integration, relying upon conceptual frameworks provided by: • Rogers (1995) theory on the diffusion of innovations, • Hall and Hord's (1987) concerns theory, and • Kotter's (1996) theory of barriers to empowerment. The effective application of these models holds exciting possibilities for faculty developers and faculty alike. The integration of these theories into faculty development activities provides a holistic framework for technology integration. What Limits Technology Integration Many studies have been conducted examining the reasons for faculty resistance to technology integration, and many solutions have been offered. Though reasons vary, certain themes emerge including factors as fundamental as the necessity of practical scheduling for training, to successfully negotiating more pervasive cultural and administrative support issues. Failure to Address Practical Considerations

Abstract: We discuss the context, conception, implementation, and research used to refine and evaluate a systemic model for fostering technology integration in teacher education. The Learning Generation model identifies conditions where innovations for using technology emerge in small group dialogues. The model uses a multifaceted implementation with programmatic reform, enhanced infrastructure, technology enriched field placement, ongoing technical support, robust web communications, and Innovation Cohorts. Ideal cohorts include teacher education and liberal arts faculty, preservice student(s), practicing teachers and K-12 students. Cohort development evolves through seven stages: (1) genesis, (2) consultation, (3) planning, (4) initiation, (5) action, (6) assessment, and (7) celebration. Cohort topics include: Technology Integration, Legislative Tracking, Making Hope Happen, Technology in Science Teaching, Foreign Language, and Choral Music. Phase one of the research involved a survey and interviews on uses of technology. Survey results with student and faculty found significant differences between six subscales: word processing (M=3.84), basic computer skills (M=3.61), online activities (M=3.49), software use (M=2.99), presentations (M=2.84), spreadsheets / database (M=2.77); F (5, 244) = 173.11, p An audit of the cohorts' products and faculty interviews indicate that the Learning Generation goals were achieved. Faculty report that their technology skills improved and they embraced the collaborative grass-roots nature of cohorts. Learning Generation is a flexible model that can be adapted to the unique needs, culture and capacities of diverse teacher education institutions. ********** In this article we discuss a systemic model to support innovations with technology in teacher education. We classify a model as systemic if it possesses these qualities: (a) the motivation and innovation originate from the students and faculty in the program; (b) the model fosters multiple solutions that address diverse needs and situations; (c) the impact of the model is pervasive; and (d) The model encourages ongoing innovation. Educational systems have long been criticized for ignoring the value of experience and choosing instead to, in John Dewey's (1915) terms, "teach by pouring in." Rather than prescribing a one size fits all workshop approach to technology integration, this systemic model draws upon the unique skills and experiences of all participants and adapts as educational needs and information technologies continue to change. We named this systemic model Learning Generation. It features Innovation Cohorts where teacher education students, university faculty, and K-12 teachers work together in a group to discover solutions for integrating technology that serves their unique teaching and learning needs. Typically, the solutions are but one step in each group's ongoing effort to reflect, disseminate, and sustain their cohort's innovations. We will begin by discussing the national and local context that led to the conception of the model. We then describe the model with examples of the cohorts' activities, implementation, and the research that was used to refine the model and to assess attainment of the goals. The National Context: Rapid Change in Technology and Teacher Education The development of Learning Generation was supported in part through the U. …