Jacobsen, D. M. (2002). Building Different Bridges Two: A Case Study of Transformative Professional Development for Student Learning With Technology. Paper presented at AERA 2002: Validity and Value in Educational Research, the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA: April 1 - 5.
Building Different Bridges Two: A Case Study of Transformative Professional Development for Student Learning With Technology
D. Michele Jacobsen
University of Calgary
dmjacobs@ucalgary.ca
I think
it's really, really fun to use the computer and to be able to feel like you're
somewhat in power. We're in power.
- An Elementary Student
INTRODUCTION
Pockets of innovation exist in our educational system where teachers actively consider and reflect upon the relationship between digital technologies and engaged learning, and translate their creative thoughts and ideas into authentic and meaningful learning opportunities for children. More than two decades after the introduction of computers in schools, however, the integration of technology into learning has still not become widespread despite authoritative mandates to use computers across the curriculum. The fact that some teachers in some schools are creating innovative and imaginative opportunities for their students to become designers with digital tools, and authors in the media of their time, offers a source of hope, fuels our collective optimism and can provide direction for ongoing efforts to integrate technology across the curriculum. The question is how can we leverage positive and successful examples of technology integration for learning in order to guide our larger educational reform efforts?
Knowledge Is Not In The Computer
Pianists know that music is not in the piano. It begins inside human beings as special urges to communicate feelings. But many children are forced to “take piano” before their musical impulses develop; then they turn away from music for life.
The computer is the greatest “piano” ever invented, for it is the master carrier of representations of every kind. Computers can amplify yearnings in ways even more profound than can musical instruments.
Alan C. Kay, 1995
As the “greatest piano ever invented”, computers are not a neutral force in education. Originally conceived of as a better “information transmitter”, and thus a threat to teachers who saw themselves as primary in that role, today’s technology is fast becoming a major force in educational reform. In the past century, the dominant communication medium was the printed page, whether it is a newspaper, an essay or a novel. The general populace not only consumed; they authored. Children read novels in school, and people wrote letters, essays and poetry. Other dominant mediums include radio and television – and people consume this media, but rarely have a chance to author unless they are in specialized fields and media occupations. The dominant media of today are interactive, and include international networks, digital video and audio, and hypermedia. Unlike the predominantly broadcast media of the past, digital technologies and the Internet enable both adults and children to author, publish and exchange their views using graphics, animation, sound and video on public web servers.
Authors have provided multiple examples of how children can be afforded multiple and widespread opportunities to amplify their learning, represent their understanding and knowledge, and author their stories using powerful digital media and technologies as objects and mindtools to think with (Goldman-Segall, 1998; Jonassen, Peck & Wilson, 1999; Norton & Wiburg, 1998; Papert, 1980, 1996, 2000). Digital media and computer technologies represent a major communications revolution, changing forever how people manage, exchange, and share knowledge. The integration of technology into teaching and learning demands and requires us to question conventional methods and approaches to schooling.
Concurrent with demands to reconsider schooling in light of technological advancements is the growing agreement in education and psychology that learning is a process whereby learners construct their knowledge and understanding by applying their existing knowledge and mental skills to novel incoming information, constructing their own meanings as they go along (Salomon & Almog, 1998). Contrary to the view of schooling as a place where students acquire knowledge via a transmission model, constructivists and constructionists argue that one acquires knowledge while attempting to solve problems or to design something new (Papert, 2000; Salomon & Almog, 1998). Coupled with current digital media and computer technologies, constructivist and constructionist views about learning directly challenge current notions of schooling and the role of teachers in learning.
An argument is made in this paper that meaningful learning opportunities must be provided for teachers so that more of them can design technology-enhanced, inquiry-based learning opportunities for students. Discussed are ways in which enabling networks of support can be designed for teachers so that they can implement digitally rich and challenging projects that require students to be designers, and then to use appropriate assessments to capture the learning that results. A story is told in this paper of a group of educators who champion a vision for reciprocal relations between technology and learning. Innovative teacher-researchers and business leaders have come together to create an educational reform organization that focuses on transformative professional development for classroom teachers. These educational leaders work side-by-side with teachers to plan, design, implement and evaluate meaningful, challenging and authentic learning opportunities for students. The vision for educational reform is focused sharply on teachers designing ways in which student learning is enhanced by technology, and on the new ways of learning made possible by current and emerging technologies.
Examining Rates of Progress
Hardly a day goes by without another “prophet” decrying the current state of affairs in education. Critics worry, out loud and in print, whether teachers are preparing today's children for the future instead of repeating the mistakes of the past. Arguments about the shelf life of current educational practices often get inextricably bound up with societies’ fascination with digital technologies. Academics and journalists often compare scientific and technological progress with an apparently dismal rate of change in education. Technology is getting faster and more powerful and the relative purchase price is decreasing. There is little to indicate that the inverse relationship between the increasing power of technology and the decreasing cost of acquisition will come to an end. In fact, Scheidlinger (1999) argues that the opposite is true – he describes the progress in computing technology as accelerated acceleration. He argues that while we have experienced breathtaking advancements in science and technology in the last 75 years, and more specifically computers in the last four decades, we have seen little change in education. Similar to other comparisons pitting science and technology against schooling, Scheidlinger’s (1999) argument may have surface appeal for some, but lacks any meaningful consideration of the massive disparity between societal and commercial investments in research and developments in science and technology, and the comparatively dismal track record of investments in education. An understanding of the current state of affairs in education must include thoughtful consideration of the constraints and affordances encountered daily by teachers and students as they attempt to use technology in schools. An increased awareness of the situation in school might lead to a better understanding of “how we can open up spaces in which digital technology can have similar influences on the cultural practices of schooling” (Jacobsen & Goldman, 2001, p. 103) that have been enjoyed in other sectors of society.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, technology initially got used in ways that mimicked current instructional practices. Often referred to as an “add-on” versus an integrated approach, Salomon & Almog (1998) discuss the problem of shifting technology’s role in education beyond uses that closely mirror prevailing educational philosophies, methods and views. Instead of the transformative effect that constructionist uses of technology can have for learners and learning (Goldman-Segall, 1998; Papert, 1980, 1996, 2000), Salomon (2000) criticizes widespread attempts to protect present ways in schooling, rather than embracing the possibilities offered by digital media:
A most powerful and innovative technology is taken and is domesticated such that it does more or less what its predecessors have done, only it does it a bit faster and a bit nicer. Consequently, nothing really happens, which comes to prove what skeptics have argued all along and what misguided research tends to show: Technology makes no difference in learning. But of course it cannot make a difference since it has been domesticated to be totally subservient to the ongoing practices. Emasculated tools cannot do any harm, but they do not do any good either (Italics added, p. 16).
Salomon (2000) calls for radically altered roles for technology in learning. How do we cultivate an educational climate in which subversive technologies, described by Salomon and Almog (1998) as those that stimulate meaningful pedagogical change and affect whole classroom cultures and practices, are able to flourish? Jacobsen and Goldman (2001) probe this idea further by asking how teachers, parents and learners participate as partners in the development of new learning systems. (p. 83-84). In a novel approach to considering educational technology, Jacobsen and Goldman (2001) call for collectively designed (virtual and real) spaces in which teachers and learners can be lifelong explorers and knowledge creators in our complex world, and argue that those who are responsible for these new learning environments need support and protection in order to construct new learning cultures that are based on cooperation, not competition. They demand that teachers and students are empowered to select and to design the technologies that they will use to learn in their classrooms and school. Jacobsen and Goldman (2001) advocate for open-ended tools that teachers and students will use to re-invent curricular goals and turn their classrooms into ecological communities rich in diversity and experience levels.
THE GALILEO NETWORK: BRINGING LEARNING TO LEARNERS
The Galileo Educational Network Association (GENA) is a continuous professional development and research organization focused on the fundamental changes to teaching and learning required by information and communications technology (ICT). The Galileo Network brings learning to learners (Clifford & Friesen, 2001a). GENA's expert teachers work in schools alongside teachers and students to co-create new images of engaged learning, technology integration and professional development. GENA also works on-line to share examples of innovative and high quality student work and sustains face-to-face initiatives via its website [http://www.galileo.org] and its innovative, Intelligence Online (IO) professional development service. The work is firmly grounded in current educational research, and Galileo Network members contribute to new knowledge by actively publishing and disseminating results of their efforts (Clifford & Friesen, 2001a, 2001b, 1998, 1993). GENA has developed a number of strategic alliances with private, corporate, community and government organizations to generate innovative approaches and strategies for professional development. It is a charitable organization that operates autonomously from any one school district or division as it pursues a province-wide mandate.
Building well beyond the evolutionary idea of a "one school in one school district" project, the Galileo Educational Network Association is a revolutionary initiative aimed at province-wide educational reform. Mitchell (1996) describes revolutionary reform efforts that involve large numbers of people and call for more explosive reforms that originate from business, community organizations, and government in response to a variety of problems. Located in the Faculty of Education at the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, GENA has formed strategic alliances with organizations from all sectors to pursue a province-wide reform initiative in many schools across school divisions. It has built organic networks of thought-leading educators, academic researchers and industry innovators to provide authentic opportunities for school-based educators and school division leaders to plan and work together with business, community and government toward common and strategic goals.
The reforms being achieved are transformational; GENA's approach to building the capacity of teachers to integrate technology for meaningful learning is not based upon the small adjustments that can be made by attending occasional professional development workshops or three-day symposia. Instead, GENA advocates and provides for situated and sustained on-site support of teachers who are ready to make fundamental changes to their professional practice.
Galileo’s approach to designing learning environments focuses on developing the intellect and the ability to do things differently, rather than on just knowing different things (Clifford and Friesen, 2001b). Galileo teachers believe children should (1) have choices about their learning, (2) have control over how they participate in classrooms, and (3) develop citizenship firsthand by participating in teaching and learning democracies. The liberating and emancipatory aspects of teaching and learning in media rich, digital environments (Goldman-Segall, 1998) are promoted by GENA in each of the participating schools. With regard to forming strategic alliances with organizations outside of education, the contribution of new ways of thinking that business and corporate partners bring to discussions about teaching and learning are essential to keeping GENA on-target. One reason that alliances between education and business are so important is that they enable people with different ways of thinking and working to collaborate together in democratic ways to inform and extend the work in schools.
Continuous Professional Development for Classroom Teachers
Classroom teachers require ongoing support for effective implementation of technology for learning. Conventional professional development for technology integration, usually offered as short-term, discrete skill-based workshops on computer applications, is widely regarded as being ineffective for transforming teaching practice. The premise of Galileo's approach is to work with willing teachers on what they are passionate about in their teaching. GENA focuses on what teachers want their students to be able to do with technology, and organizes and coordinates leading edge pedagogical approaches, technological expertise and other required resources to help implement the teacher's ideas with children. Long-term mentoring relationships are formed between Galileo staff and teachers for professional development and growth needs related to technology, teaching and learning.
Far from being a set model, the GENA approach is generative, flexible and responsive to the individual teacher's needs and ideas for his or her own learning. What makes the Galileo approach innovative is that teachers are provided with time during the school day to collaborate, participate in professional conversations about teaching practices and methods, and work one-on-one with a trusted mentor who supports and extends their technology integration efforts. In establishing a professional relationship with each teacher, Galileo teachers start from where classroom teachers are in their development and beliefs. The individual starting point for each teacher is respected in much the same way that teachers respond to the diverse needs and capabilities of their students. Different questions and needs are honored, and projects that arise from the relationship come from the teacher's current practice, beliefs and ideas about teaching, technology and student learning.
Transformational Professional Development and Idea Power
It is important to pause here, and reflect upon the definitions of a few terms. A decade ago, Leithwood (1992) described a move towards transformational leadership, which he defined as school leaders and classroom teachers seeking meaning together as a community, and supporting individuals as they seek meaning in their professional lives. The Galileo Network’s approach to transformational professional development extends this tradition by building mutually beneficial relationships at all levels of a school system at once with the goal of empowering teachers to be innovative curriculum designers, and to free teachers to author rich learning experiences with their students. Terms like empowerment and freedom are chosen deliberately to convey the vision of enfranchisement and democracy that is at the foundation of GENA's work in schools.
The Galileo approach is not just about enabling, or making possible, although this is an important and powerful part of their work with educators and educational leaders. To enable means to provide with the means or opportunity, to make possible, practical, or easy. Galileo does provide leadership with regard to the technological infrastructure; they work with technicians and curriculum leaders at the school and district level to help put high performance technology into the hands of children and teachers. Thus, while Galileo often does make it possible for teachers and students to learn with technology in exciting ways, the transformational professional development work aims to empower teachers and school leaders to be learners themselves again, and to form supportive communities that are committed to staff and individual growth. To empower is to give official authority or legal power to, and relates more to the education and enfranchisement. Empowering is also related to authorship, and writing one’s own story. Authorship is also related to authority, and the power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior. Galileo teachers work with teachers to help them develop as learners themselves so that they can translate this new freedom of inquiry into the design, implementation and evaluation of meaningful, authentic and challenging learning experiences for children.
In a recent paper on the pedagogy of idea power, Papert (2000) argues for the development of educational strategies for re-empowering ideas in school. His thesis about idea power focused on three properties of ideas. The first property is based on young learners solving real problems that come out of personal projects, and therefore directly experiencing the power of ideas in the context of use. The second property is based on making use of ideas by directly connecting them to other situations in the world, thus making ideas powerful in their connections. The final property emphasizes rooting ideas in the intuitive knowledge a child has internalized over a long period. An idea is then powerful in its roots and in its fit with personal identity.
The Galileo Network’s approach is defined here as empowering and transformative professional development for teachers. In their onsite work in schools, the Galileo Network aims to enfranchise teachers by sharing and co-creating images of practice that are powerful ideas in the context of use, which is in the classroom with students. The professional development relationship is sustained over time, and focuses on engaged student learning. Individual teachers are welcomed into an extended community of learners in their own school, and connected with teachers beyond their school, and thus the ideas shared become powerful in these connections.
Galileo teachers start from the teacher’s intuitive and procedural knowledge that has been internalized over time, and builds from that deeply held and personal understanding about children’s learning. Galileo’s approach to professional development is not something that is done to teachers, it is done with teachers; the mentoring relationships are powerful in their roots, and fit with the personal identity and integrity of both participants. The following section provides a brief description of the professional development gap that GENA bridges in Alberta.
Two Decades of Professional Development for ICT
The type of professional development available for teachers who want to develop their capacity for technology integration has undergone some changes over time. The first efforts at professional development for ICT (1970s - 1980s) focused on the machines and learning technology skills. Teachers could access before and after school workshops on how to use and program the computer. This training often occurred at locations other than the school in which the teacher worked. The second wave of PD for ICT (1980s - 1990s) responded to the realization that the technology integration had less to do with the technology per se, and much more to do with teaching and learning. There is a broad body of literature describing professional development for technology integration, now in the form of before and after school workshops on how to teach using the computer. This wave of professional development focused largely on specific computer applications and strategies for using technology tools across the curriculum. This approach, while accomplishing some skill development, failed to bring about the large scale transformations in teaching practice that were being sought. Teachers were being asked to risk two large changes: 1) reformed pedagogical approaches, and 2) technology integration. Transformed practice is not occurring as a result of three-hour workshops that were often decontextualized from the teacher's local context. The third wave of situated professional development, which emphasizes mentorship, onsite support and responding to teacher's individual needs, is the focus of the present case study.
The disappointing rate of change in teaching and learning with technology can be partly attributed to the lack of purpose and voice that teachers have in their own professional development (Sideris & Skau,.1994). Another limiting factor is the overall lack of investment in professional development and support of teachers’ technology integration efforts. Teachers are intelligent and inquiring professionals who have valuable practical experience and problem solving skills. GENA emphasizes a professional development strategy that encourages and values teachers' learning about technology in the context of their current practice and beliefs.
Collaboration, needs assessment, training, curriculum integration and learning all require time. Time is a limited resource for teachers. The Galileo Educational Network offers a different approach to continuous professional development for technology integration -- one that is situated in the unique organizational, political and social context of a school, and is based on a commitment of three years. Throughout the instructional year, the Galileo teachers come back to the school every week, and there is on-site support available for teachers from a school-based Galileo point person every day. The Galileo Network approach is based on essential principles of good professional development practice: (1) technology is best learned just-in-time, instead of just-in-case; (2) planning, designing, implementing and evaluating are best done in collaboration with others; (3) learning must be situated in authentic, challenging and multidisciplinary tasks; (4) a culture of inquiry around technology for learning must support risk-taking and knowledge creation; and (5) teachers need intentional and meaningful opportunities to reflect on professional development and growth. Galileo teachers bring the learning to learners by working side by side with teachers in the school, in their classrooms and with their children (Clifford & Friesen, 2001a).
Educational Context
Alberta Learning, the provincial ministry of education, has taken a strong stance on the role of information and communications technology in the learning of Alberta youth. Three separate policies provide a context for Galileo Network’s educational reform agenda, and suggest compelling reasons for transformational professional development for Alberta teachers.
A number of serious issues face Alberta teachers when they attempt to implement the ICT learning outcomes. The Alberta Teachers Association Computer Council (2000) surveyed teachers about technology integration across the curriculum. They identified the top two issues related to technology integration: (1) time for planning and developing lessons, and (2) insufficient access to hardware and software. Another highly rated issue was access to appropriate professional development and training (ATACC, 2000). Galileo’s mandate is to provide time for on-site professional development and technical support for teachers who are implementing the ICT outcomes with their students, thus attending to two serious barriers preventing teachers from adopting technology for their teaching.
There is an increased presence of technology in schools thanks to millions of dollars of capital investment. The availability of technology in some Alberta schools is improving, and more people than ever before are connected to the Internet at home (59% according to Statistics Canada, 2001). It is just as clear, however, that access to computer equipment and software seldom leads to widespread teacher and student use (Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001). As the machines gather dust and become rapidly outdated, the futility of investing in computers without a guiding vision of how they will be used becomes painfully clear.
Teachers are being asked to implement a mandated ICT Program of Studies (Alberta Learning, 2000) within a climate of resource constraints; namely, there has been inadequate investment in professional development to support changed approaches to teaching and learning in media rich environments. Both school administrators and teachers face a formidable task in reinventing learning environments that take full advantage of current and emergent information and communication technologies. The following section lists some factors that often limit the technology integration efforts of the average classroom teacher:
There are many additional impediments, such as uneven and poorly designed technological infrastructure and access (i.e., tightly scheduled and limited access to computer labs, locked down and filtered Internet access, unreliable networks and machines) that limit or prevent the efforts of school personnel to integrate technology in meaningful ways with their students.
Let’s return to the “horse race” comparisons between scientific and technological progress and the relative impact on schooling presented by Sheidlinger (1999). The additional context presented in this paper highlights the appalling imbalance in our societies’ investment in technological production, which for far too long has greatly exceeded its investment in technological implementation and use, especially in education. Canada invests heavily in the development of more scientists and engineers to expand high-tech manufacturing and related businesses (Allen, 1999), and now needs to shift its focus and invest heavily in the sectors that actually use the technology. Focusing on production is too narrow a view for Canada’s future. Information technology has greatly increased the demand for skilled graduates from education, the humanities, and the social sciences (Allen, 1999). Canada needs knowledge workers who understand the information generated by information systems, can analyze and evaluate it, relate it to the world, use it for decision making, and act on it. There is great demand for people who can make critical, ethical and independent judgments based upon information, and those who can work together in self-directing and collaborative teams. These intellectual abilities are first cultivated in the classroom by skilled and thoughtful teachers, and further developed in education. The Galileo Educational Network is growing a vision for educational reform in Alberta and Canada that focuses on teaching and learning for a knowledge era. An investment in the transformational professional development of teachers will greatly impact the range and depth of educational opportunities available to Canadian children.
A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A theoretical framework for this research is provided by Everett Rogers (1995) diffusion of innovations theory. Innovation is defined as an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by the individual; diffusion is the process by which an innovation makes its way through a social system. An important conceptual and methodological issue is to determine the boundaries that define a technological innovation. Therefore, instructional technology, as defined in this investigation, includes computer-based applications and mind tools (Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson, 1999), and media rich and constructionist environments (Goldman-Segall, 1998; Papert, 1996) used for synchronous or asynchronous teaching and learning tasks, the hardware on which these applications run, the peripherals, and network infrastructures.
According to Rogers’ (1995) theory, the diffusion of an innovation usually follows a normal, bell-shaped curve when adoption is plotted over time on a frequency basis. The time element allows us to generate diffusion curves and to classify adopters into categories. Adopter categories are useful for simplifying the complexity of adoption patterns in a social system by describing the central exemplar of a category based upon innovativeness (i.e., innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards). While Roger’s (1995) adopter categories are useful to describe group characteristics and trends, there is a need for more focused and careful description of individuals within each category. The defining characteristics of each category understates the uniqueness of an individual. Personal stories, or case histories of adopters and non-adopters are better suited to capturing those elements or complex details that formal models may leave out. Roger’s (1995) innovation-decision model provides a useful framework for investigating and analyzing individual stories for thoughts, values and beliefs of members as they live through the implementation of an innovation.
The Innovation-Decision Process - An individual’s decision to adopt an innovation is rarely an instantaneous act. Rather, it is a process that occurs over time, and consists of a series of actions, influences and decisions (Rogers, 1995). For example, it has been found that adoption or non-adoption of instructional technology by faculty members is influenced by larger social, cultural and political contexts that frame what and how individuals teach in classrooms, how they are supported and rewarded for their efforts, and the perceived value for students (Jacobsen, 1998). Rogers’ (1995) model of the innovation-decision process, conceptualized as consisting of five stages is “the process through which an individual passes from first knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to deciding to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision” (p. 163). This process is essentially an information seeking and information processing activity in which the individual is motivated to reduce uncertainty about the relative advantages and disadvantages of an innovation. Important variables to consider are the conditions and influences on the individual during the knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation stages.
Purposes of Investigation
The present evaluation of the second year of the Galileo Network's professional development initiative builds and extends upon a study conducted at three elementary schools involved with the Galileo Educational Network in 1999/2000, its first year of operations (Jacobsen, 2001). A goal of the present investigation was to expand upon findings from three schools by investigating further the relationship between teacher and student perceptions about classroom events, the role of the Galileo Network in the school, and the duty of leadership in supporting and extending professional development initiatives during its second year of operations. The study was essentially guided by two overall research objectives:
CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY
This investigation employed
case study research methods (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995) to identify appropriate
sources of data, and gather information about transformative professional development
for technology integration in school-based teaching and learning. Although generalization
was not a goal at the outset, the investigation focused on broadening a collective
understanding of best practice to do with professional development and technology
integration for teaching and learning in Kindergarten to Grade 12 classrooms.
This case study relied upon a convenience sample of participants in nine schools
in the Alberta public school system. An individual's participation in this case
study depended on that individual being associated in some way with the Galileo
Educational Network, which was defined as the “bounded system”. Therefore,
administrators, teachers, and students involved with or supported by the Galileo
Educational Network were invited to participate in this study.
Field Research Methods
Field research was a method by which investigators learned more about the teachers and students who successfully integrated technology for teaching and learning. The investigation involved field visits to nine schools from December 2000 to May 2001 to observe daily classroom events and instruction, and to conduct in-depth interviews with school administrators, participating classroom teachers, students, and observe and interview members of the Galileo Educational Network. A selection process was developed in order to target key informants as research participants from a diverse range of projects and sites. The following list briefly outlines criteria for selecting key informants, projects and situations for data collection and analysis.
Empirical data was collected through 113 interviews of Galileo Network staff, school administrators, classroom teachers, school technical personnel, and students. Nine members of the Galileo Network were interviewed, some of them twice, along with eleven school administrators, sixty-three classroom teachers and thirty-one students. Individual and focus group interview times ranged from 30 to 60 minutes. Observations of whole class dynamics, small group dynamics and individual student engagement were made, and observation notes recorded. Reflections on the school context and general themes that became apparent from interviews and observations in each school were recorded in field notes and reflective summaries.
The areas of focus for interviews varied, depending on the role the participant(s) had in the Galileo initiative (i.e., school administrator, teacher, student) and the depth of their involvement. For example, interview questions for principals focused on initial contact and relationship building between school and Galileo staff, perceptions of satisfaction in professional development for teachers, evidence of student engagement and achievement, and technological infrastructure. Areas of focus for teachers depended on the amount of involvement with Galileo staff, whether they were in the first or second year of the project, the teacher’s experience and understanding of inquiry-based learning, and on individual levels of technology expertise and use. Student encounters focused on exploring perceptions about how they learn best, interest and engagement in the projects and core curricular areas, and perceptions about whether technology has aided or impeded their learning. Specific information was desired from individuals about their participation in the Galileo initiative. However, interview questions were used primarily as a guide to structure the individual and focus group interviews. The open-ended, semi-structured nature of the questioning allowed the researchers “to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent(s), and to new ideas on the topic” (Merriam, 1998, p. 74). Each principal, teacher, Galileo staff member and student was “expected to have had unique experiences, special stories to tell” (Stake, 1995, p. 65).
Images From The Field
Conducting field research in the Galileo Network schools was a sincere pleasure because school and Galileo staff were extremely helpful and supportive of the study. The enthusiasm and energy of educators involved with the Galileo Network was obvious during school visits. Members of the research team were always welcomed in each school, and were invited to explore the classrooms and meet with teachers and students. Many of the school administrators and teachers were eager to discuss the nature of their relationship with the Galileo Network, and describe examples of projects and initiatives that were underway in classrooms.
In spring 2001, the primary researcher visited two elementary schools with an international colleague. Teachers were enthusiastic and willing to have interpretive conversations about the nature of student work, ongoing projects and their role in the Galileo initiative. In both schools, teachers pulled the researcher and the visiting professor into their classrooms to observe the children at work. In one school, the researcher and visitor got to discuss writing and research projects with grade five students, examine robotic creations by grade 1 and 2 students, and navigate web pages constructed by older students. During a tour of the school, one of the school administrators described projects and initiatives that were multidisciplinary and cross grade. In another school, the researcher talked with a multi-age group of students who were developing and programming LEGO® robots. The researcher observed pairs of students linking arms, and using their bodies to determine the actions they wanted to program into their robot. In this project, students from grades 2 to 5 worked together with their teachers, Galileo staff, parents and university students to design and build robots that think, move and feel. The project had multiple objectives and was multidisciplinary, and focused on the design of supportive and innovative learning environments for children.
An image of an "engaged community of inquiry" was captured at this elementary school. In a digital photograph taken in the school, one sees several adults (university students and researchers, classroom teachers and parents) gathered around two eight-year old girls who had created a robot that picked up an object and dropped it on a sensor installed on top of the robot to stop the program. Adults asked the girls to demonstrate their robot, and describe the problem they were solving, over and over again. The girls were visibly proud of their creation, and articulate about the design process and decisions they had made while developing the robot to solve a problem. The adults, who outnumbered the children in this picture, were completely engaged and interested in the children’s learning process and representation of knowledge.
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Qualitative case study research is rarely a linear, step-by-step process that proceeds logically from data collection to analysis. Instead, “data collection and analysis is a simultaneous activity” (Merriam, 1998, p. 151, emphasis in original). Analysis began with the framing of this study in the context of first-year findings, and continued as both an iterative and recursive process with each site visit and interview. Emerging insights and identification of trends shaped and refined the focus and attention during subsequent field site observations and interviews.
The triangulation of data and information from site visits, interviews and participant observation enabled researchers to analyze and report on themes, trends and understandings of the group as well as honor individual experiences and observations in a rich, thick description of the case. Interview data was evaluated using: (1) content analysis (Merriam, 1998) of themes and recurring patterns of meaning, (2) constant comparative method (developed by Glaser & Strauss, 1967, described in Merriam, 1998) to identify emergent themes and categories, and (3) narrative analysis (Merriam, 1998) to study experience via the stories that people tell and remember. Field notes, observation and reflection on site visits, photographs of learning environments provided rich data for content analysis, and also categorical aggregation and direct interpretation (Stake, 1995). Aggregation of instances that suggested trends and shared understandings of the group, along with direct interpretation of an individual’s stance, contributed to the development of themes.
A Quantitative Framework for Interpretive Analysis
Interview and observation data was also analyzed using the 26 indicators of engaged learning and 22 indicators of high technology performance developed by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (1995). The engaged learning and high technology performance indicators provide a conceptual framework through which interview and observational data was understood and shared. The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory's (1995) New Times Demand New Ways Of Learning document, and the North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium's (2000) Learning With Technology Profile Tool grew out of the case study research conducted by Barbara Means and her colleagues for the U.S. Department of Education in the early 1990s (Means & Olson, 1995; Means, Blando, Olson, Middleton, Morocco, Remz, & Zorfass, 1993).
In a report to the U. S. Department of Education, Means, et al., (1993) outline a framework for thinking about school reform that centers on authentic, challenging and multidisciplinary learning tasks as a means to increase student engagement and provide opportunities for collaboration. Information technology is believed to support constructivist approaches to teaching and learning, changes in content, roles, organizational climate and affect that are vital to educational reform. Barbara Means and her colleagues (1993) emphasize the importance of students collaborating on complex tasks, negotiating the purpose and meaning of their work, and supporting and extending each other’s work when difficulties are encountered. Within this learning model, the teacher is responsible for designing inquiry tasks, creating an organizational structure within which groups will do their work, and supporting ongoing assessment. Once the work begins, the teacher is not in total control of the direction learning will take, unlike the control they enjoy with discrete skills approaches in conventional classrooms. Technology supports student exploration by providing realistic environments for student inquiry, furnishing information & tools to support investigation, linking classrooms for joint investigations, and presenting data in ways that support mathematical thinking and problem solving.
While the vision of transformed classrooms offered by reformers like Means, et al., (1993) is important for all students, the proposed changes to practice are likely to have the most dramatic impact on those students identified as “at risk”. The conventional view for at-risk students is one of “diminished expectations” – teachers focus on basic skills and place little, or no, demands on the student for high levels of accomplishment in problem solving, scientific inquiry or composition (Means, et al., 1993). In the reformed classrooms promoted by Means and her colleagues (Means, et al., 1993; Means, Chelemer & Knapp, 1991), basic skills will not be seen as a hurdle to be surmounted before attempting more complex tasks. Instead, all students will learn basic skills in the context of working on challenging, authentic and multidisciplinary tasks.
In a subsequent report, Means & Olson (1995) build and expand upon the vision of educational reform for technology-supported constructivist classrooms. Their study, which is also based on case study research at nine sites, addresses the question of whether technology can provide significant support for constructivist, project-based teaching and learning approaches. They found that in classrooms where teachers involved their students in long-term, complex projects supported by technology, that technology supported their efforts by: (1) adding to the students’ perception that their work is authentic and important, (2) increasing the complexity with which students can deal successfully, (3) dramatically enhancing student motivation and self-esteem, (4) making obvious the need for longer blocks of time, (5) creating a multiplicity of roles, (6) instigating greater collaboration, and (7) giving teachers additional impetus to take on a coaching and advisory role. Involvement in technology-based educational reform efforts paid sizable dividends in terms of the teacher’s own professional growth.
Means & Olson (1995) found that the case study schools were not uniformly successful in implementing school-wide reform. Teacher training and preparation costs emerged as a fundamental issue for successful technology implementation budgets. The impact of technology varies from classroom to classroom, and issues of teacher buy-in, teacher training, and teacher support are essential to successful educational reform.
DISCUSSION
Initial findings that emerged from this case study of Galileo Network’s second year of operation can be summarized as follows: (1) sustainability of the initiative requires a long-term relationship be established and maintained between school teachers and Galileo teachers, (2) sustainability requires that teacher leaders who can champion the initiative be identified and cultivated; (3) the role of district and school-based leaders is vital to the effective establishment and cultivation of a inquiry-based learning environment in which teachers were prepared to take risks, and (4) indicators of success were focused on what the children could do differently, and how technology provided opportunities for learning that were previously unavailable. These findings will be discussed further in subsequent sections of this paper.
Transforming Pedagogy
A supportive and continuous relationship with Galileo Network teachers over an extended period of time is perceived by Galileo teachers, classroom teachers and school administrators to be an essential condition for achieving transformed teaching practices with technology. One of the early priorities is to help educators understand that the focus of the Galileo Network’s professional development is on transforming teaching and learning, and not just learning about technology.
TEACHER: That was my original perception when we met, about two years ago. But that's not what it's about. But I think this is; Galileo is a group that says somehow or another we need to look at actively integrating the use of technology in what we're doing. So I wouldn't think of Galileo without thinking technology. But if you stop there you stop way short of what it is.
TEACHER: I used to be like that. And I mean PowerPoint came out and we all took the workshops and the, you know the week summer course where we slept every morning and learned PowerPoint. I didn't see the necessarily sense of it. We were doing PowerPoint for PowerPoint's sake. And yes they need to know some of those skills, but I think when ICT came out it didn't personally scare me because I've been involved with computers and knew some of what it could to and was doing some of those things.
Both philosophical and pedagogical barriers to innovation exist when teachers shift from behaviorist to constructivist approaches to technology-enabled and inquiry-based learning environments. When learning environments change from instructionist to inquiry-driven constructionist approaches, some parents and educational leaders get nervous. The instructionist approach is recognizable because it is what most adults and children have experienced: the teacher-as-expert, lecturing as teaching, and acknowledged truths and facts as the prescribed curriculum. The inquiry-driven, constructionist approach is very different for many adults; children are free to move about and access the technology, collaborate with each other, and use learning resources as needed to complete their learning tasks. There is a noisy and excited energy in constructivist classrooms; teachers work on lessons "just-in-time" with smaller groups of students, and bring children together as a group to share and compare their emerging understandings, not just to listen. In some cases, parental pressure, staff jealousy and fear, and lack of leadership support, can create uncomfortable and untenable environments for innovative classroom teachers.
GALILEO TEACHER: So what types of support do teachers have? Because when we ask them to make the changes to teaching and learning that are required of them, it’s not just superficial tinkering. If they don’t have the support base built in to support them, they’re hung out to dry. And so it’s something I’ve really wrestled with, with all of this. This is so ethically and morally charged work. It has huge implications. And it does so for the people that we work with, and the people we train, and the people that we mentor in our own office, but in the schools as well. And for the kids that we teach. And so asking people to change their teaching and learning carries with it a huge personal risk. And I don’t know, like I worry about that a lot. I really worry about that a lot.
The Galileo
Network recognized early on that in order to transform pedagogy, it had to work
at all levels of the educational system at once. To that end, the Galileo Network
has formed strategic alliances with the provincial ministry of education, superintendents
of schools, district technology and curriculum leaders, school-based administration,
school teachers, parents and students. Any one level in the large public school
system bureaucracy can block innovation and progress. Galileo Network staff
found that working closely with all organizational levels and with all stakeholders
in education systems is an essential component to successful relationship building
and pursuing an educational reform agenda. When forming a relationship with
a school, GENA works with classroom teachers, students, school administrators,
senior divisional administrators, school division trustees, and parents to build
a common understanding of the vision for educational reform, on-site professional
development, engaged student learning and technology integration.
Educators can often be under pressure from the public, the ministry, the school
board, their administrators, and even from themselves, to change practices and
processes overnight. However, the pressure to change quickly is an unrealistic
expectation, and Galileo teachers help classroom teachers to set realistic and
achievable goals for inquiry-based learning and technology integration. One
teacher described how the process of learning how to plan, implement and evaluate
technology-rich, inquiry-based projects required her to have patience with herself
as a learner and be realistic about her own professional development expectations.
Creating Supportive Environments for Risk-Taking and Knowledge Creation
When asked to describe the nature of their on-site relationships with each teacher or group of teachers, co-founders Dr. Pat Clifford and Dr. Sharon Friesen explained that the work with teachers
…really showed us very clearly that there is no model for doing this…it’s not models that make a difference, it’s ideas that make a difference and it’s relationships that make a difference. So it’s in hearing what people want to do. It’s just like teaching in a classroom where you work literally from where people are … because people can’t be in any other place than where they are. You can’t wish them to be somewhere else. They are where they are from the start. And so you listen to that.. where’s your opening? And then around the opening they provide you, the job of the expert then, we think, is to say what could we put in place for this person, given who they are, what they want to accomplish, and what they’re working with? So it looks different, as it ought to, for each person. We called it being responsive and.. it’s actually to say if you’re going to have people work with kids in this way, you have to provide them, as teachers, a learning experience that’s like that.
The intent of the Galileo Network initiative is to model transformed approaches to leadership, teaching and learning that inspire and foster inquiry in learners of all ages. Pat Clifford and Sharon Friesen believe that…
…the work we do here, it's not without huge impact and it's not about individuals. It's far bigger than any individual. You are equal to get involved in it. You have to let it go. It's the gift you give to people. But they pick it up in ways that you don't anticipate. It's far bigger than any person. So we may work with the people, but what we put them in touch with is a part of themselves that, I think, they're often apt to give up when they enter the classroom. And once they get a hold of it, they don't want to let go because they see the impact. It's right in front of their face. You see what's happening to those kids.
An ongoing and sustained relationship with a Galileo Network teacher provided some teachers with a safe and caring environment for exploring new approaches to teaching. For many teachers, the fact that Galileo teachers had been where they wanted to go was an important motivator for getting involved, and taking the necessary risks to change their teaching practice.
The two founding Galileo teachers, Dr. Sharon Friesen and Dr. Pat Clifford, have co-designed rich learning environments for children for more than a decade (Clifford & Friesen, 2001, 1998, 1993; Clifford, Friesen & Jacobsen, 1998), and have taught kindergarten to graduate students using an inquiry-based approach to learning with technology. The depth of experience that all of the Galileo teachers bring enables them to share images and strategies for co-designing these environments and approaches with teachers.
GALILEO TEACHER - And also that there would be someone, I think, there but also someone to walk with them, take that next step, without ever blaming them. So our whole culture is filled with risk, but they always risk in a safe environment. Well, a risk is not always in a safe environment. That's the nature of a risk. But if you have someone to take that one step with you who says, “I've walked this path before”, it makes a huge difference.
Whether or not the changes are sustainable has a great deal to do with the ongoing nature of the relationship between teachers and the Galileo Network. Teaching practices are rarely transformed quickly, or as a result of a few workshops or training sessions. Teaching practices are developed over years of experience with children, and years of observations in classrooms. For a teacher to transform practices that have become comfortable, abandon methods that have enabled her/him to achieve some form of results with children, the teacher needs ongoing support and professional dialogue with other teachers who understand her/his concerns, and can provide images of how it can work with children. The teacher has to trust that the changes s/he is being asked to make offer some relative advantage over what s/he is doing right now.
The Galileo Network’s staff approaches a school environment as teaching colleagues, not as experts who are attempting to quickly change the way teachers work. Galileo teachers share examples of effective technology integration and engaged student learning from their own teaching experiences with children, and help teachers to create projects and tasks for children that reflect an inquiry approach to learning. Galileo teachers help school staffs to plan public celebrations of children’s good work to better engage and involve parents and the community. The vital role that parent’s play in supporting their children and the school is valued and honored, and multiple opportunities are provided for parent involvement in the school.
Images of Engaged Learning
Teachers were asked to describe the nature of change that occurs when meaningful partnerships are formed between learners and digital media. Teachers who designed and implemented inquiry projects emphasized the importance of student questions versus teacher questions. One of the desired learning goals for teachers was to promote student’s meaningful and personal connections to the topic of study. Instead of designing integrated units or students’ projects with pre-determined outcomes, inquiry projects were designed in such a way that students’ ideas, questions and prior knowledge become an important contribution, and an assessment strategy was developed that accommodated multiple outcomes. Students made choices about questions that they would pursue in the context of the inquiry project, and formed collaborative groups based on shared interests rather than teacher-formed groups. Learning tasks were big and complex enough that students needed to rely on each other to gather the information needed to solve problems and generate solutions. Students shared their ideas and knowledge with their peers, not just with the teacher. Students were encouraged to use a variety of means to demonstrate their understanding of concepts and problems, from textual explanations, concept maps, and drawings to dramatizations, multimedia presentations, functional robots and web sites.
Teachers rarely used whole class instruction as a method of delivering the curriculum. The teacher and students worked in groups on structured and demanding tasks, and spent time hunting and gathering information and resources. In order to be responsive to the student’s emerging learning needs, the teacher’s role became one of scholarly mentor and guide as she met with groups of students for a mini-lesson on specific problems, and with individual students who needed assistance. Within the context of a well-structured and challenging inquiry project, and with readily available guidance and instruction as they needed it from the teacher, students worked collaboratively with their peers to design creative, innovative and diverse projects. Instead of there being one best solution to a complex problem posed by the teacher, students were given the license to design alternate and unique interpretations and projects, and inquire into topics and questions that reflected their own interests, knowledge and understanding.
Different groups of students required different technology tools to create their designs and construct their projects. Technology skills were taught just-in-time in service of learning tasks and goals, rather than taught to the whole class at once. One group might need a spreadsheet program to model their data, while another group may choose to represent their understanding of relationships between concepts using a semantic mapping tool. To the extent possible, given the design and resources of the school, computers were at hand wherever and whenever the students needed them, rather than walking students down the hall to a computer lab for a booked amount of time each day. Novel solutions were created in schools where there were only 2 – 4 workstations available in the classroom. For example, at one elementary school, teachers negotiated arrangements whereby students could use computers distributed throughout the school and in other classrooms as needed for their projects. A culture of inquiry was created in this particular school such that students were trusted to work where they needed to be for their inquiry tasks and projects, and appropriate behavior was continuously demonstrated.
Among educators in Galileo schools, there was a monumental shift in the perception of the role of technology in teaching and learning. Through professional dialogue, mentoring and working alongside teachers with their students, the Galileo Network has facilitated a changed understanding of the intent and fundamental goals of Alberta Learning’s ICT Program of Studies, from an initial perception of an emphasis on technology, to an understanding of the emphasis on higher order thinking, inquiry, communicating, problem solving, and decision making. Teachers clearly regarded Galileo’s vision and methods as a focus on teaching and learning, which was a shift from their initial perception that GENA was all about technology.
High School Boys – Failing English And There Is Nothing You Can Do For Math
Many do badly in school because their style simply does not fit schools. Many react badly to school because its emphasis on memorizing facts and acquiring skills that cannot be put to use is like a prison for a mind that wants to fly.
(Papert, 2000, ¶ 8)
The obstacles that limit technology integration in high school often differ from those in the earlier grades. Many teachers feel constrained by the provincial examinations in core subjects, and focus the bulk of their instructional efforts on covering the ever-expanding curriculum. High school teachers often regard technology as an “add-on” – a feeling reinforced by the fact that most high schools have specialized labs and computer teachers rather than distributed workstations. Currently, despite a mandated curriculum, there is no system of accountability in the province that convinces high school teachers to invest the extra effort to integrate technology across the curriculum. As one teacher put it, “if it isn’t on the exam, I don’t have time to teach it”. Exam scores are published on the provincial education ministry’s website, and teachers are under intense pressure in their schools and communities to rank highly.
A trusted Galileo mentor, who has experience with inquiry-based learning and technology integration, is in a position to encourage those who are trying to 'think outside of the box'.
TEACHER: ... we've always kind of tried to move in the direction of kind of, you know, looking at the big picture, not limiting yourself by subject area, you know? Rather the big thing than all these compartmentalizations. But we've also found that over the last few years, we're tending--although we're resisting that, we're also tending to get sort of punched into those boxes more and more… the curriculums are getting larger. It's that coverage issue. And it's the how am I ever going to get to all these things?…And it’s the provincial test issue…And you know, all of those things that are actually working against us in regards to the way that we'd like to be teaching. And this kind of brought us back to what it is we want to be doing... But I think we were finding ourselves being pushed against the wall kind of, and finding ourselves more and more restricted. And we're kind of saying no, you know, we can… it validated what we believe in.
Entering into this high school milieu created by pressured teachers, curriculum coverage and standardized exams are the tech-savvy students who often have better digital tools at home or in their backpacks than they can access on campus. Further, these kids know how to use the tools. In the course of this study, I met a high school student who builds computers at home with his dad, a student who is a self-taught graphics designer fluent in several high-end computer applications, and another student who manages a small web design company. At least half of the students in the lunchroom had cell phones, walkmans and personal data assistants. I was able to observe dozens of students at work on complex design projects in the computer and media lab. The technology teacher described the range of projects that students complete individually and in groups using a range of tools, applications, still and moving digital cameras, and scanners. Student’s digital artwork and projects decorate the walls, and fill display cabinets. Several of the students are actively developing multimedia projects & videos and burning these on CDs.
A curious irony captured my attention. Several of the tech-savvy students that I met, who were designing and creating meaningful representations of their interests, knowledge and understanding in the computer lab, were failing in core subjects like English. I began to wonder how these students responded to the common requirement in some of their classes to hand copy notes, word for word, written by their teacher on the whiteboard, and answer questions at the end of a text book chapter. When the students want to learn animation software, they do not copy down instructions from the manual; they install and launch the application and play with it. It would be absurd to require students to write notes about how to manipulate and time events for computer animation by giving them an end of chapter pop-quiz. The students’ approach to learning and creating in the computer lab, the rapid fire, open-ended, multi-sensory playful & creative experience in digital environments, is currently under appreciated, and too often underutilized, by teachers who emphasize memorization and direct instruction.
Galileo Network teachers worked with a number of high school teachers to assist them in designing and implementing technology enabled inquiry projects with their students in all major subject areas. In conjunction with the Galileo teacher and the technology teacher, a pair of students created a music CD project that documented songs and meanings from each year of their lives. The students considered hundreds of songs from the last two decades before making choices that reflected something about them personally. The students arranged the songs on the CD, designed and printed a label and jewel case insert, and submitted the work for credit. The students also became curriculum designers, and created a unit of study based on the music CD project for their peers. The students were thoughtful and considered carefully what textual information they needed to provide, the type of instructions and guidance that would be most helpful, and selected graphics and pictures that would support their peers throughout the process. The students were motivated and engaged with the unit design task, which required a great deal of planning, writing and research, and spent hours of after school time perfecting their materials. Then this approach to learning is valued in the core subjects, students tend to excel.
An experienced high school English teacher reflected on the value of complex and demanding tasks on students’ engagement, enthusiasm and cognitive investment:
TEACHER:… the kids are excited about what they are doing and they are on task a great deal more than otherwise. And they’re on task through their own choice as opposed to external pressure to be on task. They are very much engaged in their learning. They ask all the right questions in terms of when they are doing a visual presentation they’re asking questions in terms of selecting material “Will this work? Won’t it work? What’s the effect going to be? How does it fit?” So from a teacher’s perspective it was really neat to see kids in English really excited about a project that was very demanding of them. It sends the message to you as a teacher that you need to find a number of different ways for kids to learn and demonstrate their learning. If you’re looking for ways to get kids to take some ownership for their learning, projects involving technology, which they are actually very good at, is an excellent way of doing it.
A biology teacher worked with Dr. Sharon Friesen to create an integrated inquiry project, entitled “Survivor”, that challenged entrenched notions about curriculum coverage. Together, the biology and Galileo teacher identified links between the biology curriculum and ICT program of studies, defined essential questions for inquiry, created a student task, gathered instructional content, and designed an assessment rubric. The integrated inquiry project was published as a website that students accessed from home and school. The premise of Survivor was that organ transplants raise ethical, political, research, and economic concerns. The learning task cast students as members of an organ transplant team. The team was responsible for a patient who has experienced major organ failure due to a disease and a transplant is necessary. In groups, students had the choice of seven patient profiles or they could create their own patient profile. Students were required to determine the cause of the organ failure, select a new organ, and transplant the organ. Given that value judgments are at the core of transplant selection procedures, the students needed to weigh and consider whether their patient would likely benefit from a transplant (high chance of survival), and whether the transplant would lead to prolonged versus improved life (duration and quality of benefit). A preparation for surgery, the team needed to complete background research on the patient’s illness and affected organ, related bodily systems, the ethical and physiological issues to do with transplants, and present their findings and decision about whether and how to proceed using a multimedia presentation.
Depending upon the patient they chose, students researched lung, kidney and larynx cancer, inherited diseases, and organ injuries. They hunted for and gathered images and information from the world wide web, text books and media resources. Students presented their research and findings using multimedia. The biology teacher was impressed by the depth of student inquiry, their engagement in the task, and the scholarship demonstrated in their presentations.
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER: And someone will say, well, can we try surgery, or can we try this? So they're researching all the possibilities. And they brought in so many things. Like, there were personal stories of people who had had a heart transplant. So they were looking at a different viewpoint. What would it feel like to be the person who's getting the organ transplant? You know, what's it like to be the doctor? What's it like to be the family? So they're starting to look at viewpoints, feelings, the people and dilemmas of having this organ transplant. And then they started to bring up things like, well, why should this person get an organ? They're a smoker. There could be someone else waiting over there, waiting, that, you know, they have taken care of their body, they take care of themselves and they have this genetic disorder, they should get the lung. So they're starting to prioritize, well, who's more important here? And some of them are just hard core. If you abuse your body, too bad! You don't get the lungs. Take care of yourself. And it's so funny, because we have smokers in the crowd. So it's very interesting to see that… There's energy in that room and you can feel it. And they don't say it to you. You can hear them discussing it with each other. And usually when they do their projects they'll have two different patients. And they'll be sitting side by side. And others will go, like, hey, where did you find that? They'll see a picture that they like. And they do share and they do collaborate together, but it's not a stealing thing. It's not like I'm taking your stuff. And sometimes that has to be made clear to them. Because there are some students who think, oh, I'll just try to get a few of these same pictures. But it's like you have to present this in front of the class. We don't want to see the same pictures. We want to see something different, maybe even better. And it's like, oh. So you throw a little bit of competitive edge in there and it's like, ohhhh, you did that, I can do better! You know? And I like that. That's fine, because it makes them want to excel. That's why I like to have student work on there, saying, oh yeah, that group did that last semester, wait till you see what we can do this semester. So I think it sets a standard and students start to go beyond what they would normally do.
Students responded with enthusiasm and energy when asked to go beyond conventional expectations and flex their problem solving and research skills.
In Their Own Words
Several high school students shared their perspectives and views on learning, technology, and Galileo. The goal was to explore stories told by students in their own words. The students were asked to reflect on the impact that Galileo was having on their learning opportunities.
HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR - I think a good one, a very good one. Just because they're expanding the horizons for us a lot faster than it probably would have if there wasn't a Galileo Project. Because they're focused on, you know, expanding technology and showing students the best websites for researching diabetes or whatever. I know a lot of the teachers here wouldn't have taken the time--had the time--to do it. And it just would have never gotten done. It's good.
HIGH SCHOOL SOPHOMORE - Galileo people are a group of people that are studying the integration of software into our every day school activities, and I think they are the reason that I have been able to do these PowerPoint presentations in my social class and my English classes. They've definitely been a lot of help and people are starting to see that those projects are out there and they're like okay, why can't we do that kind of thing? So now the other classes are starting to do it more often. They've really been a big help and they've been here like every week and asking us what we think and starting to listen to us and we're getting more of what we ask for.
HIGH SCHOOL SOPHOMORE - In all my classes I think we've had the opportunity to do a computer presentation or something like that. Except for math. But I don't think there's anything you can do in math for that. But yeah, she's done a lot. Like I think every class in the school now has done a presentation of PowerPoint. It's opened a lot of doors.
I was interested in whether or not the students believed that Galileo Network was making a difference in their school. The following student reflected on the far-reaching impact of his work with the Galileo teacher, and her work with his teachers.
HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR - Yeah. I'm starting to see it quite a bit, and we even have it on our High School website now. And we're talking about that and I like it. Because she's getting my name out there even for universities and stuff. Like there's people here like every week that I've been talking to about it and stuff. It's kind of cool. It's kind of weird watching change like that. All of a sudden; it's something you've grown up watching school be the same way all the time and now it's starting to open up new doors and stuff.
Galileo’s approach to transformational professional development offered several high school teachers the opportunity to design and implement inquiry-based units with their students that enabled them integrate technology in meaningful ways across the curriculum. By talking to students, and listening to what they wanted in their learning, Galileo teachers were able to work with classroom teachers to increase the number of rich and meaningful learning opportunities in school. As more teachers in the school created successful projects, and the high quality student work that emerged from was shared throughout the school, even more teachers wanted to become involved. Bottom up pressure from students, who were engaged in meaningful and challenging projects that leveraged the power of technology, also contributed to a culture of expectation surrounding the use of digital tools for sustained inquiry in high school.
Student Empowerment and Increased Joy in Learning
A recurrent theme that became evident when talking with students of all ages is the joy and feelings of success they have when they have power over their own learning. Teachers also understand the value of student empowerment for learning.
TEACHER: I believe that when you give kids more control over their learning it makes a huge difference into how much they buy into it and how much--you know, it makes them want to do a good job. Like they don't care about marks. They care about is this the very best thing that I can do? And every one of them was proud of what they did. Whether they ended up with something that was… like, some of the stuff is spectacular and some of it is okay. But for that kid it is spectacular. Because they were the ones who got to chose what they were going to study, how they were going to study it, did they want to read books?, did they want to look on the Internet?, they got to decide how did they want to present that material.
A Grade six class published their mystery stories on the school website for the entire world to see. The teacher has no doubt about the students’ engagement and pride in their work.
TEACHER: Just because I've seen so much excitement with the kids, and they are so proud; like, you should just see their eyes when they pull up their website and they have a look what's there, and see their writing on it and sharing it with their parents and… like, there's a lot of… a lot of positive things happening with that.
The students were very enthusiastic in their discussion of the project and spoke with obvious commitment to and pride in their work. The grade six students all agreed that they put more effort in their work because the writing would be seen by a much larger audience than the teacher and their classmates.
ELEMENTARY STUDENT: We scanned our own pictures. It's all our own stuff. We did it all by ourselves. We used images. Before we went on to a website for their own mystery that we had to solve, so that we get an idea what we're going to be making. And then our parents can check it at home and see all the stuff we've got.
ELEMENTARY STUDENT: I think it's really, really fun to use the computer and to be able to feel like you're somewhat in power. We're in power.
ELEMENTARY STUDENT: I think the funnest part was writing the stories. Because you were deciding the murder, you were deciding the mystery and the group was divided into the technician, two writers, two editors and two drawers and everything. And I was the writer and I found it really an enjoyment to write the story because I got to choose what it is, and then if the group didn't agree with it then I could change one little part and bring it back. It was way better with the computer than pen and paper. So you don't have to scratch it out. Or even with pencil. Because you just have to erase the whole thing.
Student empowerment is also about having control over evaluation in the form of a rubric based on standards and levels of achievement. When assessments are planned along with inquiry-based units, students know exactly what is required of them as they start a project. Expectations for learning and performances of understanding are discussed and agreed upon in advance of student work. They also know how to negotiate a change in their evaluation and what work is required for that to happen. Credible and publicly shared assessment standards, and shared expectations, contribute to a more democratic learning community for all participants.
Essential Conditions for Sustainability
Several factors appear to influence the adoption decisions by individual teachers, such as access to onsite support and gifts of time. The innovation-decision cycle is different for each individual. A supportive and continuous relationship with Galileo Network teachers over an extended period of time is perceived by teachers and school administrators to be an essential condition for achieving transformed teaching practices.
The relationships with individual teachers, and whole school staffs, is necessarily different in the first year of the initiative than in the second year. For example, an emphasis in the first year is on establishing relationships, building trust, sharing diverse images about what is possible, expanding the teachers' understanding of the diverse options and opportunities there are for taking up the ICT Program of Studies with their students, experimenting with projects on a smaller scale and then building up to a larger scale implementation, some skill building, working with a small group of early adopters (or the entire staff in a smaller school) and then building momentum, affirming that teachers are on the right track, and enculturation into the Galileo philosophy.
In the first year, it is important to invest time and energy in developing relationships with individual teachers, and developing trust.
TEACHER: Part of what was successful this year was her just kind of being around one day a week, and people having a chance to have conversation with her to kind of build that relationship before they took a risk around the technology. And for people who are apprehensive, that sense of trust in that individual is really critical. We're probably at a point now where we don't need that as much. Because people have that relationship with her and we phone her up and plan some time and go do that. But I think in our initial stages of it, that trust was really critical.
When examining ways to integrate technology into teaching and learning, teachers are being asked to take significant risks in changing their approaches to working with children. In many ways, their present practices have been successful, as measured by current forms of accountability, and as one Galileo teacher described, the risks associated with innovations in teaching practice often fall directly on the classroom teacher's shoulders. Therefore, building a relationship based on trust and support is integral to the ability to move forward with technology integration and transformed teaching practices:
GALILEO TEACHER: Well it is risky because as every teacher says to me, the bottom line is with them, not with me. So when it comes time to report card time, when it comes time to government exam time, any kind of evaluation, it's the classroom teacher. Yes I am working with them, but I'm not the person that's responsible for the class. So they have to, in their own minds, feel that they're ready for that. And I really strongly believe that it's got nothing to do with the age of the teacher. It's got nothing to do with the number of years that the teacher has taught. It's totally got to do with the trust factor--two things: a teacher feeling confident and understanding the curriculum, and the second thing is the teacher wanting to learn something new.
One teacher described how the process of learning how to plan, implement and evaluate technology-rich, inquiry-based projects requires that the teacher have patience, and be realistic about their own professional development expectations. Based on her experiences in the second year of the initiative, she advises other teachers to be patient, and not expect everything to change at once.
TEACHER: And I think the one thing I've done wrong this year is I just sort of leapt in. It would be fine if I had the computers for the entire day for myself, but I mean they have to be shared. And I think I tried to do too much too quickly. And so this last couple of months, or the last month I guess or so, I felt quite a bit of frustration that I'm not being effective. I'm not; my program is not as effective as I would like it to be. So I think to approach it slowly. And of course that's me. Candace and all the other people involved with Galileo said you need to go at it gradually. You're not going to just be able to change your entire way of teaching at once. So that would be my main advice. Would be just to be patient with yourself. Be patient.
The following educator's perspective captures the complex influences of politics and organizational culture on a school as part of a larger school district, the value of ongoing, sustained professional development, and the important role that the Galileo Network plays as an organization that is external to both the school and the division.
ADMINISTRATOR: Well you know, it's like another shot in the arm. Like so; you know the teachers, it's funny, because last year especially you could hear them talking "oh god, Pat's going to be here tomorrow. Like I've got to get this done--you know? It's that it kept you moving forward. I've got to get this done.
So I don't think you could ever go to nothing. You could certainly have less Galileo time, but I think you need that outside presence that's non judgmental, it's non-school board, right? And that's another gift of this for me. Is that they've--because they're not board personnel, they can ask questions that we can't always ask. Right?
And there's no evaluation. The teachers aren't intimidated by them. …it's not like they could be their boss next week or something. You know what I mean?
The emphasis in the second year shifts as more teachers get involved, and individual teachers gain more experience, develop more confidence in taking risks in their practice, and begin to transform their practice. Educators who are later adopters begin to get involved at this stage. Individuals who completed a project or more in the first year, and experienced the success with their students, tend to have higher levels of confidence in the second year.
TEACHER: And for them to say yeah this is great, you're on the right path. Because last year I was very unsure with what I was doing. And Barb kept saying, "oh you're doing great". Because I had concerns, you know, I'm not sure about this and I'm not sure about that. She was a really good support. Where this year I don't need that, because I know I'm on the right path.
A pair of teachers who team-teach, and are in their second year of involvement with the Galileo Network, describe how their relationship has evolved into exploring more complex technological possibilities. The nature of their work with a Galileo teacher is still to learn more about what is possible, and have access to just-in-time support to make it happen in their classroom.
TEACHER: I guess we have the ideas and Richard shows us the tools that will work. And I'm one that I can't learn it just in one afternoon. I have to mull it over, play with it, and then even take another course on it, so that I can sort of put it to rest in my own mind how it works. But Richard has opened those doors for us. Like for example we say well we'd like this to pop out. And he goes okay, well let's use this program. And he's very knowledgeable in all the programs it seems. So that's sort of where the fun for us has been.
The other thing that I would notice from Richard is that he gives us the confidence to do it. He provides that avenue for us. We have you know, some really good ideas of some things we want to do, but we don't know how to get there sometimes.
The benefits of being involved are not achieved without a great deal of commitment and hard work. Educators involved in the second year of the initiative describe how their involvement required a commitment to invest time and energy in their own professional development. This investment was made willingly, enthusiastically and passionately once they realized the benefits for their students.
TEACHER: But it's hard work. You know, that's the other part of it. It's been great for us. I mean people are saying, " oh well they're lucky, they have Galileo". And yeah, we're really lucky. And I've said that. But hey, this hasn't come without huge, huge amount of work for everybody. And extra hours. I mean … we stay Tuesdays after school for PD, and we meet Tuesdays at lunch. Which isn't our normal staff meeting. That's when we meet usually with Candace or Galileo people. You know, and people are doing that because they've sort of bought in to doing it.
An individual teacher’s motivation to continue in spite of the additional work and uncertainty seemed to depend upon the reliable and sustained relationship with an onsite mentor who kept coming back to the school week after week. In the following teacher’s comment, Salomon's (2000) idea of "tutelage and a community of learners" is explored with regard to the weekly nature of the professional development.
TEACHER: You know they are coming back next week, and you look at what you have done and what you still have to do, and you say, better get going.
The teacher’s comment highlights Salomon's (2000) idea of sustained motivation in the face of competing motivations. A classroom teacher has multiple responsibilities and commitments, and therefore exists in a state of "over stimulation" for much of the school day. Because Galileo Network’s approach to professional development is sustained, ongoing, and presents a form of accountability, the teachers tended to have more motivation to stick with it. The trustful relationship and sense of owing something to the Galileo teacher is an aspect of the classroom teacher's commitment as well, in that, they do not want to disappoint the person who has invested so much time in them and their students.
School-based administrators who are involved in the second year of the initiative describe how their goals and strategies have changed as they look toward their third, and final year, of Galileo Network involvement. One principal talked about the importance of building technology leadership capacity within the school:
ADMINISTRATOR: …one of the things that I'd like to see, and this is in preparation for the day when Galileo is no longer part of the daily running of the school, I would really like to see some staff in this building step forward and be able to take a leadership role in this. And I don't know that we have anybody that's comfortable with that, to do that. So, I guess if I'm looking for something for next year, I think it's maybe… if it was Galileo helping somebody on the staff to pull in somebody else. … Because I think that's going to be the reality. Galileo is not going to live in [this school] forever, so we need to get ready for that. So I think planning for that for next year, however that might look.
An important goal in the second year of Galileo’s relationship with a school is to cultivate onsite leaders among school staff. These teacher leaders can continue to carry forward the educational reform vision, and cultivate energy and commitment among their colleagues.
Supporting An Educator's Adoption Decision
A five stage innovation-decision model (Rogers, 1995) was used as a conceptual framework to observe, interpret and describe how the Galileo approach was integrated into the learning context for individual teachers, school staffs and Galileo Network staff. Teachers appeared to be influenced in their decision to adopt technology by the perceived benefits and value for students, and also relative advantage and value for themselves. A great deal of effort is invested in initial relationship building and “whole school work” in order to share knowledge about the Galileo Network initiative, and help teachers to better understand the philosophy and work towards a common purpose.
Through professional dialogue with colleagues and the Galileo teachers, and by exposure to the results that other teachers have achieved with students, teachers become more convinced of the relative advantage offered by innovative practice and ICT integration (i.e., knowledge and persuasion stages). Teachers are supported in their decision-making, instructional planning and classroom implementation of inquiry-based projects with students by Galileo teachers (i.e., decision and implementation stages). Teachers were willing to risk uncertainty, plan for changed roles, and develop their own technology and pedagogical skills, with the support from the Galileo Network. Teachers were also supported in their assessment and evaluation of student products and achievements as a result of the new approaches to designing instruction (i.e., confirmation).
Overall, teachers appeared to be influenced in their adoption and implementation decisions by the larger social, cultural and political contexts that frame what and how they teach in classrooms. The Galileo Network worked with people at all levels of the educational organization in order to help build a culture that supports and expects reformed ways of teaching and learning with ICT. A social and political culture of reform and innovation, and the expectation that people would be charting new territory, helped to support teachers in making changes to their practice. An integral component of the culture of expectation in each of these schools was the support for change provided by regular access to onsite support and expertise, and the time to make optimal use of the onsite professional development.
There were many reasons why schools and teachers first became involved, and then were highly motivated to continue, with the Galileo Network:
Five Indicators of Success
The Galileo Network has been successful in moving an educational reform vision forward in the province of Alberta. In the second year of operation, Galileo worked with teachers in nine schools, and increased meaningful learning opportunities for hundreds of children. Five indicators of GENA’s success in achieving this vision have been distilled from this investigation.
The first indicator of success is the continued demand for Galileo Educational Network’s services. There is a great demand from schools all over the province to get involved in the Galileo Educational Network. In its third year of operation, the Galileo Network initiative is growing from the current 9 schools in five school divisions to working in 18 schools in 7 different school districts in 2001/2002. One component of Galileo Network's organizational strategy is to maintain and grow an organic learning culture and professional development environment for staff within Galileo. One of the qualities that the Galileo Network's team of teachers offers to a school is their diverse strengths and areas of specialty. The diversity of people in Galileo Network also gives them the ability to assemble teams with specific strengths, shift and change in response to what the school needs at a particular point in time, and also to provide mentoring for each other. The Galileo Network seconds experienced teachers who provide leadership and professional development for staff in the schools, as well as with individuals at the district level. Galileo staff initiates discussion about technology deployment options that are suitable to the needs of the school, and meet the requirements of Alberta's ICT Program of Study.
A second indicator used to evaluate the success of the initiative is corporate investment in co-developing an online professional development service, Intelligence Online (IO), to extend the Galileo Network’s capacity to provide support to more teachers. Galileo has developed and sustained a mutually beneficial partnership with a private corporation, Axia Netmedia, to create an online professional development service that is currently in pilot testing. The overall goal is to explore ways to create and sustain online communities of learners using the Galileo approach. A third indicator used to assess whether the Galileo Network has been successful in achieving their objectives is stakeholder satisfaction. Overall, it can be reported with confidence that there were very high levels of satisfaction among stakeholders at every level of the Galileo Network initiative. Conversations with Galileo Network staff and school administrators yielded positive indications that key school board personnel are not only satisfied, but are actively developing strategies to spread the Galileo Network initiative to other schools in their division.
A fourth indicator used to assess whether the Galileo Network has been successful in achieving their objectives is evidence of engaged student learning. Instead of designing integrated units or students tasks that had pre-determined outcomes, teachers designed projects in such a way that students ideas, questions and prior knowledge become an important contribution, and developed assessment strategies that accommodated multiple outcomes. Information and communications technology was used in service of learning goals and tasks, instead of learning “about” the technology for its own sake. Experienced teachers became convinced of the value of an inquiry-based approach to technology integration when they observed the enthusiasm, interest and independence of their students. Teachers and school administrators commented on how learning was enhanced for students of diverse abilities, and that the quality of work achieved by many students went well beyond their expectations.
A fifth indicator used to assess whether the Galileo Network has been successful in achieving their objectives is evidence of transformed teaching practice. The professional development support provided by the Galileo Network is much less about technology integration, per se, and is instead focused more on inquiry into fundamental teaching and learning issues. Teachers appreciated having ongoing contact with a Galileo teaching colleague who has lived experience with integrating technology with children and can assist in pedagogical, project and technology skill development. Teachers critically examined their practice and determine next steps for pushing their practice forward with the onsite support of the Galileo Network.
CONCLUSIONS
Sustaining learning environments that enable technology-infused, inquiry-based approaches to teaching require that a number of essential conditions in the school be maintained, of which this is a non-exhaustive list: (1) Supportive Leadership; (2) A Learning, Risk-Taking Culture Among Staff; (3) A Colleague, From Within Or Without, To Walk This Road With You; (4) Ubiquitous Access To Reliable Technology; (5) Time For Professional Dialogue And Connections; And (6) School Board And Parent Support.
A number of essential conditions for the sustainability of the Galileo Network initiative within a school emerged from conversations with school leaders, classroom teachers and Galileo staff. Among these were: (1) Securing Sustainable Sources of Funding, (2) Building On-Site Capacity And Leadership, (3) Diffusion Of The Mentorship Relationships, and (4) Designing Learning Communities to Resist the Urge To Turn Back.
Factors that contributed to the success of the Galileo Educational Network initiative during the 2000/2001 can be summarized as follows:
Factors that may have hindered the success of the Galileo Educational Network initiative (in addition to impediments that hamper the integration of educational technology in general) during the 2000/2001 instructional year can be summarized as follows:
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are suggested by the research findings:
In second and third year schools, further opportunities need to be provided for interested teachers to work with members of the Galileo team to build capacity to effectively integrate technology for learning across the curriculum. As a school moves into subsequent years of working with Galileo, invitations need to be extended and opportunities provided to encourage later adopting teachers to get more involved. Teachers need multiple opportunities to examine and understand the overarching principles that are at the foundation of Galileo work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present case study is part of a larger investigation funded by the Federal Office of Learning Technologies (OLT) entitled, “An Evaluation Of Learning Technologies Initiatives In Continuing Professional Development (CPD)”, led by principal Investigators, Dr. Bert Einsiedel & Dr. Stanley Varnhagen, from the University of Alberta. The author extends gratitude and appreciation to the Galileo Educational Network for sponsoring my part of the investigation, and for facilitating access to the districts and schools with which they have built relationships. The author is grateful to the many school leaders, teachers and students who agreed to participate in this case study. Thank-you for entrusting your stories to me. Finally, the author extends her thanks and gratitude to two talented graduate students, Linda Flanagan and Diane Nowlan, who participated in all parts of data collection and analysis for this case study.
REFERENCES
Alberta Learning. (2000-2003). Information and communication technology, kindergarten to grade 12: Program of studies. Curriculum Standards Branch. [On-line]. Available: http://ednet.edc.gov.ab.ca/ict/
Alberta Learning. (1997). Teaching Quality Standard Applicable to the Provision of Basic Education in Alberta, Ministerial Order #016/97 Policy 4.2.1. [On-line]. Available: http://www.learning.gov.ab.ca/educationguide/pol-plan/polregs/adobe/421.pdf
Alberta Teachers Association Computer Council. (2000). Technology Issues Facing the Classroom Teacher. Survey. [On-line]. http://appblast.desktop.com/am/garyraab/technology_survey?submit=09e2fba9389
Allen, R. (1999). Education and Technological Revolutions: The Role of the Social Sciences and Humanities in the Knowledge Based Economy. [On-line]. Available: http://www.sshrc.ca/english/resnews/pressreleases/archive/allen99.html
Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2001a). Bringing Learning to Learners: The Galileo Educational Network. Invited Presentation, and proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Tampere, Finland.
Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2001b). “The Stewardship of the Intellect: Classroom Life, Educational Innovation and Technology”. In Barrell, B. (Ed.). Technology, Teaching and Leanring: Issues in the Integration of Technology, p. 29-42. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (1998). Hard fun: Teaching and learning for the 21st century. Focus on Learning II, 1: 8 - 32.
Clifford, P. & Friesen, S. (1993). A curious plan: Managing on the twelfth. Harvard Educational Review 63 (3), 339-358.
Clifford, P., Friesen, S., and Jacobsen, D.M. (1998). An expanded view of literacy: Hypermedia in the middle school. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA and ED-TELECOM 98: World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications, Freiburg, Germany, June 20 - 25. [On-line]. Available: http://www.galileo.org/research/publications/literacy.html
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), pp. 813-834.
Goldman-Segall, R. (1998). Points of Viewing Children's Thinking: A Digital Ethnographer's Journey. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jacobsen, D. M., & Goldman, R. (2001). “The Hand-Made’s Tail: A Novel Approach to Educational Technology”. In Barrell, B. (Ed.). Technology, Teaching and Leanring: Issues in the Integration of Technology, p. 83-112. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.
Jacobsen, D. M. (2001). Building Different Bridges: Technology Integration, Engaged Student Learning, and New Approaches to Professional Development. Paper presented at AERA 2001: The 82nd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA: April 10 - 14. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dmjacobs/aera/building_bridges.html
Jacobsen, D. M. (1998). Adoption Patterns and Characteristics of Faculty Who Integrate Computer Technology for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Doctoral Dissertation, Educational Psychology, University of Calgary. [On-line]. Available: http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~dmjacobs/phd/diss/
Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning With Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kay, A. C. (1995). Computers, networks and education. The Computer in the 21st Century: A Special Issue of Scientific American, pp. 148 - 155.
Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49 (5), 8-12.
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology and Educational Reform. Volume I: Findings and Conclusions, Studies of Educational Reform. A Report to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 559)
Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C. C., Remz, A. R., & Zorfass, J. (1993). Using Technology to Support Educational Reform. A Report to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/TechReforms/title.html
Means, B., Chelemer, C., & Knapp, M. S. (1991). “Introduction: Rethinking teaching for disadvantaged students”. In B. Means, C. Chelemer, & M. S. Knapp (Eds.), Teaching Advanced Skills to At-Risk Students: Views from Research and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mitchell, S. (1996). Tidal Waves of School Reform. Westport, CT: Praeger.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1995). New times demand new ways of learning. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/edtalk/newtimes.htm
North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium’s (2000) Learning With Technology Profile Tool. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/profile/profwww.htm
Norton, P., & Wiburg, K. (1998). Teaching with technology. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Papert, S. (2000). What's the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39 (3&4). [On-line]. Available: http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/393/part2/papert.html
Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. (4th ed.) New York: Free Press.
Scheidlinger, Z. (1999). Education calls for a new philosophy. Educational Technology & Society 2 (3). [Online]. Available: http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_99/zygmunt_scheidlinger_article.html
Sideris E.C., & Skau, K.G., (1994) The role of staff development in school restructuring. Education Canada, 40-48.
Salomon, G. (2000). It’s not just the tool but the educational rationale that counts. Keynote address presented at Ed-Media 2000, Montreal, Quebec. Canada. http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~gsalomon/edMedia2000.html
Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers College Record, 100 (1), 222-241.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Statistics Canada. (2001). Household Internet Use Survey. Retrieved February 18, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Culture/arts51.htm
© Dawn Michele Jacobsen 2002