Based on analyses of the difficulties encountered during the process of integrating technology into instruction and the efforts made by researchers to overcome barriers to such integration, we propose that the efforts made to date (e.g., increasing the availability of computer equipment and enhancing computer literacy, support, and training) are not sufficiently comprehensive to achieve the goals of improving teaching efficiency and developing innovative teaching methods.
Objectives
The objective of this research commentary is to highlight the importance of the software infrastructure for teachers (SIT) to promoting the integration of information technology into instruction.
Research Method and Design
A critical synthesis was conducted on the literature of using computer technology for learning, teaching, and teacher professional development.
Conclusions
This study points out the features of SIT, the benefits of using SIT, and the possible approach to the development of SIT, and highlights some problems that have yet to be solved.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlevenV., SewallJ., McLarenB. M., and KoedingerK. R. (2006). Rapid authorizing of intelligent tutors for real-world and experimental use. In KinshukR., KoperP., KommersP., KirschnerD., SampsonG., and DidderenW. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006), (pp. 847–851). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
2.
AndersonJ. R., BoyleC. F., and YostG. (1985). The geometry tutor. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1—7). Los Angeles: IJCAI.
3.
AndersonJ. R., CorbettA. T., KoedingerK. R., and PelletierR. C. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167—207.
4.
BarabS. A., MaKinsterJ. G., MooreJ. A., and CunninghamD. J.the ILF Design Team (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry learning forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 71—96.
5.
BarronA. E., KemkerK., HarmesC., and KalaydjianK. (2003). Large-scale research study on technology in K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the national technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 489—507.
6.
BartlettB. (2002). Preparing preservice teachers to implement performance assessment and technology through electronic portfolios. Action in Teacher Education, 24, 90—97.
7.
BeckerH. J. (1991). How computers are used in United States schools: Basic data from the 1989 I.E.A. Computers in Education survey. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 385—405.
8.
BeckerH. J. (2001, April). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
9.
BeckerJ. H., and Ravitz (2001, April). Computer use by teachers: Are Cuban's predictions still correct? Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
10.
BennetD. E. (2000). The assessment and instructional management system: An innovative approach to evaluating the progress of students with disabilities. Educational Technology, 40, 33—36.
11.
BennetD. E., and DavisM. A. (2001). The development of a computer-based alternate assessment system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26, 15—34.
12.
BlantonW. E., MoormanG., and TrathenW. (1998). Telecommunications and teacher education: A social constructivist review. In PearsonP.D., and Iran-NejadA. (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 235—275). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
13.
BlumenfeldP., FishmanB., KrajcikJ., MarxR. W., and SolowayE. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149—164.
14.
BorkoH., MichalecP., TimmonsM., and SiddleJ. (1997). Student teaching portfolios: A tool for promoting reflective practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 48, 345—357.
15.
BrownA. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom setting. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141—178.
16.
BrunvandS., FishmanB., and MarxR. (2003, April). Moving professional development online: Meeting the needs and expectations of all teachers. Paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
17.
BrysonM., and de CastellS. (1998). New technologies and the cultural ecology of primary schooling: Imaging teachers as Luddites In/deed. Educational Policy, 12, 542—562.
18.
CarrollJ. M., ChooC. W., DunlapD. R., IsonhourP. L., KerrS. T., and MacLeanA.. (2003). Knowledge management support for teachers. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51, 42—64.
19.
Chaney-CullenT., and DuffyT. M. (1999). Strategic teaching framework: Multimedia to support teacher change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 1—40.
20.
ChangC. C. (2001). A study on the evaluation and effectiveness analysis of Web-based learning portfolio (WBLP). British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 435—458.
21.
ChangK. E., SungY. T., and ChenS. F. (2001). Computerized concept mapping with scaffolding learning aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 21—33.
22.
ChangK. E., SungY. T., and ChenI. D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 5—19.
23.
ChangK. E., SungY. T., and HouH. T. (2006). Web-based tools for designing and developing teaching materials for integration of information technology into instruction. Educational Technology and Society, 9, 139—149.
24.
CizekG. J. (1997). Learning, achievement, and assessment: Constructs at a crossroads. In and and PhyeG.D. (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment (pp. 1—32). New York: Academic Press.
25.
Cochran-SmithM., and LytleS. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In Iran-NejadA., and PearsonP.D. (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 249–305). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
26.
Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In BerlinerD.C., and CalfeeR.C. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 807—840). New York: Prentice Hall.
27.
ColeD. J., RyanC. W., KickF., and MathiesB. K. (2000). Portfolio cross the curriculum and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
28.
CorbettA. T., KoedingerK. R., and HadleyW. (2001). Cognitive tutors: From the research classroom to all classrooms. In and and GoodmanP.S. (Ed.), Technology enhanced learning: Opportunities for change (pp. 235—263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and underused computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
CubanL., KirkpatrickH., and PeckC. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813—834.
31.
Darling-HammondL., and SnyderJ. (2000). Authentic assessment in teaching context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523—545.
32.
DavidsonJ. (2003). A new role in facilitating school reform: The case of the educational technologist. Teachers College Record, 105, 729—752.
33.
DwyerD. C., RingstaffC., and SandholtzJ. H. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich classroom. Educational Leadership, 48, 45—52.
34.
EdelsonD. C., GordinD. N., and PeaR. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3&4, 391—450.
35.
ElmoreR. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practices. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1—25.
36.
ErtmerP. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 47—61.
37.
FishmanB., MarxR. W., BlumenfeldP., and KrajcikJ. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 43—76.
38.
FishmanB., and PinkardN. (2001). Bringing urban schools into the information age: Planning for technology versus technology planning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 63—80.
39.
GoldenbergL. B., and OutsenN. (2002). Missed connections can be instructive: Project to link teachers turns setbacks into information. Journal of Staff Development, 23, 28—31.
40.
GreenoJ. G., CollinsA. M., and ResnickL. B. (1996). Cognition and Learning. In BerlinerD.C., and CalfeeR.C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15—46). New York: Prentice Hall.
41.
GrossmanP., WineburgS., and WoolworthS. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103, 942—1012.
42.
GuhaS. (2001). Integrating computers in elementary grade classroom instruction: Analyses of teachers’ perceptions in present and preferred situations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24, 275—303.
43.
GuzdialM., RickJ., and KehoeC. (2001). Beyond adoption to invention: Teacher created collaborative activities in higher education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 265—279.
44.
HaertelG., and MeansB. (Eds.). (2003). Evaluating educational technology: Effective research designs for improving learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
45.
HambletonR. K., ZaalJ. N., and PietersJ. P. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: Theory, applications, and standards. Weston, MA: Kluwer.
46.
HartH. M., AllensworthE., LauenD. L., and GladdenR. M. (2002). Educational technology: Availability and use in Chicago's public schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2000a). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene, OR: Author.
49.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2000b). National educational technology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: Author.
50.
KariukiM., and TurnerS. (2001). Creating electronic portfolios using laptops: A learning experience for preservice teachers, elementary school pupils, and elementary school teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 567—584.
51.
KilbaneC. R., and MilmanN. B. (2003). The digital teaching portfolio handbook: A how-to guide for educators. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
52.
KoedingerK. R., AlevenV., and HeffernanN. (2003). Toward a rapid development environment for Cognitive Tutors. In HoppeU., VerdejoF., and KayJ. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies-Proceedings of AI-ED 2003 (pp. 455—457). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
53.
KozmaR. (2000a). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educational Technology Research Development, 48, 5—15.
54.
KozmaR. (2000b). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In JacobsonM., and KozmaR. (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 11—46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
55.
LaveJ., and WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
56.
LesgoldA. (2003). Detecting technology's effects in complex school learning. In HaertelG., and MeansB. (Eds.), Evaluating educational technology: Effective research designs for improving learning (pp. 38—74). New York: Teachers College Press.
57.
LightJ. S. (2001). Rethinking the digital divide. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 709—733.
58.
LinX. (2001). Reflective adaptation of a technology artifact: A case study of classroom change. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 395—440.
59.
MannazM. (1999). An expert teacher's thinking and teaching and instructional design models and principles: An ethnographic study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46, 37—64.
60.
MarxR. W., BlumenfeldP., KrajcikJ., and SolowayE. (1998). New technologies for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 33—52.
61.
McCandlissB. D., KalchmanM., and BryantP. (2003). Design experiment and laboratory approaches to learning: Steps toward collaborative exchange. Educational Researcher, 32, 14—16.
62.
McKenneyS., NieveenN., and van den AkkerJ. (2002). Computer support curriculum developers: CASCADE. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 25—35.
63.
MeansB., BlandoJ., OlsonK., MiddletonT., MoroccoC. C., and RemzA. R.. (1993). Using technology to support education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
64.
MeansB., and ColemanE. (2000). Technology supports for student participation in science investigations. In JacobsonM.J., and KozmaR.B. (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education (pp. 193—226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
65.
MooijT. (2002). Designing a digital instructional management system to optimize early education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 11—23.
66.
NathanM., KintschW., and YoungE. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 329—389.
67.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
68.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Internet access in U. S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
69.
NewhouseP., and RennieL. (2001). A longitudinal study of the use of student-owned portable computers in a secondary school. Computers and Education, 36, 223—243.
70.
NorrisC., SullivanT., PoirotJ., and SolowayE. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 15—28.
71.
NorthR. F. J., StrainD. M., and AbbottL. (2000). Training teachers in computer-based management information systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 27—40.
72.
OlsenB., and KirtmanL. (2002). Teacher as mediator of school reform: An examination of teacher practice in 36 California restructuring schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 301—324.
73.
PapertS. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
74.
PaulkM. C., CurtisW. B., and ChrissisM. (1995). The capability maturity model guideline for improving the software process. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
75.
PeckK. L., and DorricotD. (1994). Why use technology?Educational Leadership, 51, 11—14.
76.
PersseJ. M. (2001). Implementing the capability maturity model. New York: Wiley.
77.
PowersD. E., BursteinJ. C., ChodorowM. S., FowlesM. E., and KukichK. (2002). Comparing the validity of automated and human scoring of essays. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26, 407—425.
78.
PutnamR. T., and BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29, 4—15.
79.
ResnickL. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16, 13—20.
80.
RoschelleJ., PenuelW. R., YarnallL., and TatarD. (2004). Handheld tools that “informate” assessment of student learning in science: A requirement analysis. In RoschelleJ., Chan, KinshukT.W., and YangS.J.H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (pp. 149—153). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
81.
RussellM., BebellD., O'DwyerL., and O'ConnorK. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 297—310.
82.
SalomonG. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case of the Writing Partner. In LajoieS.P., and DerryS.J. (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 179—196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
83.
SandholtzJ. H., and ReillyB. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 106, 487—512.
84.
SandholtzJ. H., RingstaffC., and DwyserD. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
85.
ScardamaliaM., and BereiterC. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge society. Educational Leadership, 54, 6—10.
86.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in Education, 4, 1—94.
87.
SchwartzD. L., BiswasG., BransfordJ. D., BhuvaB., BalacT., and BrophyS. (2000). Computer tools that link assessment and instruction: Investigating what makes electricity hard to learn. In and and LajoieS.P. (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools, volume 2: No more walls (pp. 273—307). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
88.
SchwartzD. L., BrophyS., LinX., and BransfordJ. D. (1999). Software for managing complex learning: Examples from an educational psychology course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 39—59.
89.
SelwynN., GorardS., and WilliamsS. (2001). Digital divide or digital opportunity? The role of technology in overcoming social exclusion in U.S. education. Educational Policy, 15, 258—277.
90.
ShepardL. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4—14.
91.
SlottaJ. D., and LinnM. C. (2000). The knowledge integration environment: Helping students use the Internet effectively. In JacobsonM.J., and KozmaR.B. (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education (pp. 193—226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
92.
SungY. T., and ChangK. E. (2005). Examining teachers’ reflection, social interaction, and learning in digital teaching portfolios. Paper submitted for review.
93.
SungY. T., ChangK. E., ChiouS. K., and HouH. T. (2005). The design and application of a Web-based self- and peer-assessment system. Computers and Education, 45, 187—202.
94.
SungY. T., LinC. S., LeeC. L., and ChangK. E. (2003). Evaluating proposals for experiments: An application of Web-based self- and peer-assessment. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 331—334.
95.
TatarD., RoschelleJ., VaheyP., and PenuelW. R. (2003). Handhelds go to school: lessons learned. IEEE Computer, 36, 30—37.
96.
van MerrienboerJ. J. G., and MartensR. (2002). Computer-based tools for instructional design: An introduction to the special issue. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 5—9.
97.
VirvouM., and AlepisE. (2005). Mobile educational features in authoring tools for personalized tutoring. Computers and Education, 44, 53—68.
98.
WallaceR. M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the Internet. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 447—488.
99.
WhiteB. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1—100.
100.
WhiteB. Y., and FrederiksenJ. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3—118.
101.
WilliamsD., ColesL., WilsonK., RichardsonA., and TusonJ. (2000). Teachers and ICT: Current use and future needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 307—320.
102.
WillisJ., ThompsonA., and SaderaW. (1999). Research on technology and teacher education: Current status and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 29—45.
103.
WindschitlM., and SahlK. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 165—205.
104.
WrightV. H., StallworthJ. S., and RayB. (2002). Challenges of electronic portfolios: Student perceptions and experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 49—61.
105.
YostD. S., SentnerS. M., and Forlenza-BaileyA. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 39—49.
106.
ZeichnerK., and WrayS. (2001). The teaching portfolio in U.S. teacher education programs: What we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 613—621.
107.
ZhaoY., and FrankK. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology use in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807—840.
