The viewpoints of two experienced teachers implementing a novel computer program in their grade five and six classes were documented through biweekly debriefing interviews over the period of one school year. The teachers proved to be fundamentally concerned with three issues: learning to accommodate changes required by this innovation; organizing new, efficient classroom routines around the computers; and seeking indications of students' achievements through their uses of the computers. These three considerations appeared integral to the teachers' senses that they were effectively implementing the computer learning environment in their classrooms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McGeeG. W., Social Context Variables Affecting the Implementation of Microcomputers, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3: 2, pp. 198–202, 1987.
2.
AokiT. T., Toward Understanding “Computer Application,”Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 7: 2, pp. 61–71, 1987.
3.
ScardamaliaM. and BereiterC., Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environments: Progress Report, Centre for Applied Cognitive Science, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, 1987.
4.
AndresenL.BarrettE.PowellJ., and WienekeC., Planning and Monitoring Course: University Teachers Reflect on Their Teaching, Instructional Science, 13: 4, pp. 305–328, 1985.
5.
MunbyH., The Place of Teachers' Beliefs in Research on Teacher Thinking and Decision Making, and An Alternative Methodology, Instructional Science, 11: 3, pp. 201–225, 1982.
6.
OlsonJ. K., Teacher Influence in the Classroom: A Context for Understanding Curriculum Translation, Instructional Science, 10: 3, pp. 259–275, 1981.
7.
ClarkC. M. and PetersonP. L., Teachers' Thought Processes, in Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd Edition, WittrockM. C. (ed.), Macmillan, New York, NV, pp. 255–296, 1986.
8.
ElbazF., Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge, Nichols, New York, NY, 1983.
9.
BereiterC. and ScardamaliaM., Intentional Learning as a Goal of Instruction, in Cognition and Instruction: Issues and Agendas, ResnickL. B. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, in press.
10.
BereiterC. and ScardamaliaM., An Attainable Version of High Literacy: Approaches to Teaching Higher-Order Skills in Reading and Writing, Curriculum Inquiry, 17: 1, pp. 9–30, 1987.
11.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S., and NewmanS. E., Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics, in Cognition and Instruction: Issues and Agendas, ResnickL. B. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, in press.
12.
LeinhardtG.WeidmanC., and HammondK. M., Introduction and Integration of Classroom Routines by Expert Teachers, Curriculum Inquiry, 17: 2, pp. 135–176, 1987.
13.
FullanM., The Meaning of Educational Change, OISE Press, Toronto, 1982.
14.
LangerJ. and ApplebeeA., How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning, National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, IL, 1987.
15.
SalomonG., Information Technologies: What You See Is Not (Always) What You Get, Report No. 3, Tel Aviv University, 1986.
16.
DoyleW., Academic Work, Review of Educational Research, 53: 2, pp. 159–199, 1983.
