The Capital Area Technology and Inquiry in Education program (CATIE) is a content-focused, inquiry-based professional development program developed by the Center for Initiatives in Pre-College Education (CIPCE) to assist K-6 teachers in the technology integration process. To address concerns of sustainability and cost-effectiveness, this situated model combined online and face-to-face professional development approaches to encourage thought-provoking experiences that inspire new pedagogies. CATIE united efforts with the Online Learning Forum (OLF) to offer blended mentoring experiences situated in and around the classroom context with a special focus on mathematics instruction. CATIE, formerly a high-resource model, transitioned into a multi-dimensional experience in an effort to sustain technology-rich learning communities and provide quality professional development resources for classroom instruction. This article explores the dimensions of CATIE, the transition to a blended model, and the contributions of this situated model to technology integration professional development.
BeckerH. (1994). Analysis and trends of school use of new information technologies. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.edu/EdTechUse/c-thlcnt.htm
3.
BonkC.HixonE., & Yamagata-LynchL. (2002). The pedagogical TICKIT: Web conferencing to promote communication and support during teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 205–233.
4.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
5.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA., & DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
6.
CubanL. (2000, January). So much high-tech money invested, so little use and change in practice: How come? Paper prepared for the Council of Chief State School Officers' Annual Technology Leadership Conference, Washington, D.C.
7.
DexterS.AndersonR., & BeckerH. (1999). Teacher's views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 31(3), 221–239.
8.
FosnotC. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners.New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
HerronM. D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79(2) 171–212.
10.
HolmesA. (2004). Envisioning, understanding, and encouraging technology integration: Case studies examining professional development and technology integration. Dissertation. New York: University at Albany, SUNY.
11.
HughesJ. E., & OomsA. (2004). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: Preparing urban teachers to integrate technology to transform student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 397–411.
12.
JenningsS.SwanK.MeierE.CintorinoM., & RubenfeldL. (2002). Mentoring teachers: The embodied mind in situated professional development. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Philadelphia, PA.
13.
NorrisC.SolowayE., & SullivanT. (2002). Examining 25 years of technology in education. Communications of the ACM, 45(8), 15–18.
14.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1995). Teachers & technology: Making the connection (S/N 052–003–01409–2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15.
ParrJ. (1999). Extending educational computing: A case of extensive teacher development and support. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 280–291.
16.
PolhemusL.SwanK.DanchakM., & RubenfeldL. (April, 2003). Online Learning Forum: An RPInteractive Professional Development Model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
17.
PutnamR. T., & BorkoH. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of the new view of cognition. In BifleB. J.GoodT. L., & GoodsonI. F. (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
18.
PutnamR. T., & BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
19.
ResnickL. B.LevineJ. M., & TeasleyS. D. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20.
SandholtzJ. (2001). Learning to teach with technology: A comparison of teacher development programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 349–374.
21.
SchefflerF. L., & LoganJ. P. (1999). Computer technology in schools: What teachers should know and be able to do. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 305–326.
22.
SwanK.BowmanJ. E.Jr.HolmesA.VargasJ. D., & RichardsonJ. (2000). Technology, professional development, and the culture of the schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
23.
SwanK.HolmesA.VargasJ.JenningsS.MeierE., & RubenfeldL. (2002). Situated professional development and technology integration: The CATIE mentoring program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 169–190.
24.
ThompsonC. L., & ZeuliJ. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In Darling-HammondL. & SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
U.S. Congress. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107–110. 107th Congress. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
26.
ZhaoY.PughK.SheldonS., & ByersJ. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.
