The Center for Technology and School Change (CTSC) is a research and development center specializing in professional development, evaluation and technology integration research. The goal of the qualitative research reported in this article was to identify factors that strengthen the integration of technology in classrooms in ways that are consistent with larger school improvement themes. The data collected from numerous sources, including the university facilitators and the 100 New York teacher participants with whom they worked in 2003–2004, were analyzed to determine patterns related to the design and delivery of technology professional development. Three concrete themes emerged: the need to understand and address specific teacher concerns in the process of designing technology-integrated curriculum; the value of demonstrating technology's role in assessing student understanding; and the significance of engaging content experts to help teachers address content and pedagogical issues in the technology integration process. These themes inform the larger theoretical framework that underpins the work of the Center.
References
1.
BeckerH. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right?, 2001, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51
2.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
3.
BurkhardtH., & ShoenfeldA. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.
4.
ChristensenR.GriffinD., & KnezekG. (2001, March 1–4). Measures of teacher stages of technology integration and their correlates with student achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Dallas, TX.
5.
Cochran-SmithM., & FriesM. K. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The discourse of reform in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 3–15.
6.
CookT.MeansB.HaertelG., & MichalchikV. (2003). The case for randomized experiments. In HaertelG. & MeansB. (Eds.), Evaluating educational technology: Effective research designs for improving learning (pp. 15–37). New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
DexterS.AndersonR., & BeckerH. (1999). Teachers' views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(3), 221–239.
9.
FullanM. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
GallimoreR., & StiglerJ. (2003). Closing the teaching gap: Assisting teachers adapt to adapt to change. In RichardsonC. (Ed.), Closing the teaching gap: Assisting teachers adapt to changing standards and assessments (pp. 25–36). London, England: Qualifications Curriculum Authority.
McCandlissB.KalchmanM., & BryantP. (2003). Design experiments and laboratory approaches to learning: Steps toward collaborative exchange. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 14–16.
13.
McMillanJ. (2004). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
14.
McNeilL. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
15.
MeansB.BlandoJ.OlsonK., & MiddletonT. (1993). Using technology to support education reform (Reports No. 20402–9328). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
16.
MeansB.RoschelleJ.PenuelW.SabelliN., & HaertelG. (2004). Technology's contribution to teaching and policy: Efficiency, standardization, or transformation? In FlodenR. (Ed.), Review of research in education (vol. 27, pp. 159–183). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
17.
MeierE. (2004, April). A situated model for integrating technology in an urban school district. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.
18.
MeierE., & BudinH. (2001, April 10–14). Enhancing teacher learning with technology: The role of curriculum design in a situated training model. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
19.
MeierE., & HortonD. (2005, April 10–15). The role of content knowledge in the integration of technology. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
20.
MeierE.JenningsS.SwanK., & RubenfeldL. (2001, April). Professional development strategy for integrating technology: The role of the university facilitator. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
21.
MeierE.SwanK.JenningsS., & RubenfeldL. (2003, April). Building professional knowledge through technology integration. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
22.
PutnamR., & BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
23.
RielM., & BeckerH. (2000). The beliefs, practices, and computer use of teacher leaders. Retrieved June 9, 2000 from University of California, Irvine, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations Web site: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/aera/
24.
SanchezN., & NicholsP. (2003, February). Teachers, technology, and policy: What have we learned? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Holmes Partnership, Washington, D.C.
25.
SandholtzJ., & ReillyB. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 3, 487–512.
26.
SandholtzJ.RingstaffC., & DwyerD. (1997). Teaching with technology. New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
ShulmanL. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
28.
SwanK.HolmesA.VargasJ.JenningsS.MeierE., & RubenfeldL. (2002). Situated professional development and technology integration: The Capital Area Technology and Inquiry in Education (CATIE) mentoring program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 169–190.
29.
WangY.-M. (2002). When technology meets beliefs: Preservice teachers' perception of the teacher's role in the classroom with computers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(1), 150–161.
30.
WeinerL. (2000). Research in the 90s: Implications for urban teacher preparation. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 369–406.
31.
WigginsG., & McTigheJ. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
