Changes in Educational Beliefs 2005[1]

7/29/2019 Changes in Educational Beliefs 2005[1]

1/28


2/28

Tamar Levin & Rivka Wadmany

282

interrelated, and relying on the important role that students play inrestructuring technology-based classroom learning processes, the studyexamines whether, how and why the use of information-rich tasks can alterboth teachers and students educational views on teaching, learning and theuse of technology. The three-year study focuses not only on explicit statements obtained from teachers and students, but also observes theiractual practices in the classroom.

For several decades, information and communication technologies

(ICT) have had a tremendous impact on all aspects of our society andculture, causing people to pay attention to different things, have contact with different people, and depend on one another differently (Sproull &Kiesler, 1991). ICT also allows people to reinvent how they create, find,exchange and think about information (Pierson, 2001). Computers offeraccess to great storehouses of information, and enable processing andcommunication over great distances, almost instantaneously.

Since schools must respond to the innovative demands brought bytechnology, it is not surprising that in the past two decades, the integrationof learning and communication technologies into schools and schooling hasbeen well supported by educators and has accelerated significantly.Underlying this support is the belief that successful incorporation of computer technology empowers both teachers and students to produce

enhanced learning outcomes (Department of Education, 1998; Leach &Moon, 2000). Information technology has also been hailed as the catalyst forrestructuring and re-culturing the classroom and the emergence of anenvironment able to promote constructivist-based learning, encourage thedevelopment of higher-order inquiry skills, and produce mindful, self-regulated teachers and students (Dexter et al, 1999; Loveless & Ellis, 2001).

Nevertheless, the technological changes sweeping society have left theeducational system largely unchanged (Newhouse, 1998; Mann, 2000).According to research, ICT is not widely integrated into the educationalsystem. Where it has been integrated, there is still no clear evidence that ICT has affected teaching approaches or enhanced desired learning modes(Alexander, 1999). Moreover, teachers only superficially accept technologyinto their work, even when technology is available in schools for students to

use (Olson, 2000; Cuban et al, 2001; Leach & Moon, 2002). Teachers tend tocopy their own experiences of teaching from when they were in school, i.e.to use linear, authoritative, teacher-centered methods, which disregardcomputers, and resist the many and varied efforts to shift the dominant paradigm from teacher-centered teaching toward a more student-centeredclassroom (Cuban, 1993; Semple, 2000). Thus, without skilled pedagogicalapplication by teachers, educational technology in and of itself cannot makeschool practice innovative, and will not produce educational change (Cox et al, 2004).


3/28


4/28


284

Theoretical Background

The Role of Teacher Beliefs in Educational Change

The information technology revolution in schools never took place asexpected, despite the fact that the number of computers in schools hasdramatically increased over the past 20 years (Fifoot, 2000; Mann, 2000;Cuban, 2001). Teachers educational beliefs are considered a major cause of this disappointment, since these beliefs have a strong impact on teaching

and learning (Lovat & Smith, 1995; Handal et al, 2001).Indeed, for almost two decades, research has documented the influenceof teacher beliefs on teacher instructional practice (Clark & Peterson, 1986;Fang, 1996), demonstrating that personal belief systems have a powerfuleffect on what teachers learn from educational reform schemes andprofessional development programs, as well as on the teachers curriculardecision making and teaching practices. The studies demonstrate that teachers tend to adopt new classroom practices based on whether theassumptions underlying the new practices are consistent with their personalepistemological beliefs (Yocum, 1996). Therefore, since teachers knowledgeand beliefs about teaching and learning form an intuitive screen throughwhich they interpret professional development and teaching reforms(Buchanan et al, 1998), these beliefs can either further or impede change

(Prawat, 1990). If teacher beliefs do not match the goals and assumptions of educational innovation, resistance is likely (Burkhardt et al, 1990). Incontrast, if teachers beliefs are compatible with educational reform, it ishighly likely that the new ideas will be accepted and adopted in theclassroom.

Specifically in the context of technology use in the classroom, Gobbo& Girardi (2001) and Maor & Taylor (1995) found that teachers use of newtechnology varies according to their epistemological orientation. In addition,of the various facets of teacher beliefs, beliefs regarding the nature of technology and its role in teaching and learning can form a major barrier toincorporating technology into the classroom (Ertmer & Hruskocy, 1999).Indeed, Ertmer et al (1999) found that teacher perceptions of the role of technology are closely linked to how technology is used. For example: it is

argued that a view of technology as something unstable and alwayschanging (Slough & Chamblee, 2000) presents a major barrier to its use inthe classroom. Therefore, in this study, when exploring teachers educationalbeliefs, we also examine their views on the role of information technologyand their use of it in the classroom.


5/28

BELIEFS AND PRACTICES IN RICH TECHNOLOGY-BASED CLASSROOMS

285

Teacher Educational Beliefs and the Use of Information Technology

Research into the relationships between teachers educational beliefs andthe use of technology in the classroom can be divided into two groups. Inthe first group of studies, researchers examine teachers use of educationaltechnology in the classroom and link this to the characteristics or profile of the teachers educational beliefs. These studies focus on how teachersbeliefs shape their implementation of school reform initiatives and show that the way teachers use technology is consistent with their personal views oncurriculum and instructional practices (Cuban, 1986; Cohen, 1987). Thus,the teachers who hold a traditional teaching philosophy and believe theirrole is to transmit an extremely rigid curriculum through highly controlledpedagogy are the teachers who avoid computers. In contrast, teachers whobelieve in constructivist learning principles tend to use computers morefrequently (Becker & Ravitz, 2001). In Fulton & Torney-Purtas (2000)study, the teachers all stated that they used technology to support theirteaching in ways that they thought appropriate, yet none felt that usingtechnology had changed their educational beliefs.

The second set of studies explores how the use of educationaltechnology affects teachers educational beliefs. Here, the results show that when implementing technology-based educational reforms, some teachersfind that technology encourages greater student centeredness, greateropenness to toward multiple perspectives on problems, and greaterwillingness to experiment in their teaching (Knapp & Glenn, 1996). One of the findings of the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow project similarly notesthat technology has shifted classrooms toward student-centered teachingrather than curriculum-centered teaching, collaborative tasks rather thanindividual tasks, and active rather than passive learning (Sandholtz et al,1997). The classroom shift away from an emphasis on textbooks andteachers to the integration of technology and teachers in the role of facilitators is not merely one of adopting new tools, but in fact atransformation in pedagogy and epistemology (Bruenjes, 2002). Burton(2003) also shows that even professional development experiences involvingtechnology will facilitate a change in teacher beliefs regarding teaching andlearning towards a more student-centered focus, reflecting the teachersbelief that her or his role has changed from a more traditional role to that of facilitator and partner in inquiry.

Despite the large quantity of research that studied the relationshipsbetween teachers beliefs and their instructional practices, relatively fewstudies have examined these effects in the context of a longitudinal researchin which a technology-enhanced learning environment is being implemented.Furthermore, although it is generally agreed that teachers educationalbeliefs tend to shape the nature of their instructional practices (Pajares,


6/28


286

1992; Richardson, 1996), there are studies suggesting that the challenges of classroom teaching often constrain the teachers ability to offer instructioncongruent with their beliefs (Davis et al, 1993). It seems therefore that thereis still much to learn about the relationships between teaching beliefs andtheir actual instructional practices in the classroom. In particular, it is worthexploring whether the relationship between teachers beliefs and practices isa one-way relationship or a dynamic two-way relationship in which beliefsare also in turn influenced by practical experience (Thompson, 1992). The

present study addresses these issues within the context of a technology-enhanced learning environment and the framework of a longitudinal study.

Student Perceptions of Learning in a Technology-based Environment

Parrs study (1999) showed that student perceptions of learning contextsthat incorporate learning technologies influence technology integration andshape how learning technologies are used. More specifically, student viewswere found to affect the amount of technology used, how the technologywas used, and teacher and student expectations regarding learning. Cope &Ward (2002) support these results, but suggest that student perceptions arein fact influenced by teacher perceptions and by the use of the learning

technologies by the teachers. An earlier study by Cotterall (1995)demonstrated that student beliefs affect their use of educational technology.Other evidence suggests that computer-supported learning environments caneven help to change student attitudes and pedagogical beliefs (Gregoire et al, 1996; Chan & Elliott, 2000; Elen & Clarebout, 2001). These results implythat success in integrating technology into teaching requires anunderstanding of the complex interactions that take place in the classroombetween teachers, students and technology (Honey et al, 2000; McCormick& Scrimshaw, 2001).

Indeed, studies have shown that the meaning students assign toclassroom processes is a crucial factor in determining student satisfactionand learning (Cothran & Ennis, 1997, 1998). However, they also show that student perceptions can differ from those of their teachers. Cullingford

(1991) and Farrell et al (1988) demonstrate discrepancies in teacherstudent perceptions of the same teachinglearning experiences. Other studies showthat student approaches to learning are congruent or at least related to theirteachers approaches to teaching (Trigwell et al, 1999).

While few studies explore the educational views of the elementaryschool student or relate them to teachers views, of the existing studies,fewer still have addressed these issues in technology-based classrooms. Tofurther understand the role of the student in incorporating educationaltechnology in the classroom, and particularly the students views on


7/28


287

educational technology, this study tried to examine the relationship betweenstudent and teacher perceptions with respect to learning information-richtasks in a technology-supported environment.

Method

This study was conducted in one school in a city in central Israel and wasinitiated by university researchers in collaboration with the local

municipality education department and the Ministry of Education. Thisarticle documents the three-year longitudinal study (1997-2000), conductedas a case study, and based mainly on the principles of qualitativemethodology (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Since the aim was to study processesoccurring in teacher and student beliefs, as well as processes relating toclassroom practice when teachers and students are exposed to a technology-based learning environment, we chose to combine an exploratory case studywith a collective case study (Yin, 1992). This allowed us to relate to each of the teachers as a separate case study, and at the same time, to relate to themall, holistically, as a group. Six teachers and 164 of their students in grades4 to 6 participated in the study.

Questionnaires and Data Analysis

Various different research tools were used to gain a rich and comprehensivedescription of the processes experienced by each of the teachers. Theresearch tools were developed specifically for the study and were open-ended. The tools comprised the following: personal, partially structured,interviews with teachers; open questionnaires for teachers and students; andclassroom observations. The questionnaires and interviews were mainly usedto study explicit educational beliefs and knowledge, while the classroomobservations and weekly meetings with teaching staff were used to studyteachers practices in the teaching and learning situations and provideindirect or implicit measures of the teachers beliefs.

The student questionnaire contained 13 open-ended questions, andaddressed student perceptions and attitudes regarding their learning

experiences in the technology-based environment, their experiences in theirregular learning environment, and the changes following their experiences.Two, five-point Likert-scale questions were also included to examine student attitudes and satisfaction with the new learning environment.

The questionnaires for exploring the teachers beliefs were open-endedand contained eight questions relating to the meaning of the following sixconcepts: teaching, learning, student and teacher role, curriculum, andtechnology. These questionnaires were administered in each year of theproject. The teachers were also asked to write two metaphors on the


8/28


288

concepts of teaching and learning. Additionally, the interviews following theresearch observations of the teachers in their classrooms or in their in-service training sessions probed their opinions regarding the changes intheir professional environment and themselves, and their perceptions of theconcepts of teaching and learning.

The study employs the phenomenographic (Marton, 1986) approach todata analysis, whereby expressions used by subjects are grouped accordingto similarities, differences and complementaries. Teacher and student

responses to the open questions were constantly analyzed forcommonalities, cumulatively across the life of the study. Thus, the data wereconstantly reorganized and reinterpreted according to the categoriesemerging from the raw data provided by the study. These categories werecompared and refined to reveal important sources of similarity anddifferences, until finally, several qualitative dimensions were obtained,reflecting different levels or modes of change in the teachers and students.In some cases, we used paradigms of learning, or Soters (1995)restructuring model and the expanded model of Levin & Nevo (1998), as aframe of reference for interpreting and classifying data. Thus, in some cases,the category interpretation was also theory based. There was 90% agreement between the three evaluators concerning the interpretation of the data andthe categories obtained and after discussing the minor differences,

consensus was established.

Categories of Change

The data analysis of the teachers educational beliefs pointed to changes intheir perceptions of the following six concepts: the meaning of learning, themeaning of teaching, the role of the student in the learning situation, therole of the teacher, curriculum planning and implementation strategies, andthe role of technology in classroom learning.

In order to determine the changes in teacher beliefs, we analyzed eachteachers definition of the concepts at the beginning, middle and end of thestudy, interpreting their conceptions in light of existing learning andteaching theories. The direction of change is indicated by the transition from

beliefs reflecting behaviorist-positivist views to more contemporary viewsreflecting constructivist principles (social and individual). The numbers inparentheses indicate the weight assigned to a category after quantification of results. This enabled comparison of the changes in the various dimensionsand teachers. Three levels of beliefs change emerged: (a) partial or nochange (1), (b) significant change (2), and (c) radical change (3).

Three qualitative levels of knowledge restructuring processes were alsoformed on the basis of Soters (1995) and Levin & Nevos (1998)classification: (a) Superficial (1), (b) Significant (2), and (c) Radical (3). Each


9/28


289

level is characterized by four variables: 1. degree of reflection, 2. tolerancefor ambiguous situations, 3. tolerance for dissonance, and 4. modes of interaction with others. Dissonance was defined as the gap between new andexisting educational views, goals and practices; and interactions with others,including the school principal or other authorities, fellow teachers, andstudents. Here too the numbers in parentheses show the degree of change.

Classroom practices were evaluated according to the followingdimensions, which reflect qualities of the lessons: 1. lesson structure and

lesson planning flexibility, 2. type and range of learning activities, and 3.nature and diversity of teacher behaviors (practices). Three patterns of change in instructional approach were found:

a. partial (minor) change (1). In this pattern of change, only minor changeswere found in teacher-centered classroom practices. These mostlyconcerned the use of learning activities involving greater student involvement, though this was mostly technical greater use of databasesand more printing of data;

b. significant change (2): still characterized by an authoritative climate, withthe teacher having the key role of preplanning the lessons. Here,however, the teacher encourages students to play an active part in thelearning discourse, arranges more frequent groupwork and classroomdiscussion, and accepts more varied and creative solutions from students;

c. remarkable change (3): this is characterized by great flexibility inclassroom practices, curriculum planning and implementation. Studentsare involved in curriculum planning and we can define the class asstudent centered. Learning is interactive and authentic.

The categories derived from the student responses relating to their view of learning in a technology-rich environment were: (a) learning as a socialprocess, (b) learning as an explorative-thoughtful process, and (c) learning asa lifelong process. The categories relating to perceptions of the role of technology in classroom learning were: (a) technology as a technicalinstrument, (b) technology as an instrument that supports learning, and(c) technology as an intellectual partner.

Research DesignBefore the action research started, the school was prepared to support theneeds of a technology-based teaching and learning environment, and theinstruments needed for the implementation phase were developed andtested. The preparation phase lasted about six months during which

1. technological equipment including computers, multimedia, and a varietyof software were placed in classrooms, to constitute the communicationnetwork named Akavish (Hebrew: spider);


10/28


290

2. professional development strategies, contents and workshops weretentatively planned, and also a plan for mentoring the teachersclassroom practices;

3. learning activities to be used with both students and teachers,demonstrations, and research tools were developed and tested onsamples of teachers;

4. advisory teams or mentors, both educational technology experts andsubject specialists, were trained to assist teachers with their classroom

work.The advisory teams included school personnel as well as experts from theuniversity and from Svivot (a software development company). A selectedgroup of students was also trained to function as computer assistants intheir own classrooms.

In the school year that followed, teachers started to implement somenew ideas concerning student learning, following a brief workshop beforethe school year began. They were also given ongoing assistance on request,and attended weekly, in-school workshops as a group. The workshopsaddressed two different kinds of activities: (1) those initiated by the teachersbased on their experiences with their own students in the classroom, and(2) activities planned by the project leaders, dealing with the basic conceptsand structure of information-rich tasks, different uses of informationtechnology, introduction to general software capabilities, and examples of problem-based learning situations simulating learning by the teachers as alearning group. That is, the workshops contained activities, planned prior tothe study, but also incorporated activities exploring teachers queries,interests, dilemmas and specific needs relating to classroom experiencespertinent to the study.

The studys approach to teacher professional development is alignedwith Putnam & Borkos (1997) situative perspective approach toprofessional development, emphasizing four essential features of effectiveteacher learning:

1. teachers are treated as active learners who construct their ownunderstanding

2. teachers are treated as professionals;3. teacher learning is in classroom practice;4. teachers are treated as they were expected to treat their students,

emphasizing social-constructivist principles of learning.

More specifically, the teachers were involved in the following learningexperiences:

1. Designing learning activities definable as information-rich tasks.2. Implementing inquiry-based learning processes using information

technology.


11/28


291

3. Learning new concepts, procedures, and skills for operating computersand for presenting information-rich, interdisciplinary tasks.

4. Experiencing learning in cooperative teams to encourage cooperativelearning in the classroom; analysis of these learning processes.

5. Planning and evaluating interdisciplinary learning activities for studentsinside and outside the school.

6. Discussing and reflecting on classroom experiences while focusing ondifficulties and problems, solutions and accomplishments.

After presenting the project aims and details to the school staff andexplaining the anticipated impact on the school, the school principal selectedsix teachers for the project: initially four were chosen from the fourth andfifth grades, and two more teachers were added in the second year. Thus, sixteachers and 164 of their students participated in the study: four of theteachers were studied for three years, and two teachers for two years.

Teachers attended the weekly workshops for two consecutive years andreceived personal tutoring whenever they required. Teachers involved in thestudy for three years received personal tutoring upon request in the thirdyear and also met on their own to discuss issues mostly regarding theirclassroom experiences with their colleagues, yet no group-based professionaldevelopment workshops conducted by professionals outside the school wereavailable.

While the students chosen as technology assistants did not attend theteachers workshops, they received their own training in workshops outsidethe school, led by a computer expert who was responsible for thetechnological implementation of the study. These workshops prepared thestudents for their classroom role, which was to operate the computers andbe responsible for technology maintenance; to assist both teachers andstudents with technical problems; and to assist students in their learningprojects.

During each year of the project, a number of observations were madeof each of the teachers classes. The total observations of the six teacherswere 73 (Zipi 13; Zipora 12; Gila 9; Anat 10; Pnina 14; Hadasa 15), for thewhole study. A further 43 observations were also carried out during theworkshops to observe the teachers learning processes. The openquestionnaires were administered to the teachers at the beginning of eachyear, and the personal interviews were conducted at the end of each year.The students open questionnaires were used in the final year of the study(after three years of participation for 54 students, two years for 49 students,and one year for 61 students).


12/28


292

Results

The findings indicate that during the three-year period of teaching andlearning in a technology-based environment, changes occurred in theeducational beliefs and educational practices of teachers undergoingdifferent kinds of knowledge restructuring processes.

Educational Beliefs

The changes in the teachers educational beliefs are evident from thechanges in their views regarding basic educational concepts. These changesmay be divided into three main groups, each involving a different kind of aconceptual change.

1. Teachers who experienced a superficial change or no change at all heldmainly positivist and behaviourist-based pedagogical views. In metaphoricalterms, they see learning as a sucking process, a tool or a sponge; teaching isa funnel through which the teacher pours substance and knowledge into thestudents mind; technology is a mechanical aid for either assisting withcalculations or printing texts. These teachers plan their lessons aroundproblems relating to a single, clear, easily found, unequivocal answer. Theybelieve it is their job to explain and show students how to do theirschoolwork.

Pnina is an example of such a teacher. While at the beginning of herexperience with the new learning environment, she subscribed to a teacher-centered approach to teaching, after one year she began expressing beliefsindicating an appreciation of the unique needs of each student. She alsochanged her attitude toward technology from viewing it as a toolsupporting traditional teaching, to a communicative tool and learningpartner. However, Pninas views regarding the meaning of teaching,learning, and curriculum, indicated no significant change, and by the end of the project, she still saw teaching as synonymous with knowledge delivery,and learning as the absorption of knowledge, though not necessarilylinearly. She also saw the curriculum as an organizational structure of contents to be used by teachers, and thought that teachers could influenceminor issues regarding its implementation.

2. Significant change teachers experienced a profound transformation,moving from a positivist ideology to a relativistic one, with respect to all theconcepts examined.

The change in Ziporas view illustrates this category. Zipora changedher view of learning from knowledge accumulation to seeing it as knowledgechange as a result of students needs and active engagement in real-lifesituations and cooperative groups. She also changed her view of teaching


13/28


293

from knowledge telling to viewing teaching as a support system, guidingstudent thinking and facilitating their self-efficacy. Zipora also changed herview of the value of interdisciplinary learning tasks. She developed a deeperappreciation of her students, viewing them as partners in planninginstruction. At the end of the study Zipora sees technology as a partner forempowering student and teacher capabilities. However, her view of thecurriculum is extremely traditional-positivist: she believes that only academicexperts should devise the curriculum and that the teacher lacks the

authority to make any curricular decision, thus reflecting a view of curriculum as a system of control.

3. Radical change teachers experienced a most significant change in movingfrom positivistic to constructivist educational ideologies. These teachersconceive learning as an infinite process of renewal undertakencollaboratively with students through understanding and experimentation.They consider technology a partner in the teaching and learning process.They also believe in the powerful capabilities of their students to exploit open-ended, creative learning opportunities, and diversified modes of learning in an attempt to discover and construct concepts and theories, byand for themselves, and to offer teachers curricular suggestions, and help inplanning classroom activities.

Hadasa is an example of this kind of teacher. When Hadasa enteredthe project, she had an authoritative view of teaching, which she saw asknowledge transmission. By the end of the project, she had arrived at aconstructivist view of teaching as a collaborative process of restructuringknowledge for both teachers and students, and a view of learning as anactive, meaning making, and an authentic process concerning real-life issues.At the start of the project, Hadasa seemed aware of the importance of herstudents knowledge and curiosity. However, over the years, she became agreat believer in her students self-regulatory capabilities, their sense of responsibility and ability to be partners in instructional planning. She alsochanged her view of technology and began to see it not as a functional tool,but as a partner in the processes of learning and teaching.

Knowledge Restructuring Teachers displayed three patterns of knowledge restructuring. The first pattern entailed a superficial process and comprised a low level of reflectivebehavior, low tolerance for ambiguous situations and high tolerance fordissonance. Meaningful interaction mainly occurred with formal authorities,e.g. principal or researcher. The second pattern of knowledge restructuringpoints to a significant , though not radical, process, and is characterized by arelatively high level of reflective behavior accompanied by low tolerance for


14/28


294

ambiguous situations and low tolerance for dissonance, or by high tolerancefor ambiguous situations and high tolerance for dissonance. The teachervalued interactions with other teachers (peers) and students. The third, most desirable, pattern of knowledge restructuring was a radical process with ahigh level of reflective behavior, high tolerance for ambiguous situations andlow tolerance for dissonance. Teachers developed their knowledge andpractices through interaction with students and colleagues.

The following illustrates the pattern of variables in a superficial

knowledge restructuring process (Zipi):o Low level of reflection: I am aware of the change process and think

about it during the workshops.o Low tolerance for ambiguous situations: It is hard to have to learn new

material and teach it at the same time.o High tolerance for dissonance: The new approach offers no fixed, clearly

defined curriculum. I expected a clear curriculum. ... Needing to plan it myself is hard.

o Interaction with others, both authorities and colleagues: The schoolInspector comes to explain the rationale for a new teaching approach.

Hadasa is an example of a radical change teacher:

o High level of reflection: I cant stop thinking about the new teachingprocesses ... . This thinking improves our understanding of what happensin the classroom.

o High tolerance towards ambiguous situations: I am open to changebecause I believe in change.

o Low tolerance for dissonance: I am scared of new things, but I believethis is the direction teaching must take. I keep confronting my fears andgo along with the change.

o Interactions with others, mainly colleagues and students: It is important for me to meet my colleagues ... they visit my class because I needfeedback. The students are my partners ... I learn from my students.

Classroom Practice

Three patterns of change in teacher classroom practice were found:1. Partial or no change: significant emphasis on centralized, rigid

management of each lesson; the teacher inflexibly follows a preplannedroute and goals; emphasis on specific contents rather than skills ormental processes; uses low-level questions to elicit a specific response;the computer is seen as a technical tool.

2. Significant change: the teacher has a central role in the classroom (pre-planned lessons, well-defined, unified learning activities), but alsoencourages students to take an active role in the classroom discourse,


15/28


295

mainly in class discussions; allows students greater freedom to choosetheir mode of learning and classroom engagement. The teacher wastotally dependent on the computer-expert students to guide their peers inusing the computers. However, they also encouraged the students to usethe computer software as a supplementary learning tool.

3. Remarkable change: high level of flexibility in classroom practice,curriculum planning and curriculum implementation; teacher acts as alearning facilitator rather than an instructor; learning is mainly

collaborative, and learning activities are authentic, creative, and varied;the learning environment extends beyond the classroom walls; studentsbecome involved in curriculum planning and have enough freedom todevelop self-regulated learning capabilities, which are stronglyencouraged by the teacher; both teacher and students use the computerin a variety of ways as a communicative, research and learning partner.

Teachersname

Educational beliefsand index of change

Knowledgerestructuring andindex of change

Classroom practicesand index of change

Zipi Partial 1 Superficial 1 Partial 1Zipora Significant 2 Radical 3 Remarkable 3

Gila Significant 2 Radical 3 Remarkable 3

Anat Partial 1 Significant 2 Significant 2

Penina Partial 1 Significant 2 Remarkable 3

Hadasa Verysignificant

3 Radical 3 Remarkable 3

Mean 1.7 2.3 2.5SD 0.87 0.74 0.76

Table I. Pattern of change for each teacher and index of change by dimensions.

Table I summarizes the patterns of change for each teacher from thebeginning of the study to the end, showing the changes generated by thethree years experience in a technology-rich environment and intensive

professional development experiences for the teachers. The resultsdemonstrate that almost all the teachers showed different patterns of change. Based on the numbers indicating the degree of change of eachcategory, where (1) indicates little or no change, (2) partial change and (3) aradical change, the results show that it is harder to change teachers beliefsthan their classroom practices or knowledge restructuring processes.

From the results, two patterns of change showed a high level of consistency for all the categories. The two patterns were optimal change(Hadasa) and minimal change (Zipi). The results also demonstrate a gap


16/28


296

between the teachers conceptual change and the changes in their classroompractice. Penina is a particularly good example of a teacher whose beliefshardly changed and whose level of knowledge restructuring was superficial,but who demonstrated significant changes in her classroom practices. Sheintroduced complex learning activities inside and outside school,demonstrated openness to a more flexible and not always plannedcurriculum, and a willingness to involve colleagues in her instructionalprocesses. Similarly, with the pattern of change in Anats case: her

classroom practice appeared to change more significantly than hereducational views.

Teachers and Students

A positive relationship was found in the change patterns for teachers andstudents attitudes and perceptions.

The students of teachers whose educational beliefs and classroompractices saw radical change were found to engage actively in the learningprocess and viewed learning as reflecting authentic or life-based experiences.They described meaningful learning as a process of dealing with anddebating complex, context-related issues, where the phenomena should beexamined from multiple perspectives and as a process where it is necessary

to cope with higher mental process problems. They also expressed great appreciation for the role of technology in learning. Students from the classesof Hadasa, Zipora and Gila (whose changes were defined radical, significant and remarkable), expressed the following views of the role of informationtechnology in their classroom: We invent and create all the time; We aredealing with real, life-based problems.

On the other hand, the students in Zipis class, whose changes werecharacterized as partial and superficial, saw change in their classexperiences as technical in nature; simply as the acquisition of new tools andskills: Information-rich tasks deal with tables and diagrams, thats important for us to know.

Interestingly, we also found mismatches between the teachers patternof change, particularly their view of technology, and their students view of

instructional technology. One such example was Zipora, who saw technologyas an intellectual partner capable of empowering student capabilities. Incontrast, some 70% of her students referred to technology as a technicalinstrument and only 25% saw it as an instrument that supported learning.An opposite pattern was found in Gilas class, where Gila, unlike herstudents, saw technology as a guide to learning, but not as a learning andteaching partner. About 37% of Gilas students thought technology was atechnical instrument, about 42% saw it as a learning partner, and only about 21% saw it as a learning guide.


17/28


297

Discussion and Implications

Unlike many studies that examined the outcomes of educational change, thisstudy explores the processes of both changing teachers learning andteaching ideologies and their educational practice. The study addressed thequality and uniqueness of the changes in each teacher, using a longitudinalanalysis of an innovative approach to learning and teaching that focused oninformation-rich tasks in a technology-rich environment.

The study shows that three years in a technology-rich learningenvironment produces relatively substantive change in teachers educationalbeliefs, knowledge and classroom practice. The most likely explanationinvolves a variation on the Trojan Horse theory (Becker, 1998); namely,that it is not just the technology, but the overall learning environment, withits emphasis on non-structured tasks, rich sets of technology-basedinformation resources, and the exposure of teachers to new visions, that infact change the teachers practice, knowledge and belief structure.

The study supports Tillemas (1995) and Fullans (1991) views that teachers beliefs can be changed, even though educational beliefs are oftenconsidered permanent and difficult to alter despite the teachers schoolingand experience (Pajares, 1992). It also confirms that belief systems can bedynamic, changing and restructurable when individuals become open andinterested in evaluating their beliefs against a new set of experiences(Thompson, 1992).

The present study also concurs with findings by Soter (1995) andLevin & Nevo (1998), demonstrating that changes occur in teacherknowledge restructuring processes following exposure to constructivist teaching approaches. These change processes, however, require a lengthyamount of time which is measured in years three to five years according toDwyer et al (1991) and requires meaningful professional support. Theprocesses of change are highly personal (vary from teacher to teacher),dynamic, and do not necessarily develop in a linear mode.

Furthermore, although a belief system is built on interconnectionsbetween specific beliefs, there are indications in this study that some beliefsare easier to change than others. It seems that in a technology-richenvironment where students are constantly challenged by open-ended richinformation tasks and resources, and where they assume the role of tutorsto their peers and teachers in operating and communicating with computers,it is easier for teachers to change their views of students and the studentsrole in the learning process, and to perceive students as capable, self-regulated learners whose voice in the teaching process should be heard andwhose mastery of the computer appreciated. In contrast, it is harder toencourage teachers to see learning as knowledge transformation instead of knowledge accumulation, and to see the curriculum as a dynamic, flexible,creative process where information and knowledge are contextualized and


18/28


298

prompted by unique qualities and needs, rather than an authoritative,discipline-based, well-defined knowledge structure which they must deliver.These results concur with Rokeach (1968), who argued that beliefs differ inintensity and power and vary along a centralperipheral dimension. Themore central this dimension is, the greater is its resistance to change.

The present study is significant and relevant for several reasons. First,it offers an important contribution to the exploration of teachers changewhen integrating information-rich tasks into a school curriculum in the

context of a rich, technology-based environment. Its theoretical importancelies in the findings indicating that real change can occur in classroompractices even when the teacher cannot yet consciously conceptualize newlyestablished educational beliefs. This supports Guskey (2002) and Fullan(1993), who suggest that a change in beliefs will follow, although it does not precede, a change in teacher practice.

These findings may support the theory that changing educationalbeliefs is a gradual process and that during transition, multiple conceptionscan coexist (Gunstone, 1994). Thus, when in transition, teachers facegenuine complexities arising from their new technology-based environment.In order to cope, they take decisions and actions that affect their practicalknowledge and then only later become salient stimuli in changingeducational beliefs. This supports Beckers (1998) Trojan Horse theory,

which implies that computers encourage and may require changes inpractice that subsequently do in fact change the pedagogical beliefs of teachers. It also supports Argyris & Schns theories of action (1974),whereby human beings learn from their actions, and use what they learn toplan and carry out future actions which all ultimately affect their beliefs(Kane et al, 2002).

The findings suggesting that a change in practice might form aprecursor to a change in beliefs, contributes significantly to the theory of teacher thinking and teacher change and how these relate to teacherpractice, since it points to a reciprocal rather than unidirectional linkbetween teacher classroom practices, change in teachers educational beliefsand between teachers knowledge restructuring processes. Therefore, thepresent study does not support the claim that significant changes in

teaching must be preceded by changes in teachers beliefs. Instead, thisarticle shows that changes in teaching can take place without concomitant change in expressed teacher beliefs. Teachers knowledge and beliefs indeedinfluence and underpin their classroom practices, but at the same time,classroom experience also influences the way their educational beliefs andknowledge are shaped.

Second, the study demonstrates that educational change involving theuse of information technology is a multidimensional, individual processunique to each teacher. It underscores the fact that teachers respond


19/28


299

differently to a similar set of educationally innovative ideas relating toinformation technology in a technology-rich classroom. These results fit inwith findings in other studies demonstrating the diversified experiences of teachers and the difficulty which exists in meaningfully changing beliefs inteaching, learning processes and classroom skills, even when teachers firmlybelieved that change was necessary and positively sought to change theirprofessional work (Clandinin & Connelly, 1996). The present results alsodemonstrate that the constructivist approach to learning, according to which

learning is a complex, interactive, changing, active and situated process that allows learners to individually construct their knowledge in a unique andmeaningful way while confronting challenges and dilemmas, fears andexcitement, is not only applicable to students but to teachers as well (Levin,1999).

The studys third contribution is that it amplifies the students voice inclassroom research in general and in the information technology classroom,in particular. It backs the findings of Cope & Ward (2002), showing that teachers beliefs and their actual classroom practices influence theirstudents views regarding the meaning of learning and the use of technologyin the classroom. These results support and expand on the findings of Tynjala (1997) and Roschelle et al (2000) and suggest that changes in thelearning environment, as evidenced by the teachers practices, beliefs and

knowledge, actually influence student beliefs concerning their conceptionsof learning as well as their attitudes towards learning in a technology-basedenvironment.

The study also points to a mixed relationship between the changes inteacher educational views and those of the students: in some cases bothteacher and student changes are consistent or congruent, e.g. when ateacher demonstrates a constructivist approach to learning, the studentstend to express a similar view of learning. For example: findings byHennessy et al (2005) show that in the context of technology-based learning,the students and their teachers were united in their desire to protect coreelements of conventional classroom practices and were worried that certainways of using technology could curtail their thinking processes. In othercases, however, there is a mismatch between the teacher and student views.

For example, a teacher might exhibit a constructivist ideology, while herstudents express mixed views. Thus, the study shows that the congruent relationship between views held by teachers and their students does not apply to all dimensions of the change process. While congruency may exist between students and teachers with regard to their views on teaching andlearning, there may not be agreement on the use of technology in theclassroom.

This study supports the findings of Fulton & Torney-Purta (2000), whosuggest that the use of technology in the classroom offers a natural


20/28


300

framework for increasing student responsibility, and affects not only student roles, but also teachers mindsets and trust in student knowledge andcapabilities. This was evidenced by the present study findings, which showedthat out of all the dimensions of teachers beliefs explored, what changedmost for all six teachers was their view of students, students roles and thestudents classroom behaviors, even for teachers whose relatively traditionalconceptions of teaching and learning remained intact.

Fourth, the study sheds some light on different student views

regarding the role of information technology. Particularly, it shows that students not only see educational technology as a learning tool, i.e. it helpsthem to learn, or as a finite, authoritative informational base which helpswith a given task, but also as a medium through which they must negotiatemeaning through interaction, interpretation, and collaboration. These resultssupport the theories, which consider technology a medium for learning.These range from learning from technology (Maddux et al, 1997), throughlearning about technology (Jonassen, 1995) to the view of learning withtechnology (Boethel & Dimock, 1999).

Finally, the study, although limited to exploring six teachers and theirstudents for three years, shows that the use of information technology canindeed change how teachers and students function, live and feel in theirclassrooms. It allows us to see that not just computer technology, but a

complex web of interrelated factors and expectations, a didactic andpedagogical task structure, and an organizational and educational mindset,are needed to support the successful implementation and impact of computer technology in the classroom. The study thus shows that Cuban(2001) is only partially right, and supports Salomons (1992) view that aneffective technology-based learning environment is a new environment inwhich computer-afforded activities are fully integrated into other activities,affecting them and affected by them in turn.

The implications of the study in terms of teacher professional growth and learning in the context of school change are that for professionalguidance to be effective in restructuring teachers knowledge andeducational perspectives, it must explore the thoughts, feelings and actualpractice of both teachers and students in a variety of ways and using

different means, at different times, during the implementation. This data willprovide teachers, educators and researchers with a snapshot of teacher andstudent insights and knowledge. This will help to explain their actions orexpectations and can assist in developing effective interventions.

In particular, the study demonstrates that we cannot and should not rely simply on an examination of teachers explicit statements regardingtheir beliefs, knowledge or practices. In a period of transition, as teachersface new educational ideologies and aims, they may not in fact be aware of their own newly formed beliefs. Alternatively, they may nurture multiple


21/28


301

conceptions, due to feelings of insecurity about relinquishing long-heldbeliefs even if these beliefs are irrelevant in an era when informationtechnology assumes its place as a well-respected member of the educationalcommunity.

Furthermore, while most professional development programs aimed at technology integration in schools are instructionist, this study demonstratesthat an effective approach to teachers professional growth should be basedon teachers learning in the context of their regular classroom practice. It

also demonstrates that although it is important to focus on the individualteachers professional development as suggested by the traditional cognitiveapproach to teachers learning, it is also equally important to focus on theinteractions between the different participants in the new educationalexperience, which includes interaction with educational experts, expert students, learning resources (materials) and representational systems(Greeno, 1997), thus reflecting the situative perspectives as well.

Indeed the study supports Putnam & Borkos (2000) views on teacherprofessional development in general, and particularly professionaldevelopment in the context of technology integration. The study shows theapplication of the three conceptual themes defined as central to situativeperspectives, namely:

o that cognition is situated in particular physical and social contexts;o that it is social in nature;o that knowing is distributed across the individual, others, and tools.

The study thus supports the sociocentric view (Soltis, 1981) of knowledgeand learning and argues that our understanding of knowledge, and how wethink and express our ideas, are the products of our interactions withgroups of people over time. Through the project, the teachers and studentsin our study came to form a discourse community that differed from thefamiliar community they were used to, and their experiences, while mainly inthe classroom, also took place outside the classroom and the school.

Thus, we can view the learning and change processes that the teachersand their students experienced as much a matter of enculturation into acommunitys ways of thinking and dispositions as the result of their explicit

practice with rich technology tasks in a rich technology-based classroom.

Correspondence

Tamar Levin, School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv,Tel Aviv 69978, Israel ([email protected]).


22/28


302

Note

[1] A short version of this article, presented at the Society for InformationTechnology and Teacher Education 2004 conference in Atlanta, received aBest Paper Award.

ReferencesAlexander, S. (1999) An Evaluation of Innovative Projects Involving Communication

and Information Technology in Higher Education, Higher Education Researchand Development , 18, pp. 173-184.

Argyris, C. & Schn, D. (1974) Theory in Practice: increasing professional effectiveness . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Becker, H.J. (1998) The Influence of Computer and Internet Use on TeachersPedagogical Practices and Perceptions, paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, April.

Becker, H.J. & Ravitz, J.L. (2001) Computer Use by Teachers: are Cubanspredictions correct? paper presented at the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Seattle.

Boethel, M. & Dimock, V. (1999) Constructing Knowledge with Technology: areview of the literature . Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Bruenjes, L.S. (2002) A Multi-case Study Investigating the Disposition of FacultyUse of Technology as a Teaching and Learning Tool in the Higher EducationClassroom, doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

Buchanan, T., Burts, D.C., Bidner, J., White, V.F. & Charlesworth, R. (1998)Predictors of the Developmental Appropriateness of the Beliefs and Practices of First, Second, and Third Grade Teachers, Early Childhood Research Quarterly ,13(3), pp. 459-483.

Burkhardt, H., Fraser, R. & Ridgeway, J. (1990) The Dynamics of CurriculumChange, in I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds) Development in School Mathematics

Education Around the World , vol. 2, pp. 3-29. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Burton, D.B. (2003) Technology Professional Development: a case study, Academic Exchange Quarterly , 7(2), pp. 2378-2381.

Chan, K.W. & Elliott, R.G. (2000) Exploratory Study of Epistemological Beliefs of Hong Kong Teacher Education Students: resolving conceptual and empiricalissues, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education , 28, pp. 225-234.

Clandinin, D.J. & Connelly, F.M. (1996) Teachers Professional KnowledgeLandscapes: teacher stories stories of teachers, school stories stories of schools, Educational Researcher , 25(3), pp. 24-30.

Clark, C.M. & Peterson, P.L. (1986) Teachers Thought Processes, in M.C. Wittrock(Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching , 3rd edn, pp. 255-296. New York:Macmillan.

Cohen, M. (1987) Improving School Effectiveness: lessons from research, inV. Koehier (Ed.) Handbook Research on Teaching . New York: Longman.


23/28


303

Cope, C. & Ward, P. (2002) Integrating Technology into Classrooms: the importanceof teachers perceptions, Educational Technology & Society , 5(1), pp. 436-452.

Cothran, D.J. & Ennis, C.D. (1997) Students and Teachers Perceptions of Conflict and Power, Teaching and Teacher Education , 13, pp. 541-553.

Cothran, D.J. & Ennis, C.D. (1998) Curricula of Mutual Worth: comparisons of students and teachers curricular goals, Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education , 17, pp. 307-327.Cotterall, S. (1995) Readiness for Autonomy: investigating learner beliefs, System ,

23, pp. 195-205.Cox, M., Abbott, C., Webb, M., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T. & Rhodes, V. (2004) A

Review of the Research Literature Relating to ICT and Attainment . London:Department for Education and Skills.

Cuban, L. (1986) Teachers and Machines: the classroom use of technology since1920 . New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (1993) How Teachers Taught: constancy and change in Americanclassrooms 1880-1990. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Cuban, L. (2001) Oversold and Underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H. & Peck, C. (2001) High Access and Low Use of Technology in High School Classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox,

American Educational Research Journal , 38(4), pp. 813-834.Cullingford, C. (1991) The Inner World of the School: childrens ideas about

schools . London: Cassell.Davis, M.M., Konopak, B.C. & Readence, J.E. (1993) An Investigation of Two

Chapter 1 Teachers Beliefs about Reading and Instructional Practices, Reading Research and Instruction , 33, pp. 105-133.

Deaney, R., Ruthven, K. & Hennessy, S. (2003) Pupil Perspectives on theContribution of Information and Communication Technology to Teaching andLearning in the Secondary School, Research Papers in Education , 18,pp. 141-165.

Department of Education (1998) Learning Technologies: teacher capabilities guide . Melbourne: Community Information Service.

Dexter, L., Anderson, R.E. & Becker, H.J. (1999) Teachers Views of Computers asCatalysts for Changes in their Teaching Practice, Journal of Research onComputing in Education , 31, pp. 221-252.

Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C. & Sandholtz, J.H. (1991) Changes in Teachers Beliefs andPractices in Technology-rich Classrooms, Educational Technology , 48(8),pp. 45-52.

Elen, J. & Clarebout, G. (2001) An Invasion in the Classroom: influence of an il l-structured innovation on instructional and epistemological beliefs, Learning

Environments Research , 4, pp. 87-105.Ertmer, P.A. & Hruskocy, C. (1999) Impacts of University/Elementary School

Partnership Designed to Support Technology Integration, Educational Technology Research and Development , 47, pp. 81-96.


24/28


304

Ertmer, P.A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E. & Woods, D. (1999) ExaminingTeachers Beliefs about the Role of Technology in the Elementary Classroom,

Journal of Research on Computing in Education , 32, pp. 54-72. Fang, Z. (1996) A Review of Research on Teacher Beliefs and Practices, Educational

Research , 38, pp. 47-65.Farrell, E., Peguero, G., Lindsey, R. & White, R. (1988) Giving Voice to High School

Students: pressure and boredom, ya know what I m sayin? American Educational Research Journal , 25, pp. 489-502.

Fifoot, B. (2000) The New Task of the Computer-able Teacher, Journal of the QLDSociety for Information Technology in Education , 75, pp. 18-19.

Fullan, M.G. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change , 2nd edn. New York:Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M.G. (1993) Change Forces: probing the depths of educational reform .Bristol: Falmer Press.

Fulton, K. & Torney-Purta, J. (2000) How Teachers Beliefs about Teaching andLearning are Reflected in their Use of Technology: case studies from urbanmiddle schools, paper presented at the International Conference on Learningwith Technology, Temple University, Philadelphia.

Gobbo, C. & Girardi, M. (2001) Teachers Beliefs and the Integration of Informationand Communications Technology in Italian Schools, Journal of InformationTechnology for Teacher Education , 10(1&2), pp. 63-85.

Golombek, P.R. (1998) A Study of Language Teachers Personal PracticalKnowledge, TESOL Quarterly , 32(3), pp. 447-464.

Greeno, J.G. (1997) On Claims that Answer the Wrong Questions, Educational Researcher , 26, pp. 5-17.

Gregoire, R., Bracewell, R. & Laferriere, T. (1996) The Contribution of NewTechnologies to Learning and Teaching in Elementary and Secondary Schools documentary review. Laval University and McGill University.

Gunstone, R.F. (1994) The Importance of Specific Science Content in theEnhancement of Metacognition, in P.J. Fensham, R.F. Gunstone, R.T. White(Eds) The Content of Science: a constructivist approach to its teaching and learning . London: Falmer Press.

Guskey, T.R. (2002) Professional Development and Teacher Change, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice , 8(3/4), pp. 381-391.

Handal, B., Bobis, J. & Grimison, L. (2001) Teachers Mathematical Beliefs andPractices in Teaching and Learning Thematically, in J. Bobis, B. Perry &

M. Mitchelmore (Eds) Numeracy and Beyond. Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc , pp. 265-272. Sydney: MERGA.

Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K. & Brindley, S. (2005) Teacher Perspectives on IntegratingICT into Subject Teaching: commitment, constraints, caution and change,

Journal of Curriculum Studies , 37, pp. 155-192.Honey, M., Culp, K.M. & Carrigg, F. (2000) Perspectives on Technology and

Education Research: lessons from the past and present, Educational Computing Research , 23, pp. 5-14.


25/28


305

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, the83rd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, NewOrleans, 1-5 April.

Jonassen, D. (1995) Supporting Communities of Learners with Technology: a visionfor integrating technology with learning in schools, Educational Technology ,35(4), pp. 60-63.

Kane, R., Sandretto, S. & Heath, C. (2002) Telling Half the Story: a critical review of

research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics, Reviewof Educational Research , 72, pp. 177-228.Knapp, L.R. & Glenn, A.D. (1996) Restructuring Schools with Technology . Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.Leach, J. & Moon, J. (2000) Pedagogy, Information and Communications, The

Curriculum Journal , 11, pp. 385-404.Leach, J. & Moon, B. (2002) Globalisation, Digital Societies and School Reform:

realising the potential of new technologies to enhance the knowledge,understanding and dignity of teachers, 2nd European Conference onInformation Technologies in Education and Citizenship: a critical insight,Barcelona.

Levin, T. (1999) The Non Linear Curriculum, in S. Sharan, H. Shachar & T. Levin,The Innovative School, Organization and Instruction . Westport: Greenwood.

Levin, T. & Nevo, Y. (1998) Knowledge Restructuring and Teacher Change in theContext of Transdisciplinary Curriculum, in the International Yearbook onTeacher Education , Proceedings of the 44th World Assembly of theInternational Council of Education for Teaching (ICET), Arlington, VA.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (2000) Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions andEmerging Confluences, in N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research , 2nd edn, pp. 163-188. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Lovat, T.J. & Smith, D. (1995) Curriculum: action on reflection revisited. Sydney:Social Science Press.

Loveless, A. & Ellis, V. (Eds) (2001) ICT, Pedagogy and the Curriculum: subject tochange. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Maddux, C.D., LaMont Johnson, L. & Willis, J.W. (1997) Educational Computing:learning with tomorrows technologies , 2nd edn. Needham Heights: Allyn &Bacon.

Mann, B. (2000) Internet Provision of Enrichment Opportunities to School andHome, Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Computing , 15,pp. 17-21.

Maor, D. & Taylor, P.C. (1995) Teacher Epistemology and Scientific Inquiry inComputerized Classroom Environments, Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching , 32, pp. 839-854.

Marton, F. (1986) Phenomenography a research approach to investigatingdifferent understandings of reality, Journal of Thought , 21(3), pp. 28-49.


26/28


27/28


307

International Conference, San Diego, 1-3 March , pp. 1021-1026. San Diego:Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Soltis, J.F. (1981) Education and the Concept of Knowledge, in J.F. Soltis (Ed.) Philosophy and Education , pp. 95-113. Chicago: National Society for the Studyof Education.

Soter, A.O. (1995) Teacher Learning over Time: accommodations,reconceptualizations and radical transformations, in R. Hoz & M. Silberstein(Eds) Partnerships of Schools and Institutions of Higher Education inTeacher Development , pp. 303-322. Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the

Negev Press.Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1991) Connections: new ways of working in the

networked organization . Cambridge: MIT Press.Thompson, A. (1992) Teachers Beliefs and Conceptions: a synthesis of the research,

in D. Grouws (Ed.) Handbook of Research in Mathematics Teaching and Learning , pp. 127-146. New York: Macmillan.

Tillema, H.H. (1995) Changing the Professional Knowledge and Beliefs of Teachers:a training study, Learning and Instruction , 5, pp. 291-318.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Waterhouse, F. (1999) Relations Between TeachersApproaches to Teaching and Students Approaches to Learning, Higher

Education , 37, pp. 57-70.Tynjala, P. (1997) Developing Education Students Conceptions of the Learning

Process in Different Learning Environments, Learning and Instruction , 7,pp. 277-292.

Yin, R.K. (1992) The Case Study Method as a Tool for Doing Evaluation, Current Sociology , 40, pp. 119-137.

Yocum, K. (1996) Teacher-centered Staff Development for Integrating Technologyinto Classrooms, Technology Horizons in Education , 24(4), pp. 88-91.


28/28


308

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ablythe
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Changes in Educational Beliefs 2005[1]

Documents