Computer-mediated communication and science teacher training: two constructivist examples.

The education of science teachers necessarily involves instruction around the use of computer technologies. Acadia University, a laptop institution, offers a unique setting where students are immersed in the critique of pedagogical applications of computers. The current trend to employ constructivist approaches in teaching provides a backdrop for this article, which offers a discussion of two interactive communication strategies namely asynchronous electronic discussion and negotiative concept mapping. The impacts of these approaches have been addressed with students through surveys and qualitative interviews.

**********

Education and Computers: What's Missing

As the trend continues to place computers in the hands of every student in North American schools, there is an accompanying assumption (Moll. 1997) that this will necessarily enhance science education (Thomas, 2001). Bigum (1998) has suggested that "blind faith in technological progress has not served schools well" (p. 22). Science teachers have sometimes been characterized as being "unabatedly enthusiastic about the possibilities for learning with computers" (Roth, Woszczyna, & Smith, 1996, p. 995). This technoromantic (Benyon & Mackay, 1989) or technicist (Bryson & deCastell, 1998) perspective has recently been met with a call to assume a middle ground of so-called technorealism where the rhetoric and reality of technology is brought into focus (Walker & White, 2002).

While there is a continued insistence that computer technology would have a greater impact on schools if teachers were just taught how to employ them in classrooms, among others, Bennet (2002) posits that this simply is not the case. "Lack of teacher training however, is a myth. In 2000 the U.S. Department of Education issued a study in which half of all teachers reported that college and graduate work had prepared them to use technology" (p. 622).

So what is the answer? Perhaps there is training but what of the quality and nature of that training. Of the eight keys to successful technology integration recommended by Bitner and Bitner (2002). "training in the basics" is number two. Unfortunately I suspect many teacher training institutes stop at just that, leaving students with a bag of tools but few experiences of integration. But what is meant by integration? Postman (1993) suggested that: "What we need to consider about the computer has nothing to do with its efficiency as a teaching tool. We need to know in what ways it is altering our conception of learning" (p. 19). Van den Akker, Keursten and Plomp (1992) concurred with this when they say teachers need "to revise their beliefs regarding how students learn." It would appear that the best way to accomplish this may be by immersing teachers in "teaching models" where they are forced to conceptualise how the technology and their teaching objectives get married (Bitner & Bitner, 2002). Computer-led classrooms that promote the teacher as a facilitator of curriculum and problem solver have certainly been suggested (Bennett, 2002) and investigated (MacKinnon, 2001). What do we know of the nature of learning that may help to inform the overlap of pedagogy and technology?

Constructivism 

Herrington and Standen (2000) made a case that teaching with technology must move from what Reeves (1993) referred to as "instructivist" approaches, where the learner is a "passive recipient of instruction" (p. 4) to constructivist learning environments, where knowledge building is a learner--centered process. While there is plethora of writings on constructivism (Brooks & Brooks, 1993) and its relationship to technology (Greening, 1998; Merrill, 1991; Perkins, 1991; Brown, 1992; Salomon & Almog, 1998), Chou (2001), based on the work of Bonk and Cunningham (1998). has very aptly distinguished the more popular definitions of constructivism.

    Constructivism theorists who draw from Piaget put more emphasis on
    individual constructions of knowledge as a result of interaction
    with the physical environments. Constructivist theorists who are
    influenced by Vygotsky posit that knowledge is constructed through
    the appropriation of culturally relevant activities. In other words,
    knowledge is co-constructed with peers or experts and through the
    immersion in a social context. (p. 175)

The models introduced later in the article demonstrate how we can capitalize on both modes of constructivist learning.

In a recent qualitative study, McRobbie and Thomas (2000) clearly identified the difference between simply using the computer in a classroom and by contrast, promoting higher-order thinking through a constructivist application of computer technologies. Furthermore, Tao and Gunstone (1999) have extended the early work of Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog (1982) on conceptual change in science to offer a model for "constructivist-oriented" collaborative learning using the computer. The idea of conceptual change and how to afford it through constructivist exercises appears to be central to Postman's challenge to reconsider the way we learn with computers. Says Thomas (2001): "It seems reasonable to suggest that adopting and promoting pedagogy reflecting either constructivist or conceptual change perspectives can be valuable in using computers to advance students' learning" (p. 35). This ideological framework was considered while designing the following classroom activities for teacher trainees.

Two Models to Demonstrate the Process of Computer-Assisted Knowledge Building

The setting. Acadia University has been a laptop institution since 1996 (Hemming & MacKinnon, 1998). A two-year after-degree Bachelor of Education allows teacher interns to be certified for public school teaching. Interns enjoy a fully-wired campus and attend "connected" classrooms with a leased IBM R31 laptop computer. Because all students have the same computer with identical software and network templates, it is possible to engage action research (Sagor, 1992; Stringer, 1996) in an exciting teaching environment.

A commonly cited definition of action research is that of Rapoport (1970): "Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework" (p. 499). This type of research is often conducted in real classrooms in collaboration with teachers seeking to solve authentic instructional problems. The "action" implies that the new-found understanding is then applied to the setting and consequently represents added knowledge to the body of research (Cross & Steadman, 1996; Sagor, 1992). Action research is broad in its application and is by no means exclusive to educational settings. Stringer's (1996) spiralling model of "look, think, and act" communicates the iterative nature of this research mode well. Action research continually cycles through a process of application and analysis that involves both researcher and participants.

Students benefit greatly from being immersed in the technology "risk-taking" teaching-learning environment. The ensuing descriptions need not be discounted based on lack of generalizability to other less technology-rich settings but instead, should serve as unique studies that allow us to consider the tension between "what technology can do" and "what technology should do" for teaching and learning.

Computer mediated communication. Quality distance education is predicated in part, on the effectiveness of asynchronous electronic discussion. This intrinsic importance has led to a considerable research volume around computer-mediated communication (CMC) (Keuhn, 1994; Harrington & Hathaway, 1994; Harrington & Quinn-Leering, 1994; Bonk & King, 1998; Wagner, 1998; MacKinnon & Aylward, 2000). Fewer studies (Chou, 2001) have concentrated on synchronous interactions. This article will address examples of both asynchronous CMC and synchronous CMC, drawing on several examples from teacher intern training.

Gender issues in secondary science education (study one). Students in a secondary science education class were assigned to groups in a "jigsaw" activity (Aronson, 1978). Each expert group was supplied with seminal articles on gender issues in science education. The activity differed from traditional jigsaw groupings in the following way. In the expert groups, a student was chosen to be the electronic secretary. As the group members discussed the articles supplied to them, the synopsis of their findings was recorded by the secretary as a Word document. The notes from each expert group were then sent to the class as an e-mail attachment via a distribution list on the campus network. When the students returned to their home groups they simply opened their e-mail and, using their expert group notes, made a presentation to the balance of their home group. The foundational issues raised in this exchange were critical to the next step of this study on gender.

The same students were assigned to electronic discussion groups (EDG) such that there were six groups of five students each. Each EDG was given an online article to read. These included classroom scenarios, feminist perspectives, and narratives on classroom experiences. Members of EDG's were expected to respond asynchronously to these articles. The culminating task was for each student to write a response paper to the online article.

Electronic jigsaws and asynchronous electronic discussion: Research findings. Sixty students from secondary science (45 female, 15 male) completed an online survey regarding the effectiveness of this classroom strategy. The results were tabulated and trends noted. In an effort to better understand these quantitative indicators the survey was followed up with standardised open-ended interviews (Patton, 1990) of five students chosen at random (3 females, 2 males). The interviews, approximately 45 minutes in duration, were audio-taped and transcribed. These qualitative materials were coded for emergent themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Finally a member check was undertaken through the assembly of a focus group including the same five students. The interviews transcripts were corroborated and a discussion led around the implications of the triangulated data.

In the survey, students were asked to categorise their attitude towards the general use of EDG's and the electronic jigsaw in teacher education. They were further requested to respond to the overall impact of these technologies in the gender assignment. As a matter of completeness, and to gauge overall attitude, students were finally prompted to consider the utility of studying gender issues in general. All question responses were based on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 where 1 represented a very negative response and 5 a very positive response.

Students found the unit on gender issues to be a worthwhile experience (mean = 4.29). In interviews, students expressed a concern that many females were not choosing science and technology careers, and that they as teachers wished to "gain perspectives that would better empower them to promote science careers for this under-represented group." This was a reassuring finding in that a positive predisposition to the topic may deter any possible "negative attitude cross over" to the use of technology.

The general attitude towards EDG's was scored by the survey between neutral and positive (mean = 3.7). The survey also asked students to identify the pitfalls associated with previous EDG's experiences. In combination with the interviews it became quite clear what the issues were around EDG use. Nearly 50% of the sample (n = 60) suggested that "token participation" was a problem. Students recounted experiences in other courses such as: "our profs set up the forum but they rarely take part in the discussion," "we get a grade for adding comments to the electronic discussion. but you can say just about anything and get a participation grade," "some people take it seriously, others don't care because it is not worth anything," and "what is the point, we discuss an issue but we never apply the ideas to anything productive." Although there were many other issues addressed in the remaining 50% of students, the second most frequently identified issue was that of time. In interviews, students seem to appreciate instructor's different rationales for using EDG's in asynchronous manner: "the discussions are good for setting up an in-class face-to-face discussion next day" and "the discussions serve to extend our time-limited coverage of the topic in class." Yet they felt the investment of time after regular class hours was often excessive particularly when the EDG was either not formally counted for grades or had no culminating purpose.

The electronic jigsaw component received a survey mean score of 4.25. The focus group was particularly reflective around this technology. These students concurred on the following benefits of this classroom strategy: (a) efficient synopsis of reading materials in the expert group using bulleted items in a word processing file, (b) facile exchange of summaries on a large number of topics using network e-mail distribution, (c) use of the shared notes as a comfortable template from which to present the issues to the home group, and (d) a useful set of expert group summaries for each student in the home group so they might electronically-build comprehensive notes on the gender topic as they listen to presentations within their home groups.

When asked to judge the overall impact of this learning model, students generated a mean survey value of 4.2, in other words somewhere between positive and very positive. Coding of the interview transcripts identified the main themes that constituted this numerical response. Students unanimously agreed that an assignment constraint that proved to enhance the discussion was that, students were required to take at least five direct quotes from the electronic discussion as a component of developing their essay. Paraphrasing several students, "knowing this constraint in advance not only provided incentive for us to participate early but we were much more thoughtful about what we were contributing." When pressed to further elaborate one student noted. "Overall I felt the contributions were more substantive because we had a vested interest in promoting quality discussion: we knew we might later reap the benefits in formulating our essay, wow we were right, it made it a lot easier!"

A variation of this approach was used in a Middle School Education course (MacKinnon & Bellefontaine, 2000) at the same institution. In this example, groups of three students were given the additional responsibility of coordinating and promoting their own electronic discussion. In this instance students were assigned a case study around a middle school issue. Again students were encouraged to lead a substantive electronic discussion in that their final case study report required direct quotations from the case study electronic discussion. This was a valuable experience for a teacher intern in that they had the opportunity to formulate good questions around their case study while participating and leading an EDG. Yet an even more integrated exercise has been researched (Alyward & MacKinnon, 1999) which employs the teacher interns as evaluators of the quality of discussion using a coding system to promote critical thinking.

Negotiative concept mapping in elementary science education (study two). Teachers have effectively used webs (Nabors, Edwards, & Bartel, 1994) as graphic organizers in the process of determining student's prior knowledge. Semantic networking (Fisher, 1990; Jonassen, 1996; Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson; 1999) resembles webbing except that all the links between ideas are labelled with a relational phrase. The concept map, as defined by Novak and Gowin (1984) has emerged as a most powerful graphic organizer. In the strictest definition, the concept map extends the semantic networking labelling and has the additional feature of representing concepts in a hierarchal distribution that is, more general concepts at the top of the map and flowing to more specific concepts near the bottom.

Though a variety of webs and maps have been around for some time, it is only in the last decade that software has been developed specifically to create these graphic organisers. Some examples include: SemNet[R], Learning Tool[R], TextVision[R], CMap[R] and most recently Inspiration[R].

Concept mapping as a mindtool approach. With these pieces of software it becomes very easy to map out ideas. Whereas hand-drawing maps in the past could be relatively time-consuming, these facile software approaches open the door to extend the learning through software-enabled constructivist exercises. Computer--generated graphic organisers represent a class of applications that Jonassen (1996) might have referred to as "mindtools." "A mindtool is a way of using a computer application program to engage learners in constructive, higher-order, critical thinking about the subjects they are studying" (Jonassen, p. iv).

A concept mapping program for instance may be used in three distinctly different teacher--student exercises: (a) the teacher may have students construct a concept map at the onset of a unit in an effort to access prior knowledge, (b) a teacher may engage students in preparing a pre and post concept map for a unit of study and (c) a teacher may work with the students in an ongoing exercise that gradually builds the map as the unit content emerges.

Frequently this instructor has posed teacher interns with the task of preparing a hand-drawn concept map for curriculum units they are likely to encounter in their public school teaching. At Acadia University in the fall of 2001, Inspiration and ICU became available as part of the network software accessible to all students and professors. As previously alluded to. Inspiration is a most popular mapping tool (www.inspiration.com) while ICU is a "home-grown" networking tool. ICU allows the instructor to link with any obliging student on the network and see (and control) their screen. ICU is not an acronym but rather a reference to "I see you" in that the instructor sees the students screen. With a classroom digital projector and laptop docking station, this has allowed for an interesting mindtool learning system. (Reeves, 1993) (Figure 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In three independent science education classes of approximately 30 students, the instructor led the following exercise. After a short tutorial on Inspiration in the second class meeting, students were asked to construct a concept map of the content analysed thus far. On a weekly basis, students would work in groups to update and modify their concept maps. Because the instructor could access their screens at any time, and in turn project their screen for the entire class to observe, it became a unique opportunity to unpack their thinking around the hierarchy of concepts and corresponding relational links. In essence as a class we were able to "negotiate the concept map" in real time.

The impact of negotiative concept mapping: Research findings. Out of a sample of 90 students (62 female, 28 male), 10 students were chosen at random (7 females, 3 males) and each interviewed for one-hour using a standardised open--ended format (Patton, 1990). These interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. The transcriptions were coded for emergent themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and students later met as a focus group to confirm the transcription details and discuss the research findings. The focus group met for approximately 1.5 hours and this too was audiotaped and transcribed for later reference. The interviews and ensuing focus group session led to several categories of satisfaction with the model.

Students found the negotiative concept mapping (NCM) to be a great means of reviewing the work from past meetings. Students suggested that the interactive nature of constructing the NCM in real time allowed them to better understand the nuances and complexities of relationships between concepts. In several instances students alluded to defending their choice of conceptual hierarchy and how it helped them to build confidence in the content. Unanimous reference was made to the quality of discussion that NCM promoted in class. At the close of the course students were asked to submit an essay that summarised their growth in the course. Students were astounded at the practical utility of having constructed a concept map of the entire course and found this to be invaluable in assimilating their learning in the course. They repeatedly made reference to the ability to see how all aspects of the course were linked from beginning to end and the inherent "sense-making" that this imparted.

All indications are that this "mindtool" approach using Inspiration and ICU shows great promise for classroom instruction. The facile communication allows the professor and teacher intern to interact in a constructive setting in a way that was never before possible.

Conclusions

Many educators strive to incorporate technology into their teaching, spurred on by a whole host of political and public pressures as well as an assumption that technology "can" enhance instruction. While we can continue to "add" technology to what we do in classrooms, there is certainly a growing sense that we must completely reconsider how learning happens and what role technology may have. The notion of integrating computer technologies in substantive constructivist exercises that promote critical thinking, appears to be the best approach to date in terms of ensuring conceptual change will occur.

This article has introduced two tested models. In the first model, e-mail technology, is used as an effective knowledge sharing communication tool through an electronic jigsaw. Further, electronic discussion is embedded in a constructive exercise that encourages students to capitalise on capturable asynchronous discussion. Coupled with the assessment expectations, the strategy in its entirety promotes both personal and social construction of meaning.

The second technology integration model is built around a powerful graphic organiser tool namely Inspiration[R]. The outlined strategy however takes a traditionally independent learning task and through the use of ICU technology transforms the exercise into a rich constructivist activity involving synchronous discussion. In a mindtool approach students socially negotiate meaning with their peers based on their classroom experiences as expressed in an electronic concept map. This ongoing activity appears to promote critical thinking and genuine conceptual change.

Implications for Further Work

Facile communication both inside and outside of the classroom, is arguably the single most important role for computer technologies in education. The aforementioned projects give a glimpse of what it means to construct knowledge using empowering communication technologies. Triangulated action research which identifies the impacts of technology-enhanced teaching/learning models, is important. This research in real classrooms has the potential to help instructors better understanding not just what is possible with technology but rather, which approaches are pedagogically-sound, and which approaches do not take an inordinate amount of time away from meeting course objectives. As university settings become better equipped with computer technologies, these questions should impact the instructor's practice. In the context of these studies the instructor is compelled by contract to employ technology in teaching. Action research can identify for faculty, instructional strategies that yield tangible results.

As referred to earlier, the action research model has instructors sampling student response and modifying approaches in a cyclic and iterative fashion in an effort to improve instruction. From these studies the following questions and concerns arose.

With respect to the jigsaw activity, the e-mail network in itself is not an amazing tool but it becomes the efficient solution to sharing ideas in this model. There are many instances when the spoken work or class notes are sufficient for communicating concepts but this technology expedites the process thereby leaving the instructor and student time for analysis of the ideas. With the sheer quantity of curriculum to be taught, instructors must look for similar opportunities to make efficient use of their class time with students.

It appears apparent that students see the potential of electronic discussion only when it is embedded in a "product-oriented" exercise. The wide variation in the quality of traditional electronic discussion can be improved upon if students have a vested interest in participating in substantive ways. The challenge is to incorporate electronic discussion in constructive ways to promote more global outcomes than mere discussion for the sake of interaction. In this instance teacher interns gain the added benefit of leading/promoting a "productive" discussion. This technology does not replace classroom discussion but by its unique nature gives us a hard copy account of idea sharing. Instructors should consider where this type of data might be useful in their curriculum for "building up" concepts in a student-centered approach.

Concept mapping is a very powerful tool for negotiating understanding both (a) within one's own schema and (b) through social construction of knowledge. Negotiative concept mapping is very interactive and it promotes true construction of knowledge with instructor as mentor. However, the logistics of assigning class time for negotiating each and every idea, and the relationship between ideas, is daunting. The instructor must be convinced that the time spent unpacking student thought is worthwhile. Technology in teacher education takes time and not all faculty are convinced of its worth; they need to see creative models for accessing learning experiences that were never before possible. In negotiative concept mapping the technology allows us to share concept maps very easily but the instructor must be prepared to entertain many perspectives on conceptual relationships. How does the teacher resolve differences in opinion; how to discount weak student understandings? These are questions that have always been a part of good teaching practise. The technology does not make these questions disappear but brings them to the forefront more quickly. Technology can afford opportunities for more analysis and less lecture, but faculty must be prepared to engage students with this purchased time.

Electronic mail, electronic discussion, networking, digital projection, and electronic concept mapping are all tools that have been available for some time. It is only in our creative use of the ordinary that we can effect innovation in teaching with technology.

References

Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Aylward, L., & MacKinnon, G.R. (1999). Exploring the use of electronic discussion group coding with pre-service secondary teachers. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 8(3), 335-348.

Bennett, F. (2002). The future of computer technology in K-12 education Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 621-625.

Benyon, J., & Mackay, H. (1989). Information technology in education: Towards a critical perspective. Journal of Educational Policy, 4(3), 245-257.

Bigum, C. (1998). Boundaries, barriers and borders: Teaching science in a wired world. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44(1), 13-23.

Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100.

Bonk, C.J., & Cunningham, D.J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered constructivist and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.). Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bonk, C.J., & King, K.S. (Eds.), (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner--centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theorectical and methodological challnges in creating complexinteractions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2, 141-178.

Bryson, M., & deCastell, S. (1998). Telling tales out of school: Modernist, critical and postmodern "true stories" about educational computing. In H. Bromley & M. Apple (Eds.), Education /technology/power. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Chou, C.C. (2001). Formative evaluation of synchronous CMC systems for a learner-centered online course. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(2), 173-192.

Cross, P., & Steadman, M. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fisher, K. (1990). Semantic network: The new kid on the block. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1001-1018.

Greening, T. (1998). Building the constructivist toolbox: An exploration of cognitive technologies. Educational Technology, 38(2), 23-35.

Harrington, H.L. & Hathaway, R.S. (1994). Computer conferencing, critical reflection, and teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(5), 543-554.

Harrington, H.L., & Quinn-Leering, K. (1994). Computer conferencing, moral discussion, and teacher development. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 661-665.

Hemming, H., & MacKinnon, G. (1998). The Acadia advantage: Notebook-computers and teacher education. In J. Price, D. Willis, N. Davis, & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (pp. 911-915.) Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Herrington, J., & Standen, P. (2000). Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning envirionment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(3), 195-205.

Jonassen, D. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Columbus, Ohio: Prentice-Hall.

Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology Columbus, Ohio: Prentice-Hall.

Kuehn, S.A. (1994). Computer-mediated communication. Instructional Settings: A Research Agenda Communication Education, 43, 171-183.

MacKinnon, G.R. (2001). A promising model for incorporating the computer in science learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(4), 395-404.

MacKinnon, G.R., & Alyward, L. (2000). Coding electronic discussion groups. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. 6(1), 53-61.

MacKinnon, G.R., & Bellefontaine, J. (2000). CD-ROM technology and instruction delivery: A teacher education approach. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 14(4), 17-23.

McRobbie, C.J., & Thomas, G.P. (2000). Epistemological and contextual issues in the use of microcomputer-based laboratories in a Year 11 chemistry classroom. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(2), 137-160.

Merrill, M.D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(5), 45-53.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Moll, M. (1997). Information technology in the classroom. Education Canada, 37(1), 6-9.

Nabors, M.L., Edwards, L.C., & Bartel, V. (1994). Webbing with spiders. Science and Children, 31(8), 33-35.

Novak, J.D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, 31(5), 18-23.

Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 221-227.

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.

Rapoport, R.N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations. 23(4), 499-513.

Reeves, T.C. (1993). Interactive learning systems as mindtools. In P. Newhouse (Ed.), Viewpoints 2 (pp. 2-11). Perth, Australia: Educational Computing Association of Western Australia.

Roth, W.M., Woszczyna, C., & Smith, G. (1996). Affordances and constraints of computers in science education. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 33(9), 995-1017.

Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 222-241.

Stringer, E.T. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tao, P.K., & Gunstone, R.F. (1999). Conceptual change in science learning through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39-57.

Thomas, G.P. (2001). Toward effective computer use in high school science education: Where to from here? Education and Information Technologies, 6(1), 29-41.

Van den Akker, J.J., Keursten, P., & Plomp, T. (1992). The integration of computer use in education. International Journal of Educational Research, 17, 65-75.

Walker, T., & White, C. (2002). Technorealism: The rhetoric and reality of technology in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 63-74.

Wagner, E. D. (1998). Interaction strategies for online training designs Proceedings of Distance Learning 98: 14th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, (pp. 417-421). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin System.

GREGORY R. MACKINNON

Acadia University

Nova Scotia, Canada

[e-mail]