The use of computers in technological studies: significant learning or superficial activity?

     The intent of this study was to investigate the impact of
     introducing computerized means, mainly simulation and the Internet,
     on teaching and learning electronics in Israeli high schools.
     Computers in electronics studies are, at the same time, part of the
     subject matter learned and a means for teaching and learning. Data
     were collected through interviews carried out with pupils and
     teachers and by examining pupils' laboratory experiments and
     projects. Computerized means only slightly influence
     teacher-controlled activities, such as class presentations and
     discussions. Teachers and pupils still prefer conventional lessons
     as the major framework for learning theoretical concepts. The use
     of technological means for tasks that are only partially controlled
     by the pupils, such as standard laboratory experiments, can
     enrich methods of information gathering, analysis and presentation,
     but do not change the nature of pupil learning by working on these
     tasks. The question is how to avoid turning 'playing' with
     computerized means into a pseudo symbol of serious learning and a
     cover-up for superficial activities. Using computers and
     communication technologies in learner-controlled tasks, mainly
     projects, is likely to increase motivation, promote deeper
     learning, encourage cooperation and knowledge exchange between
     pupils, and foster a joint development of ideas.

**********

The rapid spread of computer and communication technologies in education has awakened expectations that novel technologies would enable the realization of a range of pedagogical ideas, such as shifting the focus of education from the teacher and teaching towards the learner and learning, and encouraging more significant and meaningful learning as a substitute for the 'old' educational methods that emphasized memorization, drill and practice (Salomon, Perkins & Globerson, 1991). However, there has been an increasing awareness that the mere presence of novel technologies in the classroom does not guarantee deeper cognitive processes. In addition, the application of teaching-learning methods that foster the development of higher cognitive skills is not solely dependent on the use of educational technologies (Salomon, 1992). The distinction between the terms 'educational technology' and 'technology education' is not always clear (Dugger & Naik, 1991). Educational technology refers to the use of technological means, mainly computers, for teaching and learning. Technology education is the field of education that deals with the study of technological concepts and process, and the implications of technology on the individual and society. Among the common subjects learned in technology education in different countries are design and problem solving processes, communication technologies and control systems (Dugger, 2001). Computers play a central role in modern technological systems, for example, in signal analysis and real-time control. In technology education computers are, at the same time, part of the subject matter learned, and a means for teaching and learning. Engineers regularly use simulation packages and the Internet for analysis and design. For pupils, these professional tools can be very useful for interactive learning, modeling and testing of electronic circuits. How have simulation tools and the Internet been incorporated into the teaching and learning of electronics? To what extent do computer tools contribute to fostering significant learning and developing pupils' intellectual competencies? The present study examined these questions by observing the study of electronics in a group of Israeli high schools during one year.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Over the past few decades, science and technology education has been significantly influenced by constructivist learning theories emphasizing that learning is a process of knowledge construction, not of passive acquisition of facts and roles (Von Glasersfeld, 1989; Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1997). Learners actively construct their knowledge on the basis of their prior knowledge and experience. The idea of situated learning (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989) means that meaningful learning is closely related to the situation or the context in which it takes place. Learning occurs when pupils address subjects meaningful for them in a real-world setting. The importance of active experience with objects as a means of developing thinking was stressed by Dewey (1963). Constructionism is a theory that expands on the concept of constructivism by placing critical emphasis on the construction of knowledge through designing and building artifacts and systems that are personally meaningful and that can be shared with others (Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Papert, 1990). In technology, this can be, for instance, a mini robot, a model of a computerized house or a sophisticated alarm system. Vygotsky's (1978) socio-cultural approach suggested that social and cultural interactions are critical to cognitive functions. A constructivist learning environment engages learners in knowledge construction through collaborative activities that embed learning in a meaningful context and through reflection on what has been learned from conversation with other learners.

Technology education provides a natural platform for establishing a constructivist learning environment. First, technology is closely related to the day-to-day life context, such as artifacts and systems people meet and use in the home, school or workplace. Moreover, technology is concerned with fulfilling people's aspirations, imaginations and creative initiatives (Dasgupta, 1996). Second, learning through 'doing' is a central notion in technology, which encompasses activities such as experimentation, design, construction or trouble-shooting. According to Solomon (2000), technology studies that comprise practical work seem to offer some measure of creativity. Quite unlike science lessons, all pupils complete their technology studies with their own individual artifacts. Variety and creativity are the essence of this sort of learning. Third, collaboration and teamwork are likely to develop when a group of people work together on the design and construction of sophisticated technological systems (Barak & Maymon, 1998). Teamwork consists, for example, of the exchange of ideas, negotiation, coordination and mutual support. Realistic problems allow pupils to take ownership of their solutions, develop deeper and richer knowledge structures, acquire more systematic problem-solving methods, and be more likely to benefit from collaborative efforts. Fourth, technological design and problem-solving always relate to people's needs and aspirations. Reflection and consideration of social and cultural aspects are inherent to technological design. Technological projects provide pupils with the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time and culminate in realistic products or presentations (Jones, Rasmussen & Moffitt, 1997; Thomas, Mergendoller & Michaelson, 1999). The pupils confront complex tasks and experience diverse design, problem-solving and decision-making processes.

Information and communication technologies (ICT), primarily computers and telecommunication networks, can be used as tools for developing thinking skills (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996; Salomon, Perkins & Globerson, 1991). Salomon (1998) suggested that information and communication technologies differ from the older educational technologies, such as television broadcasting and multimedia systems, since computers and communication systems are knowledge-building technologies and not just a means for knowledge-transfer. Novel computer technologies do not constitute tools for structured teaching, but rather encourage open learning and confront the learner with enormous knowledge resources when facing challenging problems. Communication technologies present opportunities for shared thinking, cooperation and joint knowledge construction by individuals distant from one another. Simulation learning environments have a profound impact on the way people learn about complex problems (Milrad, 2002). System dynamics modeling tools enable users to experiment with complex systems and develop better intuitions about the mechanisms that govern dynamic interactions. Jonassen et al. (2000) stress that computer technologies promote meaningful learning only when learners are engaged in knowledge construction, conversation, articulation, collaboration, authentication and reflection. In technology education, project-based learning, design and construction of complex systems have been common for many years, before computers in-filtrated our lives. What was the impact of introducing computer simulation and the Internet into electronic studies? How, and to what extent, did the new technologies influence the teaching-learning process?

THE STUDY

Sample Population

This study was conducted in six comprehensive high schools, within the framework of an evaluation of a regional program promoting science and technology studies in northern Israeli schools (Barak, 2002). In these schools, 20-25 pupils in each of the 10th, 11th and 12th grades studied electricity and electronics as an elective subject. About half of the pupils were low-to-middle achievers in their schools, while the others were high-achievers. All studied in parallel general subjects, such as mathematics, physics, humanities topics and English. The 12th graders worked in pairs on a final project as part of their matriculation exam requirements. In these schools, 15 teachers taught principal subjects in electricity, analog electronics and digital electronics, and guided the pupils during their work on their final projects.

Data Collection and Analysis

The study adopted a qualitative research approach (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The aim was to collect as much information as possible on the ways teachers and pupils use computers and the Internet for teaching and learning. Data was collected by visiting each school three or four times during one year. During every visit, the researcher met with 6-10 pupils in each of the 10th, 11th and 12th grades in the electronics laboratory. The pupils were working on their current laboratory experiments or projects using conventional electronic laboratory instrumentation and computers. The pupils were interviewed in pairs for about 15 minutes each time. They were asked about their involvement in theoretical and practical electronics studies and how they used computers in the school and at home. The researchers examined the electronic circuits the pupils were working on, as well as their computer files, experiment reports and portfolios for their final projects. During the study, a total of 20 visits and 200 interviews with pupils were held. Each school visit comprised informal talks with the teachers during and after the meetings with the pupils. The teachers responded to pupils' positions and added their own viewpoints. Data collection and analysis was an iterative process, aimed to organize findings, break them down into meaningful units and synthesize them so that critical themes would emerge (Bogdan & Bilken, 1992; Patton, 1990). This process continued as long as significant new facts or conclusions were found.

FINDINGS

Introducing Computer Technologies into Electronic Studies

The curriculum for electricity and electronics studies in Israeli high schools includes physics-oriented subjects, such as electricity and electromagnetism, and engineering-oriented subjects, such as analog and digital electronics, computer hardware and software, and control systems. The conventional school program comprises traditional theoretical lessons, laboratory experiments and projects. In recent years, most of the schools integrated the carrying out of 'mini-projects' in the electronics studies for the 10th and 11th graders, and final extended projects for the 12th graders. The use of simulation and the Internet have been included at the same time in the theoretical studies, the laboratory experiments and the project work. Most of the electronic laboratories are equipped with computers permanently connected to the Internet. Since teachers and pupils dealing with electronics studies have virtually unlimited use of computerized means during most of the school hours and in the afternoons, they are among the heaviest users of computers in the school.

Using Computer Simulation

The visits in the schools showed that the electronics teachers were familiar with a wide range of simulation programs for electronic circuit design and analysis, such as Spectrum Software (2004), Pspice (2004), Circuit Maker (2004), B2logic (2004) and Electronic Work Bench (EWB) (2004). These professional programs were developed primarily for engineers but are also used extensively in high schools and in higher education institutes. Almost all the pupils and teachers use more than one software package. One of the most common programs used in Israeli schools is EWB, which simulates a laboratory experiment. The user draws a circuit by placing components (resistors, transistors, etc.) on the screen and connects them with lines. In order to obtain the current or voltage at a specific point, the user must place a voltmeter, ammeter or oscilloscope in the desired part of the circuit. A typical circuit in EWB simulating, an RL circuit, is shown in Figure 1.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In the preliminary interviews held with the teachers, they mentioned a range of possible applications of computer simulation in electronic studies, including:

* Demonstrating or 'verifying' theoretical laws, such as Ohm's law or Kirchof's laws for solving electrical circuits.

* Comparing the response of 'practical' versus 'ideal' components (which are available only in the simulation).

* Experiencing trouble-shooting, such as finding a hidden fault in components or circuit connections.

* Investigating advanced electronic circuits or phenomena that are too complex for theoretical analysis in high school, such as unstable circuits, noise effects, response of non-linear circuits, or spectral analysis of AM and FM signals.

Teachers from different schools raised similar ideas about using the simulation for developing pupils' deeper understanding of phenomena in electronic circuits. This could have been the result of their participation in in-service training courses. However, a gap existed between the ideas the teachers expressed and the practical use of the simulation by the pupils.

In the interviews with the pupils, they were asked how they use the simulation, and how the simulation helps them in their electronics studies. As previously mentioned, most of the pupils were very skillful in using the software. Nevertheless, they seldom mentioned the kind of ideas their teachers had suggested. Following are some examples of findings from the interviews with the pupils:

* Pupils, mainly freshmen, use the simulation for confirming the results of their solutions for homework exercises.

* Pupils use the simulation as a tool for drawing electronic circuits and for preparing homework or laboratory reports. Many sketches of incomplete circuits were found in the pupils' notebooks, such as circuits missing a connection to a power supply or a 'ground' point. This shows that the pupils did not test these circuits using the simulation.

* The 12th graders use the simulation to edit their project portfolios. They included circuits and graphs they had prepared using the simulation, such as an oscilloscope display, in their final reports.

Simulation as a Substitute for Laboratory Experiments

The electronic studies curriculum in Israel comprises a list of compulsory experiments in each chapter, such as DC and AC circuits, transistor circuits, operational amplifiers and digital circuits. The official syllabus specifies the main steps a pupil must perform in each experiment, such as preparing a theoretical summary, building a circuit, measuring specific signals (current, voltage or frequency), presenting the results in a table or graph, and drawing conclusions. This is a type of 'standard' for laboratory studies. In order to encourage the use of the simulation, schools could choose to perform the laboratory experiments using the simulation only. Over the past few years, pupils increasingly used the simulation and carried out fewer and fewer practical laboratory experiments.

The following is an example of a laboratory report prepared by two 11th graders, entitled "An RL circuit in an AC current." This example was found on one of the schools' Internet sites. The pupils used the simulation to carry out a 'virtual experiment' on the circuit shown in Figure 1. They prepared a theoretical introduction to the experiment regarding the relationships between impedance Z (Ohm), current amplitude I (Ampere), phase shift [phi] (Degree) and frequency f (Hz).

The pupils 'measured' the current and the phase shift at different frequencies. Their laboratory report included a table of the calculated values and the 'measured values' of current I and phase shift [phi] as a function of frequency f. They also included an example of the oscilloscope display in their report, as shown in Figure 2, and a graph of current I versus the frequency f, as seen in Figure 3.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[[bar].Z] = R + [j[omega]L]

[omega] = 2[pi] * [Florin]

[[bar].I] = [[bar].U]/[[bar].Z] = [[bar].U]/[R + [j[omega]L]

[phi] = t[g.sup.-1] ([[omega]L]/R)

This example demonstrates how computer tools foster pupils' knowledge in physics, mathematics and electronics, and promote their skills in carrying out an investigation and presenting the results in a systematic manner. With computerized means now available, teachers and pupils tend to prepare abstracts, summaries and laboratory reports much more than they used to in the past. Most of the schools have placed dozens of these types of materials on their Internet sites. According to one of the teachers, "computerized means helped us to overcome the difficulties of preparing technical material. Also, it is much easier to distribute these examples to the pupils or exchange written material with other schools." Nevertheless, it must be mentioned that the simulation and other computerized means changed only slightly the concepts of laboratory work or the content of the experiments. The titles of experiments performed at the beginning of the 21st century are quite similar to those one could find in schools 20 or 30 years ago. Pupils use the computer to prepare more elegant graphs but the type of graphs has not changed for many years.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

The perception of simulation as a substitute for practical work is problematic. In the interviews with the pupils, most of them quickly 'built' the circuits on the computer screen but many had difficulties building the same circuit on the actual electronic board (for example, they made wrong connections or improperly used the power supply or measuring instruments). Most of the teachers raised this point and claimed that (translated from Hebrew):

* "The simulation draws the pupils away from the real electronics world."

* "The computer cannot replace physical contact with real components."

* "A real technician must from time to time sense the smell of a burnt resistor."

* "The electronics laboratory must again take on its central role in the school."

During the period of this study, the official requirements for the matriculation examination in electronics changed. Pupils now have to perform at least half of the experiments in practice, and not just by using the simulation, as had been allowed for the past 10 years. Teachers accepted this change very positively.

Using the Internet for Electronics Studies

As previously mentioned, the electronics pupils and their teachers are quite often among the heaviest users of the Internet in their schools. In three out of the six schools examined in this study, the electronics teachers ran afternoon courses for using the Internet, HTML programming and computer networking. Although these courses were open to all pupils and did not relate specifically to the subject of electronics, the electronic pupils were the most dominant groups among the participants. How does Internet relate to electronics studies? The teachers claimed that they direct their pupils to 'interesting sites,' such as those providing explanations and demonstrations in electronics and physics, or sites of well-known electronics equipment or components manufacturers like Motorola, Intel, Philips or Hewlett-Packard. Most of the pupils were very skillful in using the Internet but could not give specific examples of how the Internet helps them to increase their understanding of electronics phenomena or to design electronic circuits. Some of the pupils' responses in the interviews were as follows:

* "It is great to find drawings of circuits on the Internet similar to those we learn at school."

* "I find data-sheets of components on the Internet that I can use in my project."

* "I copy drawings and figures from the Internet but it is not easy to understand the technical texts. I prefer the Hebrew textbook for explanations."

In practice, only a few teachers and pupils used the Internet to augment the electronics courses content. Teachers and pupils were asked why, despite the abundant technical means available for teaching and learning, the most common method for teaching theory of electronics remained the talk-and-chalk lessons? Most pupils said they prefer conventional lessons because learning from the teacher is easier and more focused. Teachers see electronics as a tower, built stage by stage. Learning from books, by computers or by the Internet can complement the class lessons, but not replace them.

The teachers used the Internet as a tool for "modernizing" the teaching of electronics. The following is an example of an initiative taken by a teacher who suggested that his pupils work on an electronics project using the Internet. He published the program on the school site, and presented it in a regional teachers meeting as an example of 'refreshing' the teaching of electronics.

"The program answers the needs of electronics teachers and pupils to integrate novel tools into teaching electronics."

One should note that the teacher emphasizes the teaching (and not the learning) of electronics.

"The program enables the computer-experienced pupils in their first steps in high schools to integrate into electronics studies their prior experience in using computers, the Internet and site design."

This demonstrates that the teacher aims at making the pupils identify electronics studies with computers and the Internet.

"The final target is building an artifact. Each pair of pupils will construct a common product and prepare a portfolio."

The teacher emphasizes that the pupils will build a physical product and not be engaged just in programming.

"The Internet-based project uses the four school hours devoted to the electronics workshop. It replaces conventional activities such as soldering or electronic simulation."

The Internet as a Means of Collaboration Between Pupils Working on Final Projects

The 12th grade pupils worked throughout the year on their final projects. Many of the projects combined hardware and software, and the use of programming languages such as Assembler, Pascal or C. Computerized projects provide the pupils with greater flexibility than hardware-based projects. It was found that:

* Pupils working on computerized projects tend to modify their systems, improvise them, and perform fast trials more than pupils working on hardware-based projects.

* Useful programming ideas spread between pupils working on different projects. These included, for example, algorithms for reading the keyboard, data input and output methods using the computer's printer port, or algorithms for protecting a system using a code or password.

* Pupils from different schools exchanged files concerning their projects. Some of them modified or enhanced programming solutions they received from friends; others just copied parts of the programs into their work.

The pupils' way of working on electronics projects was influenced by the 'Internet culture,' that is, quickly zipping between sources of information, downloading programs from different sources and exchanging information with friends. The borders between carrying out original work and copying ideas from others were not always clearly defined. Pupils and teachers often see the exchange of files through the Internet as being more legitimate than, for example, duplicating models of mechanical systems or copying electronic circuits.

The Internet as a Cover-Up for Superficial Activities

Cases where pupils adopted the trend of inserting items they retrieved from the Internet, such as figures, tables, circuits and data sheets, into their work, laboratory reports or project portfolios were found. This became a pseudo symbol of serious learning and investment of efforts by the pupils. In examining 25 project portfolios, it was found that those pupils who had prepared original or complicated projects had devoted most of their portfolios to presenting their design, the problems they had encountered and how they had solved them. On the other hand, pupils who had worked on simple projects, such as building a ready-designed electronic circuit, included many graphical presentations in their booklet, some of which were specifically unrelated to their work. For example, a pupil constructed a simple model of a railway-road cross gate using Fisher-Technick building blocks controlled by a computer. He included many figures of real systems of railway engines and trains in his portfolio. He mentioned that he had retrieved the figures from the Internet, but did not refer to these items in his work. Other pupils placed figures of resistors, multi-meters and power supplies in their laboratory reports that were hardly relevant to their experiments. While teachers appraised high-achievers for their efforts in system design and problem-solving, they praised the lower achievers for using the Internet to prepare their portfolios.

DISCUSSION

This study aimed to explore the impact of using computer technologies, mainly simulation and the Internet, on teaching and learning subjects in electricity and electronics. Electronics studies provide a rich learning environment enabling the implementation of some ideas that have guided educational literature in recent years, such as linking the school curriculum to the pupil's day-to-day life, project-based learning, learning through practical design and the construction of sophisticated artifacts.

Technically, electronics studies in Israeli high schools can be considered as a successful case in introducing computers into teaching and learning. Almost all the teachers and pupils regularly use computerized simulation and the Internet, and most of pupils' projects comprise computer hardware and software. Since computers have become a natural part of the learning environment in electronics, we can ask whether their contribution to teaching and learning differs from other technical means, such as overhead projectors or oscilloscopes. After more than a decade of using computers, one can conclude that computerized means have, in different ways, affected each of the three main ingredients of electronic studies--theoretical lessons, laboratory experiments and projects--and have thus changed the balance between these components in the school curriculum. The theoretical lessons have changed only slightly since computerized means were introduced. The use of technological means has not become an alternative to face-to-face lessons where the teacher presents theoretical concepts, guides class discussions, solves exercises, and asks and answers questions. The internet offers a large amount of information, but may also create what Salomon (1998) calls the "Butterfly Defect": thinking in a hypermedia mode, jumping from one point to another, touch-don't touch, and move on. This is not intended to be a basis for a systematic study of theoretical concepts of a scientific-engineering nature, such as electricity and electromagnetic, communication, control, energy conversion, digital systems and programming.

Laboratory studies have been more influenced by computerization, mainly through the use of simulation. Learning in the lab is more flexible and less formal. The lab class consists of only 15-18 pupils, who can work individually, in pairs or in groups, having free access to computers and the Internet. As noted above, the lab studies include a series of short experiments, whose content style has not changed for many years. From the time when computer simulation spread in education, schools could choose between doing the obligatory electronics experiments practically or by simulation. During the first years, teachers and pupils preferred simulation over traditional experiments since simulation was perceived as being more comprehensive and easier to use. However, educators have gradually come to the conclusion that the absence of laboratory work reduces pupils' interest in electronics, and simulation is not an alternative to working with real electronic components and instrumentation. 'Building' a circuit on the screen and 'measuring' signals by a virtual oscilloscope cannot be a substitute for constructing and testing real electronic circuits. In order to restore the central role of the laboratory in electronics studies, teachers and decision-makers have recently returned to making the practical experiments compulsory. Pupils must perform practical experiments, while running the same circuits on the simulation in parallel, and using the simulation for drawing their circuits and preparing lab reports. In the electronics lab, which is planned around pre-determined experiments, computers have become technical tools for documentation and reporting rather than a means for nurturing learning.

The most significant impact of computer technologies on electronics studies was on pupils' project work. Projects had been common in electronics studies prior to the digital age. Since electronics and microcomputers have rapidly entered the electronics world, more and more pupils' projects have combined hardware and software for real-time measurements and control of technological systems. The increased use of personal computers and the Internet intensified the application of computerized means within pupils' projects. This influenced project work in three main aspects. First, computer and communication technologies allow pupils to independently find the information they need for their work, such as data on circuits, components or instrumentation, and thus liberate them from being dependent on their teachers for technical information. Second, the work on computerized projects, combined with the use of simulation and the Internet, provides the pupils with greater flexibility in developing their own ideas. Pupils working on computerized projects tend to constantly improve their systems, add to them layer by layer, carry out quick trials, and improvise or modify their design, much more than pupils working on hardware-based systems. Third, computerized means, mainly the Internet, encourage pupils to cooperate with their friends in the same school or in other schools on issues such as system design or software development. Under the influence of the 'Internet culture,' the exchange of software files or design solutions between pupils has become legitimate today much more so than in the past. In summary, there is broad agreement that computerized means advanced project work in electronics, enriched the projects and changed the ways pupils work.

CONCLUSION

Technology education, as explored in this study, combines a variety of teaching-learning approaches: from an instructivist approach in teaching theory, to a quite constructivist approach in working on technological projects. The study demonstrated that using computers is likely to have the most significant effect on pupils involved in learner-controlled tasks, such as projects, where pupils confront real-life problems, are engaged in design, construct complex artifacts and systems, work in teams, and take responsibility for their work. In this environment computer and communication means have the potential to increase motivation, promote deeper learning, encourage cooperation and knowledge exchange between pupils, and foster a joint development of ideas. The use of computer technologies has a less significant impact when introduced into a semi-structured learning setting in which the pupils have only partial control over their work. These are, for example, performing lab experiments, or preparing reports and summaries. When pupils deal with tasks that are well thought-out, structured, and limited in time, they use the technological means just as tools for more efficient work or elegant reporting. Using computers for gathering information, analyzing data or drawing, can look modern and sophisticated, but can also be just a cover for surface learning. The use of advanced technological means was found to make only a marginal contribution to teacher-controlled activities, such as presentation of conceptual issues, discussions and solution of theoretical problems. Teachers and pupils still prefer conventional face-to face lessons as the primary framework for learning theoretical concepts or methods for analysis and design.

REFERENCES

B2 logic. (2004). http://www.softhome.com.tw/000004_SoftHome/soft/b2logic1.htm

Barak, M. (2002). Learning good electronics, or coping with challenging tasks? Priorities of excellent students, Journal of Technology Education 14(2), 20-34.

Barak, M., & Maymon T. (1998). Aspects of teamwork observed in a technological task in junior high schools. Journal of Technology Education, Vol. 9(2), Spring, 3-17.

Bogdan, R.C., & Bilken, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brown, J., L., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational Researcher, 18(1), pp. 32-42. Dasgupta, D. (1996). Technology and creativity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scardamalia M. & Bereiter, C. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge society. Educational Leadership 54, 6-10.

Circuit Maker. (2004). http://www.microcode.com/

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dasgupta, D. (1996). Technology and creativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dewey, J. (1963). The Child and the Curriculum (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).

Dugger, W.E. (2001). Standards for Technological Literacy. Phi Delta Kapan 82(7), March, 513-517.

Dugger, W.E. & Naik, N. (2001). Clarifying misconceptions between technology education and educational technology. The Technology Teacher, September, 1-6.

Electronic Workbench. (2004). http://www.interactiv.com

Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: N. K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Ed). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 105-117.

Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (2000). Learning with technology: A Constructivist Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kafai, Y.B. & Resnick, M. (1996). Introduction. In Kafai, Y.B. & Resnick, M. (Eds). Constructionism in practice--Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1-8.

Milrad, M. (2002). Using Construction Kits, Modeling Tools and System Dynamics Simulations to Support Collaborative Discovery Learning. Educational Technology & Society 5(4) 2002.

Papert, S. (1990). Constructionist learning. In: I. Harel (Ed.), Constructionist Learning, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA.

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

Pspice (2004). http://www.orcadpcb.com/pspice/

Salomon, G. (1992). New challenges for educational research: Studying the individual within learning environments. Scandinavian Journal of Education. 36 167-182.

Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: some issues to be considered. Research Dialog in Learning and Instruction 1(1) 3-12.

Salomon, G., Perkins, D.N. & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence wit intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20 (3), 2-9.

Scardamalia M. & Bereiter, C. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge society. Educational Leadership, 54, 6-10.

Solomon, J. (2000). The Changing Perspectives of Constructivism: Science Wars and Children Creativity. In: Philips, D. C. (Ed.), Constructivism in Education, Opinions and Second Opinions on Controversial Issues, The Ninety-ninth Yearbook of The National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 283-307.

Spectrum Software. (2004). http://www.spectrum-soft.com/index.shtm

Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., and Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA: The Buck Institute for Education.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in Education. In Husen, T. & Postlethwaite (Eds), Theinternational encyclopaedia of education, 11-12. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

MOSHE BARAK

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 

Israel

[e-mail]