IntroductionWhat students learn is greatly influenced by how they learn, and many students learn best through active, collaborative, small-group work inside and outside the classroom (Springer, Stanne, & and Donovan, 1999). The collaborative nature of scientific and technological work should be strongly reinforced by frequent group activity in the classroom. Scientists and engineers work mostly in groups and less often as isolated investigators. Similarly, students should gain experience sharing responsibility for learning with each other (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, p. 148).

Overemphasis on competition among students for high grades distorts what ought to be the prime motive for studying science: to find things out. Competition among students in the science classroom may result in many of them developing a dislike of science and losing their confidence in their ability to learn science (p. 151). Consequently, educational equity remains an elusive goal amid calls for scientific literacy for all (National Science Foundation, 1996)

The unintended consequences of this focus on teaching rather than learning include unfavorable attitudes toward SMET among students, un-acceptably high attrition from SMET fields of study, inadequate preparation for teaching science and mathematics at the precollege level, and graduates who "go out into the workforce ill-prepared to solve real problems in a cooperative way, lacking the skills and motivation to continue learning" (p. iii).

Cooperative Learning

Procedures that characterize cooperative learning include communicating a common goal to group members, offering rewards to group members for achieving their group's goal, assigning interrelated and complementary roles and tasks to individuals within each group, holding each individual in each group accountable for his or her learning, providing team-building activities or elaborating on the social skills needed for effective group work, and discussing ways in which each group's work could be accomplished more effectively. In contrast, collaborative learning is characterized by relatively unstructured processes through which participants negotiate goals, define problems, develop procedures, and produce socially constructed knowledge in small groups (Springer, Stanne, & and Donovan, 1999).

Conceptual frameworks for small-group learning are rooted in such disparate fields as philosophy of education (Dewey, 1943), cognitive psychology (Piaget, 1926; Vygotsky, 1978), social psychology (Deutsch, 1949; Lewin, 1935), and humanist and feminist pedagogy (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986).

Motivational Perspective

From a motivational perspective, competitive grading and reward systems lead to peer norms that oppose academic effort and academic support. Because one student's success decreases the chances that others will succeed, students may express norms reflecting that "high achievement is for nerds" (Slavin, 1992, pp. 157-158) or may interfere with one another's success. The rationale for implementing group goals is that, if students value the success of the group, they will encourage and help one another to achieve, in contrast to competitive learning environments.

Motivationalist theories also tend to emphasize the importance of individual accountability. An underlying assumption is that students might readily interact with and help one another, but without appropriate structure, their help might merely consist of sharing answers and doing each other's work. By holding each group member accountable for learning, the incentive structure supports individuals teaching one another and regularly assessing one another's learning.

Affective Perspective

Based largely on Dewey's (1943) experiential philosophy of education, affective or humanist theorists (e.g., Kohn, 1986; Sharan, 1990) generally emphasize intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivations. Based on the proposition that group work in a nonthreatening environment can lead to learning naturally, humanist theorists generally assert that the role of the instructor should be to facilitate more frequent and less constrained interaction among students, rather than to serve as an unquestioned authority. From this perspective, students, particularly women and members of underrepresented groups, have greater opportunities to be heard and also to learn by participating in more collaborative and democratic teaching and learning processes (Belenky et al., 1986).

Cognitive Perspective

A third perspective on small-group learning may be described as cognitive. Proponents of a cognitive perspective generally contend that interactions among students increase achievement because of more intense information processing. Developmental cognitive theories are generally grounded in the pioneering work of Piaget (1926) or Vygotsky (1978). These theories generally hold that face-to-face work on open-ended tasks—projects with several possible paths leading to multiple acceptable solutions—facilitate cognitive growth. From this viewpoint, the opportunity for students to discuss, debate, and present their own and hear one another's perspectives is the critical element in small-group learning. Students learn from one another because, in their discussions of the content, cognitive conflicts will arise, inadequate reasoning will be exposed, and enriched understanding will emerge.

Theorists disagree on the amount of structure that is appropriate for higher-order thinking. Those who advocate more collaborative processes generally assert that "too much structure on a task that involves higher-order thinking skills is dysfunctional because it impedes conceptually oriented interactions" (Cohen, 1994, p. 20). In contrast, several cooperative learning theorists (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Smith, Johnson, & Johnson, 1981) assert that having the instructor define problems, specify procedures, and assign roles to group members can result in superior interactions characterized by high-level discussions that lead to greater conceptual understanding. A different cognitive perspective, one related to content knowledge rather than to higher-order thinking, may be described as cognitive elaboration. Research in cognitive psychology has long held that, if new information is to be retained, it must be related to information already in memory. Therefore, learners must engage in some sort of cognitive restructuring, or elaboration, of the material. One of the most effective means of elaboration is explaining the material to someone else. Small-group learning also leads to more favorable attitudes toward learning the material. Students who learn in small groups generally demonstrate greater academic achievement, express more favorable attitudes toward learning, and persist through SMET courses or programs to a greater extent than their more traditionally taught counterparts. The reported effects are relatively large in research on educational innovation and have a great deal of practical significance. Indeed, the necessity for a theoretical foundation for practice is supported by research (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Woolfolk Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999) suggesting that faculty is likely to abandon instructional innovations when initial problems occur if they are not familiar with the theories behind their implementation. Yet knowledge of theory alone is not enough to inform practice. Practitioners must be adept at understanding nuances of situations to determine when a principle actually is applicable.

The burgeoning literature on innovation in science education (e.g., McNeal & DΆvanzo, 1997; Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 1998) reflects a positive trend toward constructive change. We hope for bridges between practitioners of different small-group learning methods and links among researchers who work with quantitative and qualitative methods. Perhaps the most important component of future analyses is the need for more detailed descriptions of small-group processes or procedures by investigators or instructors who report research on the effects of their work. What was done that can be replicated? A second important component is the need for more detailed descriptions of the type of task in which students were involved. Was the task structured, with predefined procedures leading to a single answer; or open-ended, with several possible paths toward more than one acceptable outcome? A third factor is the need for more authentic assessment of higher-order thinking and problem solving. Fourth, more comparisons of the effects of various forms of small-group learning are needed. Fifth, reporting grading procedures would help future analyses a great deal. Were students graded on a curve or through criterion-based measures? Sixth, research on the moderators of small-group learning on college students based on achievement level is needed. Is small-group learning effective in general (as suggested by this study) or could it have differential effects on high- or low-achieving students. Seventh, questions of efficiency need to be addressed as well as questions of effectiveness. What are potential barriers to more widespread implementation of small-group learning and how might they be surmounted? (Springer, Stanne, & and Donovan, 1999)

Traditionally, science curriculum has focused on what one needs to know to do science. The new perspective of science education focuses on what students need to do to learn science. The notion of to do in science education has traditionally been associated with the manipulation of objects and materials to engage learners with phenomena to teach what we know. This is embodied in disconnected, modularized, hands-on and textbook approaches that have been a hallmark of elementary and secondary science curricula since the 1960s reform efforts. The dominant format in curriculum materials and pedagogical practices is to reveal, demonstrate, and reinforce via typically short investigations and lessons either (a) “what we know” as identified in textbooks or by the authority of the teacher or (b) the general processes of science without any meaningful connections to relevant contexts or the development of conceptual knowledge. What has been missing is a sense of to do that embodies the dialogic knowledge-building processes that are at the core of science, namely, obtaining and using principles and evidence to develop explanations and predictions that represent our best-reasoned beliefs about the natural world. In other words, missing from the pedagogical conversation is how we know what we know and why we believe it.

Students who understand science:

1. know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the natural world;

2. generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations;

3. understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge; and

4. participate productively in scientific practices and discourse.

As science has progressed as a way of knowing, yet another dichotomy has emerged, and it is one that is critically important for a contemporary consideration of the design of K–12 curriculum, instruction, and assessment. That dichotomy is the blurring of boundaries between science and technology and between different branches of the sciences themselves, yet another outcome of learning how to learn that challenges our beliefs about what counts as data, evidence, and explanations. One important change that has significant implications for school science concerns the realm of scientific observations and representations. In the past 100 years, new technologies and new scientific theories have modified the nature of scientific observation from an enterprise dominated by sense perception, aided or unaided, to a theory driven enterprise (Duschl, Deak, Ellenbogen, & Holton, 1999). We now know that what we see is influenced by what we know and by how we “look.” In this sense, scientific theories are inextricably involved in the design and interpretation of experimental methods and scientific instrumentation. The implication is that there are additional important details for the development of learners’ scientific literacy, reasoning, and images about the nature of science.

Epistemic Communities of Practice

The history of science education since World War II shows numerous attempts to move instruction away from textbooks and lectures to investigations and experiments (Rudolph, 2002, 2005). Curriculum materials were developed to prepare the next generation of scientists, and lessons were written to help students think like scientists.

Qualitative physics

Traditionally, physics has been taught in close correspondence with mathematics. Physics theory produces mathematical formulas and equations that become the objects of learning and the subjects of investigation and reflection. Recently, many science educators have suggested that this correspondence may actually hinder learning, that physics is best learned not through mathematical formulas but by experiments that are fundamentally visual (Forbus, 1997; Hewitt, 2002). Working with simulations, students may experiment, change parameters, and construct hypotheses and theories (Dede, Salzman, Loftin, & Sprague, 1999).

Gender and communicating science

Just as there has been little research into the communication of science through multimedia, so too has there been little research into whether the communication of science acts along a dimension of gender. Although educational studies often discuss gender, few “public understanding of science” PUOS studies take this as their focus. This is despite the fact that many surveys of public attitudes toward science do reveal gender differences. Gender is likely to be an important factor in the communication of science because of the gendering of science itself. Furthermore, these gender differences may become most acute when the gendering of science is reinforced by gendered attitudes toward the medium used for communicating the science. As with science, attitudes toward technology are often gendered, and there is evidence that this is the case for computer-based technologies. To understand the possible gender issues surrounding the communication of physics, we must therefore look at the ways in which both physics and communication technologies are themselves gendered (Mellor, 2001)

The gendering of physics

A number of studies have shown that experiences of science and of physics in particular, are highly gendered. Equity studies into women and science show that males are far more likely to express an interest in physics or to choose to study physics than females. Of all scientific disciplines except engineering and computing science, physics has the lowest representation of women and also the lowest rate of growth in numbers of women. (Mellor, 2001) Within the PUOS field, underrepresentation of women in science and their alienation from science is often cited as a motivation for popularizing and public understanding projects. However, PUOS research rarely deploys gender as an analytical category with which to view popular science initiatives. Educational studies have highlighted the ways in which classroom practices may encourage boys or discourage girls in science and have discussed how such teaching and learning biases may be ameliorated. (Mellor, 2001)

The gendering of technology

It is sometimes assumed that new technologies, and in particular information technologies, are gender neutral. For instance, a recent report in the Guardian newspaper stated that: “By its very nature, IT should be one of the most genderless careers. . . ” This is a curious statement, with its moral inflection (“should”) oriented toward the intrinsic essence (“nature”) of an inanimate technology. Such statements assume a deterministic view of technology, whereby the social impact of the technology is seen as a consequence of its material configurations. Thus IT is expected to be genderless because it is desk based—its machinery small and hidden in contrast to the large, dirty mechanics of traditional masculinized industry. (Mellor, 2001)

Technological determinism may have something to tell us about some technologies at some historical moments. However, as proponents of the social shaping of technology have pointed out, it can rarely provide us with the whole story. Rather, we should recognize that the design of new technologies is not autonomous, but is shaped by its social context. It should also not be forgotten that much computer technology has been developed by the military, a history that can only exacerbate the gendering of this technology. (Mellor, 2001)

When it comes to technology and its use with Physics, it is sometimes assumed that new technologies, and in particular information technologies, are gender neutral. We must look beyond design to the reception of new technologies and the meanings they acquire. Gender relations influence the use and adoption of certain technologies and, conversely, technological knowledge plays a key role in students’ success. (Mellor, 2001)

In summary, studies have shown that both physics and computers are highly gendered. This would suggest that any project aiming to communicate physics through a computer-based medium would also be subject to significant gendering. (Mellor, 2001)

Even in schools where technology is readily available and teachers are enthusiastic, well prepared, and well supported, results are uneven (Cuban, 2001; Zhao & Cziko, 2001; Zhao et al., 2002). Teachers’ uses of the Internet are far from the deep and engaging activities implemented by research projects (Becker, Ravitz, & Wong, 1999; Davidson, Schofield, & Stocks, 2001; Lento et al., 1998; Peck, Cuban, & Kirkpatrick, 2002; Songer et al., 2001; Zhao et al., 2002).

These difficulties in implementation and diffusion echo past experience with educational technology and are attributed to a variety of causes, including lack of teacher training or commitment, inadequate technology or technical support, structural barriers in school schedules and policies, and lack of administrative support (D. K. Cohen, 1988a; Cuban, 2001; Dede, 1998b; Means, Penuel, & Padilla, 2001; Peck et al., 2002).

Challenges of Subject-Specific Teaching

Prior to the 1980s, it was thought that effective teachers needed primarily a set of general pedagogical skills combined with an adequate base of domain knowledge. (Wallace, 2004)

A similar “missing paradigm” characterizes research on the use of technology in teaching: Research has focused on teaching the technologies and on developing advanced technologies that affect student learning, but has been slow to include research on using technology in classrooms in the service of teaching subject matter. That is, we know much more about how to insert technology into the curriculum as a generic topic and about software that affects student learning than we do about the teacher’s role in using technology to mediate students’ learning, in particular their learning of subject matter. We know still less about how instruction with technology might differ across subject matters. (Wallace, 2004)

Early recommendations about teacher preparation for teaching with technology included lists of technology skills and techniques that teachers needed, such as familiarity with aspects of hardware use and troubleshooting, and knowledge of particular kinds of software, such as word processing, spreadsheets, presentation software, and, later, e-mail and the Web (Dede, 1998a; Harmon, 2000; International Society for Technology in Education, 2000).

Policymakers, teacher educators, and technology advocates wrote about “teacher training,” and it was widely (if implicitly) assumed that, if teachers knew enough about computers and used them with ease, they would be able to use them effectively in teaching. Technology literacy was thought to be key to successful teaching with technology. This generalized approach to teaching with technology spawned workshops and teacher education courses about general productivity tools (Becker et al., 1999). Recently, attention has turned to integrating technology into the curriculum, recognizing that being a competent technology user is different from knowing how to teach effectively with technology (Davidson et al., 2001; Lento et al., 1998; Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2002; Schofield & Davidson, 2002; Songer et al., 2001; Zhao & Cziko, 2001).

Possibilities for teaching with the Internet include using it as a source of information, a means of representing content, a means of communication, or a site for collaboration. Of course, the Internet provides options that are unfeasible, or even impossible, with conventional resources, such as using remote scientific instruments or sharing real-time data across continents. For purposes of conceptualizing pedagogical content knowledge, however, a simplification is used, likening the Internet to conventional resources. (Wallace, 2004)

As a source of information, the Internet can be used like books, library resources, or even a field trip. For representing content, it can be like a television, an overhead projector, or a laboratory. For communication, it may be like a visiting speaker. For collaboration, it can be used to organize small group work. Knowledge about how to use the Internet per se is taken for granted, just as it is taken for granted that a teacher knows how to use a television when showing a video. Once a Web resource is identified that meets the teacher’s needs, this conception seems right—what is required is not a wide-ranging understanding of technology but, rather, specific knowledge of how this technology can be used with these students to accomplish this purpose. (Wallace, 2004)

A significant missing piece, however, is knowledge of what is available on the Internet for a particular subject matter and purposes. With so many different kinds of resources on the Internet, from databases to interactive lessons to chat rooms, it is a daunting substantive and technical task to find appropriate, useful resources. How might a teacher even know of the existence of WISE? The process of finding useful, pertinent resources may call on other aspects of teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and technical knowledge. Specific knowledge of resources on the Internet that support the curriculum is, in fact, reminiscent of descriptions of the knowledge that expert teachers bring to bear on their teaching (cf. Grossman, 1990; Leinhardt, 1989; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Shulman, 1986b; Shulman, 1987; Wilson et al., 1987; Wilson & Wineburg, 1993; Wineburg & Wilson, 1988), knowledge developed over time in response to students and subject matter (Hogan, Rabinowitz, & Craven, 2003; Sosniak & Stodolsky, 1993).

Generic Tasks of Teaching

Using technology to teach subject matter requires subject specific knowledge, as well as particular knowledge about technology, curriculum, and the intersection of these domains. There are, however, antecedent steps, including finding technology-based tools and resources, learning about them, developing pedagogical content knowledge, and, finally, using both the tools and that knowledge to create, monitor, and critically evaluate classroom activities. (Wallace, 2004)

Teaching with the Internet begins at a point prior to the kind of pedagogical content knowledge described in the preceding section, where the teacher’s knowledge includes knowing about WISE and knowing how to use within the teaching. For most teachers, resources and activities for teaching with the Internet do not come ready-made, in packages that fit into their curriculum or into their existing practice. Even if useful Internet-based resources exist across domains and grade levels, teachers first must know (or learn) that a resource is available before they can use it in educative ways. With some exceptions (e.g., Internet resources provided by the curriculum or textbook), they find and develop Internet-based resources and activities almost from scratch, figuring out what, when, and how to use them. (Wallace, 2004) Finding and developing Internet resources is necessary in large part because the technology itself does not provide a map for its use, and many interesting and potentially useful resources are not designed for schools. Teachers in effect become curriculum makers, developing parts of the curriculum by using the Internet. (Wallace, 2004) Teaching with the Internet, then, entails the usual tasks of teaching — planning, implementing or interacting, and assessing—along with the less common tasks of identifying and selecting resources and materials, and fitting them into the curriculum. (Wallace, 2004)

Affordances of Technology

As pedagogical content knowledge lies between and combines content and pedagogy, so affordances fall between features and uses of technology. It is possible that teachers accomplish tasks in different ways when using the Internet, changing how they allocate time, how they design activities, or how they interact with students. Clearly seen in teachers’ responses to challenges that arise in teaching subject matter, pedagogical content knowledge is, by definition, domain-specific, and perhaps tool-specific. Understanding the affordances of the technology may be an aspect of pedagogical content knowledge; that is, knowing the range of potential uses for a technology might be something that informs good teaching. These related aspects of teaching with the Internet—the impact on generic tasks of teaching and on subject-specific pedagogy—suggest the need to look closely at the work of teachers to better understand what knowledge they bring to bear and how they go about their work when they teach with the Internet. (Wallace, 2004)

In the 21st century, academic learning will increasingly become a team effort, guided by teachers and focused on individual student needs. Courses will require comprehensive pedagogical schema incorporating faculty, students, the course and its content, and the technological environment. Interpersonal Skills course is consistent with a paradigm shift in American higher education from teacher centered to learner centered. Students are coming to class with different skills and expectations than previous students, and faculty must learn ways to make these different skills an effective building block for their teaching/learning strategies. Integrating the Internet with other course pedagogies in behavioral science courses such as Interpersonal Skills facilitates the mutual learning of both faculty and students. (Human, Kilbourne, and Clark, 1999) As educators, some of the biggest challenges that we face when it comes to helping students master lessons are: 1) how to incorporate technology in the classroom to help students benefit from their learning, 2) how to keep students engaged with the lessons being taught by educators which allow interaction with peers in a positive learning environment, and 3) how to establish and share best practices from Professional Learning Communities to assist with enhancing students’ learning through guided and independent practice.

Facing the Challenge

In recent years, the Internet is being widely used in K–12 schools. Yet teachers are not well prepared to teach with the Internet, and its use is limited in scope and substance. One key goal is to develop a framework for teaching with the Internet, exploring how the Internet shapes and is shaped by classroom practices. The framework includes five affordances of resources: (a) boundaries, (b) authority, (c) stability, (d) pedagogical context, and (e) disciplinary context. These interact with fundamental challenges of teaching to produce wide variation in Internet use. Challenges to teachers depend on how they position themselves with respect to the affordances. (Wallace, 2004)

A study of teaching with the Internet covers potentially enormous territory. Research on teacher knowledge and beliefs, teacher preparation and professional development, planning, and assessment all can contribute to understanding what teachers do when they teach with the Internet. Connected classroom technology reduced barriers for formative assessment and informed teachers and students about classroom learning achievements and challenges. (Irving, Sanalan, & Shirley, 2009)

The Potential of using Technology in a Physics classroom

The potential of the Internet for improving teaching and learning in Physics is there. In Physics, for example, a number of innovative and successful projects have been launched to support collaboration with peers and experts, access to new and different resources, and multiple representations of ideas and concepts. The difficult implementation of the Internet in the classroom and diffusion echo past experience with educational technology and are attributed to a variety of causes, including lack of teacher training or commitment, inadequate technology or technical support, structural barriers in school schedules and policies, and lack of administrative support. (Wright & Dickinson, 1999)

The future: Making the best use of technology to assist students learn

Swan and Mitrani state that "computers can change the nature of teaching and learning at its most basic level" (1993). We need to ensure that we are using our current knowledge about the application of technology in education as a basis for proceeding in the future.

Peck & Dorricott's summary (1994) of the top ten reasons for technology use in education represent a good overview of the current status of what technology can accomplish. These reasons include technology's potential to assist with educational goals such as:

1. Individualization

2. Increasing proficiency at accessing, evaluating, and communicating information.

3. Increasing quantity and quality of students' thinking and writing

4. Improving students ability to solve complex problems (a skill that cannot be "taught" [transferred directly from the teacher to the learner] but which appears to develop in a more focused manner when productivity tools are available)

5. Nurturing artistic expression (many flexible tools are available)

6. Increasing global awareness

7. Creating opportunities for students to do meaningful work [work that reaches out and has value outside school - e.g. is presented to an audience other than the teacher]

8. Providing access to high-level and high-interest courses [even in districts where some courses have been impossible to offer]

9. Making students feel comfortable with the tools of the Information Age [which they are almost certain to use in their future]

10. Increasing the productivity and efficiency of schools.

We have learned that these benefits do not happen in some miraculous way simply because the technology has been provided. Research indicates that to accomplish the profound changes associated with the integration of technology in the overall learning environment, there is a real need for training and support at all levels (Means, Using technology to support education reform, 1993) (Aust & Padmanabhan, 1994) "Change the way people think about and use technology for learning" (Dwyer, 1994), and in (Means, Transforming with technology: No 'silver bullet', 1995) observation that "sites most successful in infusing technology throughout their entire programs were schools and projects that also devoted a good deal of effort to creating a school wide instructional vision -- a consensus around instructional goals and a shared philosophy concerning the kinds of activities that would support those goals. What appears to be important is not the point at which technology becomes part of the vision but the coherence of the vision and the extent to which it is a unifying force among teachers. "

Summary

Using technology in the classroom has the potential to transform education, not just by providing students with an opportunity to learn the tools of the modern workplace (Suthers, Erdosne, Toth, & Weiner, 1997), but also when combined with collaborative student inquiry; technology has the potential to change how students learn. "An array of tools for acquiring information and for thinking and expression [allowing] more children more ways to enter the learning enterprise successfully. These same experiences provide the skills that will enable students to live productive lives in the global, digital, information-based future they all face." (Dwyer, 1994).

In constructing my lit review, I sought to focus on the theory of cognitive and collaborative learning and its role in the classroom. Technology, through the use of Web 2.0 tools, has made the classroom experience far richer and more engaging. The shift in focus from teacher centered learning to student-centered learning has been remarkable. (Jackson, 2009) Throughout the sources I consulted, I have noted the importance of using technology in the classroom and when it is used effectively, how empowered and engaged students can be. The opportunity to use technology in the classroom as well as equipping teachers for 21^st century skills to use this technology will be critical to understand; leveraging this technology will enhance the opportunities for students to be accountable for their success. Again, this will widen their vision to grasp opportunities that will transform and enhance their learning.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

Aust, R., & Padmanabhan, S. (1994). Empowering Teachers with Technology: An Agenda for Research and Development. ERIC DIGEST - ED373700 ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.

Becker, H. J., Ravitz, J. L., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software (Report No. 3). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Cantrell, P., & Robinson, M. (2002). How Do 4th through 12th Grade Science Textbooks Address Applications in Engineering and Technology? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society , 22 (1), 31-41.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Davidson, A. L., Schofield, J., & Stocks, J. (2001). Professional cultures and collaborative efforts: A case study of technologists and educators working for change. The Information Society, 17(1), 21–32.

Dede, C., Salzman, M., Loftin, R. B., & Sprague, D. (1999). Multisensory immersion as a modelling environment for learning complex scientific concepts. In W. Feurzig & N. Roberts (Eds.), Modelling and simulation in science and mathematics education (chap. 12). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2.

Duschl, R. (2008). Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epistemic, and Social Learning Goals, REVIEW OF RESEARCH IN EDUCATION

Duschl, R. A., Deak, G. O., Ellenbogen, K. M., & Holton, D. L. (1999). Explanations: To have and to hold, or to have and to hone? Developmental and educational perspectives on theory change. Science & Education, 8, 525–541.

Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: What we've learned. Educational Leadership , 51.

Forbus, K. (1997). Using qualitative physics to create articulate educational software. IEEE Expert, 12(3), 32-41.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press

Harmon, A. (2000, July 3). As computers idle in classrooms, training for teachers is the next challenge. New York Times, B1.

Hewitt, P. G. (2002). Conceptual physics with practicing physics workbook. San Francisco, CA: Addison- Wesley.

Hogan, T., Rabinowitz, M., & Craven, J. A. (2003). Representation in teaching: Inferences from research of expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235–247.

Human, S.E. , Kilbourne, L.M., & Clark, T.D. (1999). Using Web-Enhanced Instruction in an Interpersonal Skills Course. Journal of Management Education

International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational technology standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education NETS Project.

Irving, K., Sanalan, V., & Shirley, M. (2009). Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28 (3).

Jackson, M. (2009). The Digital Classroom: Collaboration in Action, Pepperdine University (MALT Cadre 11).

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1985). Classroom conflict: Controversy versus debate in learning groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 237-256

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company

Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Kurtts, S. A., Matthews, C. E., & Smallwood, T. (2009). (Dis)Solving the Differences: A Physical Science Lesson Using Universal Design. Intervention in School and Clinic , Volume 44 (3), 151-159.

Leinhardt, G. (1989). Math lessons: A contrast of novice and expert competence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 52–75.

Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75–95.

Lento, E. M., O’Neill, D. K., & Gomez, L. M. (1998). Integrating Internet services into school communities. In C. Dede (Ed.), ASCD 1998 Yearbook: Learning with technology (pp. 141–168). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ma, X., & Wilkins, J. L. (2002). The Development of Science Achievement in Middle and High Schools: Individual Differences and School Effects. Evaluation Review , 26 (4), 395-417.

Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A case study of student teacher/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427–462.

McNeal, A. P., & DΆvanzo, C. (Eds.) (1997). Student active science: Models of innovation in college science teaching. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Means, B. (1995). Transforming with technology: No 'silver bullet'. Education Digest , 61 (12-01), 31.

Means, B. (1993). Using technology to support education reform. ERIC DIGEST - ED364220 ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.

Means, B., Penuel, W. R., & Padilla, C. (2001). The connected school: Technology and learning in high school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mellor, F. (2001). Gender and the communication of physics through multimedia. Public Understanding of Science , 10, 271-291.

Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.) (1998). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press

Mitrani, & Swan. (1993). The changing nature of teaching and learning in computer-based classrooms. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26.

National Science Foundation (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: Report by the Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources.

Peck, K. D. (1994). Why use technology? Educational Leadership , 51.

Peck, C., Cuban, L., & Kirkpatrick, H. (2002). Techno-promoter dreams, student realities. Phi Delta Kappan (February), 472–480.

Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt Brace

Rudolph, J. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The Cold War reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rudolph, J. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of the “scientific method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341–376.

Sharan, S. (Ed.). (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory and research. New York: Praeger.

Schofield, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (2002). Bringing the Internet to school: Lessons from an urban district. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 145-173). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 651-653.

Songer, N. B. (1998). Can technology bring students closer to science? In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 333–347). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & Kam, R. (2001). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128–150.

Sosniak, L. A., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1993). Teachers and textbooks: Materials use in four fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 249–275.

Springer, Leonard, M. E. (1999). Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH , 69 (1), 21-51.

Suthers, D., Erdosne, E., Toth, D., & Weiner, A. (1997). An Integrated Approach to Implementing Collaborative Inquiry in the Classroom. pp. 1-8.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole et al., Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wallace, R. M. (2004). A Framework for Understanding Teaching With the Internet. American Educational Research Journal , 41 (2), 447–488.

Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1993). Wrinkles in time and place: Using performance assessments to understand the knowledge of history teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 729–769.

Wineburg, S. S., & Wilson, S. M. (1988). Models of wisdom in the teaching of history. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 50–58.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Implications of cognitive approaches to peer learning for teacher education. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wright, A. F., & Dickinson, V. L. (1999). Integrating Technology into the Science Classroom. Research, Washington State University.

Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5–30.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.