School of Education

Lead teachers use computers and other technologies effectively and appropriately to communicate information in a variety of formats. They, for instance, communicate, using technologies such as email, videoconferencing, blogging, drop boxes, forums, texting, and podcasting. They use:

• Video and digitalized artifacts as a tool to provide a shared classroom experience in teacher education and professional development
• Online social networks for educators to promote interactive sharing and problem-solving and communicate information and ideas with students, parents, and peers
• Online professional development programs (Borko, Whitcomb, & Liston, 2009).

Lead teachers also utilize interactive modes of participation in harmonious and helpful manners (Maor, 2003; McDonald & Gibson, 1998). In the 21st century when technologies are one of the key communication tools, they promote and model digital etiquette and responsible social interactions related to the use of technology and information (NETS-T). For instance, while communicating and utilizing digital information and technology, lead teachers advocate, model, and teach safe, legal, and ethical use of it, including respect for copyright, intellectual property, and the appropriate documentation of sources. They understand local and global societal issues and responsibilities in an evolving digital culture and exhibit legal and ethical behavior in their professional practices (NETS-T).

Lead teachers are “data literate:” that is, they possess a basic understanding of how data can be used to inform instruction. Research shows that if instructional plans at the state, county, district, school, classroom, and individual student levels are based on assessment information relevant to the desired learning outcomes for students, the probability is increased that desired learning outcomes (DuFour & Eaker, 2005).

Educators must understand that assessment of student performance is integral in the planning, implementation, assessment, and revision of instruction. Data literacy also implies that the educator must be able to determine whether or not an assessment is a valid and reliable measure of what is being taught and to know what types of assessments are appropriate for district level vs. classroom or individual student level planning. What is commonly referred to as a “cycle of inquiry” illustrates the basic steps in the application of data to inform instructional decision-making: (1) conduct assessments, (2) obtain relevant data, (3) analyze data, (4) determine conclusions, (5) plan instruction, and (6) implement instruction (and the cycle repeats).

Lead teachers are knowledgeable about technology applications that equip them with the current student assessment data on demand and in a user-friendly format. A wide variety of technology applications are available, with many more emerging, that are intended to assist educators in making data-driven decisions. Lead teachers are versed in identifying and selecting electronic assessment tools that assist in accessing, analyzing, and making data-driven decisions using student data, and range from the district to the classroom levels. They know about sources of information to help educators become data literate and learn how to make the most effective use of learning technologies. Key sources include:

1. Data Warehouses: Data warehouses are large integrated databases that connect relevant information from other sources into a single accessible format. They allow users to look at data from multiple operational systems across multiple dimensions, including time. These systems have the advantage that they can import and analyze data from a variety of other systems that cannot otherwise communicate with each other.

2. Data Analysis & Reporting Systems: These systems provide the ability to examine aggregate student performance measured across a wide array of variables and oriented to any scale: district, school, program or classroom. These systems are designed primarily as analytical and reporting tools for district and site administrators, and can also provide useful summary data for classroom teachers.

3. Curriculum Management Systems: Curriculum management systems are designed to help teachers and site administrators plan and monitor the instructional program. These systems integrate teachers' curriculum planning, lesson plans, assessments and grade reporting into a standards-based system linked with data from the school's student information system.

4. Instruction & Practice Systems: Instruction and practice systems are designed to help teachers align their curriculum and instructional resources to state and local standards. These systems typically provide teachers standards-aligned lesson plans, skill sets and assessments and a standards-based reporting system to supplement the resources a teacher already uses.

5. Assessment and Diagnostic systems: These systems provide assessment tools to determine student strengths and weaknesses in various academic areas aligned with state curricular standards. They provide feedback and practice to students and teachers in what they should know and be able to do in relation to the standards. Assessment and diagnostic systems sometimes are imbedded into electronic learning resources.

Lead teachers use technologies to collaborate with others (Parr & Ward, 2006; Sorensen, 2005). They use virtual spaces such as online communities to plan, design, implement, and evaluate in collaboration with others. They also elaborate and share reflections on their practices with colleagues through a wide range of technologies-video, computers, satellite, and closed circuit broadcast television (Hawkes and Romiszowski, 2001; Rich & Hannafin, 2009). In this process, lead teachers create partnerships with novice teachers, experienced teachers and teacher educators (Wright, Wilson, Gordon & Stallworth, 2002) both in and out of their own school districts (Spicer & Dede, 2006) and exhibit their leadership. They demonstrate a vision of technology infusion, participating in shared decision making and community building, and developing the leadership and technology skills of others (NETS-T).

Lead teachers use technologies and utilize the individual student perspectives and knowledge and engaging students in interactive collaboration and shared knowledge building (Sorensen, 2005). They use appropriate activities, artifacts, materials, and tools that support the emergence of shared knowledge building that was meaningful to all students (Pringle, 2002). They also model collaborative knowledge construction by engaging in learning with students, colleagues and others in face-to-face and virtual environment (NETS-T).

Lead teachers also create learning environment where students become active, reflect on interesting issues raised during the development of a course of study, and then shared with their peers in the non-threatening environment of the learning community (Roth, 1998). They promote students’ learning, using collaborative tools to reveal and clarify students’ conceptual understanding and thinking, planning, and creative process (NETS-T). By having them use Moodle, Blackboard or Canvas and share assignments, messages, and postings, lead teachers model online collaboration to students.

Lastly, Lead teachers expand their teaching, using technologies, within a global context. They strive for instructional strategies, and design lessons that would help students figure out the challenges they might encounter in the global context (Pringle, 2002). Like pre-service teachers (Wilder & Malone, 2005), lead teachers also use information and communication technologies effectively and collaborate with colleagues in other cultures. They develop and model cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with colleagues and students of other cultures using digital-age communication and collaboration tools.

Lead teachers move beyond acquiring skills to use technologies. They integrate technologies when they design, create, and provide learning opportunities where students learn critical thinking skills. They also help students engaged in real-world issues and solving authentic problems, using appropriate technologies as a tool (NETS-T). Most importantly, lead teachers understand that PK-12 students’ learning through technologies must be less generic but content specific (Flick & Bell, 2000; Henriques, 2002; Huges, 2004, 2005; Molebash, 2002). They understand that a culture of inquiry around technology for learning supports risk-taking and knowledge creation (Jacobson, Clifford & Friesen, 2002), and supporting students to share their conjectures, defend their solutions, and developing thinking skills (Sliva, 2002).

Lead teachers help students to organize and search for information: text, pictures, sounds, videos, and references to other sources that contain more information (Clifford & Friesen, 2001). They use appropriate technology resources for students to identify and evaluate information, create and transfer information. Considering the unlimited amount of information, technology resources allow students to create knowledge by working with information, not just memorizing it. Lead teachers create learning opportunities for students to look for commonalities and differences among groups or classes of things, analyze relationships, identify and interpret trends and patterns, test and refine hypotheses, and organize and share information (Jacobson et al).

Lead teachers also use technologies, considering context and students (Misha & Koehler, 2006). They customize and personalize learning opportunities to address students’ diverse learning styles, working strategies, and abilities using digital tools and resources. They also develop technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their original learning goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress (NETS-T). Lastly, in order to monitor students’ progress, lead teachers provide students with multiple and varied formative and summative assessments aligned with content and technology standards and use resulting data to inform learning and teaching (NETS-T).

“A change agent is someone who engages either deliberately or whose behavior results in social, cultural or behavioral change. This can be studied scientifically and effective techniques can be discovered and employed (Havelock & Zlotolow, 1995). ” In the last 20 years, technological advances have resulted in new opportunities to use technology to improve learning and instruction. As a result, there is an increasing demand on teachers to develop the skills to make effective use of technology (Ertmer, Conklin, Lewandowski, Osika, Selo, & Wignall, 2003). Much technology has been placed in schools such as computers, educational software, etc., and much training for teachers’ skills and knowledge of teaching with technology has been provided. Despite these efforts, many teachers still do not integrate technology effectively even when they have the technology and initial training (Beavers, 2001; Hope, 1998). This situation is attributed to a variety of factors, including lack of proper teacher education (Ward, West, & Isaak, 2002). Researchers have suggested that teacher education with regard to technology integration should go well beyond teaching technical skills. Specifically, training and education should take into account teacher motivation regarding the use of technology (Llorens, Salanova, & Grau, 2002).

Pedagogical agents respond to the learner in a social manner through human-like interactions (Kim & Baylor, 2006b). The human-like characteristics of pedagogical agents are advantageous for enhancing more positive and vivid interactions with pre-service teachers. In addition, pedagogical agents may also be perceived as empathetic, credible and trustworthy, positioning them to serve as effective agents of change. When pedagogical agents are perceived as empathetic, credible and trustworthy, they have been demonstrated to be effective in influencing attitudes (Baylor & Plant, 2005; Ryu & Baylor, 2005). In situations where the adoption of an educational innovation is a desired outcome, the concept of a change agent is relevant (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Rogers, 1995). A change agent is generally an individual who facilitates the diffusion of an innovation for potential adopters (Rogers, 1995). The concept of a change agent has been highlighted in the context of educational technology innovations (Ellsworth, 2000; Huberman & Miles, 1984). However, most of the research has focused on the effects of a human as a change agent and has not considered the problem of insufficient human resources.

A variety of roles and functions of pedagogical agents have been studied. Four major roles for pedagogical agents have been identified: (a) an expert who provides information, (b) a mentor who advises, (c) a motivator who encourages, and (d) a companion who collaborates (Baylor & Group, 2003; Baylor & Kim, 2005; Kim & Baylor, 2006a, 2006b). Many studies investigating pedagogical agents have focused on their impact on learning outcomes. Even in studies where positive effects on motivation were observed, motivational changes were considered secondary to learning outcomes and were not often studied independently (Ryu & Baylor, 2005). Recently motivational outcomes have been receiving more attention, and studies have shown that pedagogical interface agents can be effective in promoting motivation and attitude change (Baylor & Plant, 2005; Moreno et al., 2002; Moreno, Mayer, Spires, & Lester, 2001; Silverman et al., 2001). However, few studies focus specifically on motivation. In addition, despite the fact that pedagogical agents can be designed with specific characteristics beneficial for learners, there have been few attempts to study pedagogical agents that incorporate multiple roles or functions (Baylor & Ebbers, 2003). Instead, studies have tended to focus on agents with single and separate roles.

In the field of education, the term "best practice" is used to describe strategies, methods, and pedagogies that are informed by research, proven effective at achieving target outcomes, and accepted by leaders in the field. 
 According to Daniels, & Hyde (1998), some of these constructivist-based strategies identified as best practice include student-centered instruction, experiential and holistic learning, authentic experiences, reflective exercises, social interactions that scaffold learning, collaborative grouping, problem-oriented activities, and integrated thematic units (Daniels & Bizar (1998). Technology can play an important role in increasing students’ motivation to learn, in helping learners to visualize problems and solutions, in acquiring technology literacy, information literacy, and visual literacy and in supporting a variety of instructional approaches such as cooperative learning, shared intelligence, and critical thinking (Grabinger, 1996).

Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of integrating technology into classroom practices is that technologies can be "used as engagers and facilitators of thinking and knowledge construction;" thus becoming something students learn with, not from (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999). Lead teachers are comfortable as co-learners with their students and with colleagues around the world. Today it is less about staying ahead and more about moving ahead as members of dynamic learning communities. The digital-age teaching professional must demonstrate a vision of technology infusion and develop the technology skills of others. These are the hallmarks of the lead teacher (Don Knezek (2008).

Lead teachers ensure that three elements are always present in good models of teaching with technology: (1) all technology-enhanced activities should be deliberately and consciously aligned with local, state, and national standards, (2) each learning activity should be accompanied with well-defined indicators of success, and (3) technology must be readily accessible in a way that meets the needs of all learners (NETS, 2000). Any number of the strategies presented may be utilized in good models of teaching with technology. 
Technology-enhanced lessons and activities should represent a variety of learning strategies that include active learning strategies, constructive learning strategies, authentic learning strategies, cooperative learning strategies, and intentional/reflective learning strategies (Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). To be used effectively, technology must be readily accessible in a way that meets the needs of all learners. This includes both ready access to hardware, software, and connectivity, as well as ready access to content and ideas being presented

It is not the computer alone that will impact learning, but a pedagogical shift towards student-centered classrooms with more project-based activities and opportunities for collaboration and co-operation on life skills. With regards to technology integration, constructivist-learning environments would allow students to engage in meaningful and useful activities through which learning is accomplished. Good teaching combined with appropriate and effective uses of technology makes for a dynamic, rich learning environment.

Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 416-427.

Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30 (1), 117-139.

Baylor, A. L. (2001). Permutations of control: Cognitive considerations for agent-based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12 (4), 403-425.

Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (2), 5-22.

Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15 (1), 95 - 115.

Baylor, A. L., Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., & Plant, E. A. (2006). Interface agents as social models: The impact of appearance on females’ attitude toward engineering. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 22-27, 2006, Montreal, Canada.

Baylor, A. L., Ryu, J., & Shen, E. (2003b). The effects of pedagogical agent voice and animation on learning, motivation, and perceived persona. Paper presented at the Annual World conference of Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, & Telecommunication, June 23-28, 2003, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Becker, H. J. (2000, January). Findings from the teaching, learning and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Paper presented at the School Technology Leadership Conference of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D.C.

Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60 (1), 3-7.

Bradshaw, L. K. (1997). Technology-supported change: A staff development opportunity. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 81 (593), 86-92.

Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., & Berg, K. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: the PT3@ASU Project. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51 (1), 57-72.

Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Wetzel, K. (1995). Students and computers as partners in developing students’ problem-solving skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(4), 387-401.

Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (4), 411-433.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering the research on media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4), 445-459.

Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2001). The stewardship of the intellect: Classroom life, educational innovation and technology. In B. Barrell (Ed.), Issues in the integration of technology into teaching, learning, and school culture(s). Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises.

Cobb, P., & Bowles, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28, 4-15.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), 813-834.

Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (3), 342-361.

McCombs, B. L. (2003). Learner-Centered Principles: A Framework for Teaching [Symposium]. Theory into Practice, 4 (2), 93-158.

Ellsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving Change: A Survey of Educational Change Models, New York, NY: ERIC Clearing house on Information and Technology.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 25-39.

Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for Science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1 (1).

Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 665-692). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.

Hawkes, M., & Romiszowski, A. (2001). Examining the reflective outcomes of asynchronous computer-mediated communication on inservice teacher development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (2), 285-308.

Henriques, L. (2002). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology: An example from the field. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(1), 3-18.

Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.

Hughes, J. (2004). Technology learning principles for preservice and in-service teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (3), 345-362.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (2nd Ed.).

Jacobsen, M., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2002). Preparing teachers for technology integration: Creating a culture of inquiry in the context of use. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (3), 363-388.

Jerald, C. D., & Orlofsky, G. F. (1999). Raising the bar on school technology. Education Week. Retrieved January 2000 from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/up-intro.htm

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1017-1044). New York: Macmillan.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006a). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54 (3), 223-243.

Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006b). A social cognitive framework for designing pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54 (6), 569-596.

Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Reed, G. (2003). The impact of image and voice with pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education, November 7-11, 2003, Phoenix, Arizona.

Kim. C., & Baylor, A. L. (2008). A virtual change agent: Motivating pre-service teachers to integrate technology in their future classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (2), 309-321.

Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Grau, R. (2002). Training to technological change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (2), 206-212.

Maor, D. (2003). The teacher’s role in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning community. Education Media International, 40 (1/2), 127-137.

McDonald, J., & Gibson, G. C. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics and group development in computer conferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 12 (1), 7-25.

Mills, S. C., & Tincher, R. C. (2003). Be the technology: A developmental model for evaluating technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (3), 382-401.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.

Molebash, P. E. (2002). Commentary: Phases of collaborative success: A response to Shoffner, Dias, and Thomas. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (1), 63-72.

Moreno, K. N., Person, N. K., Adcock, A. B., van Eck, R. N., Jackson, G. T., & Marineau, J. C. (2002). Etiquette and efficacy in animated pedagogical agents: The role of stereotypes. Paper presented at the AAAI Symposium.

Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19 (2), 177-213.

Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2005). Integrating computer technology into the classroom (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology (NCES 2000-102). Washington, D.C.: Department of Education. Retrieved January 2000 from the World Wide Web:http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000102

National educational technology standards for teachers (2000). Eugene, OR: ISTE. Retrieved January 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://cnets.iste.org/index3.html

Parr, J., & Ward, L. (2006). Building on foundations: creating an online community. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 775-793

Peters, M. T., & Heron, T. E. (1993). When the best is not good enough: An examination of best practice. Journal of Special Education, 26 (4), 371-386.

Pringle, R. M. (2002). Developing a community of learners: Potentials and possibilities in web mediated discourse. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (2), 218-233.

Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60 (1), 52-67.

Roblyer, M. D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Roth, W. M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Rovai, A. P., & Childress, M. D. (2002). Explaining and predicting resistance to computer anxiety reduction among teacher education students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (2), 226-235.

Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning, 2 (4), 291-319.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Science teachers' perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (5), 619-622.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 726-764). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillian.

Sliva, J. (2002). Developing a mathematical community using an electronic discussion forum in an elementary mathematics methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (1), 79-94.

Sorensen, E. K. (2005). Networked eLearning and collaborative knowledge building: Design and facilitation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (4), 446-455.

Spector, J. M., & Koszalka, T. A. (2004). The DEEP methodology for assessing learning in complex domains, Final report to the National Science Foundation Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.

Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., & Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (1), 73-89.

Ward, J. R., West, L. S., & Isaak, T. J. (2002). Mentoring: a strategy for change in teacher technology education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10 (4), 553-569.

Weidmann, W., & Humphrey, M. B. (2002). Building a network to empower teachers for school reform. School Science and Mathematics, 102 (2), 88-93.

Wilder, H., & Malone, T. (2005). Intercultural technology education for preservice teachers in Namibia and New Jersey. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (4), 456- 464.

Willis, J. (2001). Foundational assumptions for information technology and teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(3), 305-320.

Wright, V. H., Wilson, E. K., Gordon, W., & Stallworth, J. B. (2002). Master technology teacher: A partnership between preservice and inservice teachers and teacher educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (3), 353-362.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America's schools (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self regulated learning and academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 3-17.