AN INTER-UNIVERSITY INTERNET EXCHANGE PROJECT TO NETWORK PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS

Derrick R. Lavole, University of Northern Iowa

Gerald W. Foster, DePaul University

            Exchanging information and ideas on the Internet is now a common practice with numerous list servers, gopher servers, and web servers. The virtual classroom established by this telecommunication technology would seem to have tremendous potential for improving how teachers teach and students learn. Telecommunications technology can help meet the needs for pre-service science education as the future of information exchange and information power quickly dissolves the walls of the classroom. The use of distance education technology and practice is expanding rapidly at all levels of education (Hirth, 19993). Telecommunication networks offer expanding access to resources such as data bases, libraries, and curriculum materials as well as a wide-range of opportunities for information exchange with colleagues, scientists, and teachers. Hunter (1992) comments: Just as the grand challenges in scientific research require computercommunications network support for collaboration among geographically disparate institutions, disciplines, and individuals, so the grand challenges in educational reform require new kinds of collaborations across previously separate institutional boundaries and among individual whose work was previously isolated from one another. The national and international computer communications infrastructure is being engineered and deployed at the same time as new structures are sought for education. (p. 23) Recently, there have been several attempts to use telecommunications for teaching and learning in various education contexts with varying degrees of success ( Honey and Henriquez, 1993). National Geographic Kids Network, AT&T Long Distance Learning Network, Lab Net, Students' Environmental Alliance, and World Class are just a few of the current K-12 projects in the U. S. that are linking students with students, teachers with teachers, and students with teachers (Coverdale, 1991). Other projects attempt to establish partnerships between higher education and K-12 schools for both students and teachers. The INSTEP project investigated ways for using computer networking to deliver materials and resources to K-12 science classrooms from university resource centers (Aust, 1991). Project INSITE is an ongoing attempt to use telecommunication technology to facilitate the acquisition and exchange of information between science teachers and university communications (Buchanan, Rush, and Krockover, 1993). Lavoie (1994) utilized compressed video and e-mail to link science teachers, university content professors, university science educators, and secondary-level students together for the purpose of improving scientific knowledge and problem solving skills. The National Science Teachers Network (NSTN) project utilizes an e-mail medium to allow secondary-level science teachers around the nation the opportunity to take science content/education courses for graduate credit during the school year (Lavoie, 1995). Lastly, the Boulder Valley Internet Project (Black, Klingenstein, & Songer, 1995) has brought together teachers, students, experts, and researchers to explore issues related to the utilization of networks in K-12 education.

            Generally, the teaching of electronic courses is increasing at most major educational institutions (Klink, 1994). However, exchanging information and ideas on the Internet between universities as part of coursework is largely a novel and innovative idea for elementary and secondary pre-service science teachers. Recent review of the literature through the ERIC database revealed very few studies describing e-mail collaboration between pre-service teachers at different universities. This is consonant with the recent Office of Technology Assessment Report (1995), which states:

• Increased communications is one of the biggest changes technologies offer teachers.

• Most teachers have not had adequate training to prepare them to use technology effectively.

• Despite the importance of technology in teacher-preparation experience it is not central to the teacher-preparation experience in most colleges of education in the U.S. today.

 

            Thus, there is a need to identify potential models, strategies, and problems associated with using the e-mail medium to improve pre-service science-teacher preparation.

            The objective of this study is to identify factors affecting Internet discourse between preservice students of different universities to enhance their understanding of science and science teaching. Specific questions which the project addressed include:

1. How effectively can e-mail be used to enhance science methods courses by engaging preservice teachers at different institutions in collaborative learning and discussion?

2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using inter-university collaboration for instruction of science methods courses compared with traditional intra-university classroom instruction.

3. What are useful guidelines for introducing and applying e-mail with preservice teachers?

 

            The subjects participating in this study were twenty-two students from DePaul University (DPU) and seven students from the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) as well as the instructor/researchers conducting this study. The DPU students were graduate elementary education majors who had changed their careers. Many students had full time day jobs with families. The networking was conducted during their science methods class which is a ten week course. Students were required to complete ten hours of field experience. The course content is divided between understanding the nature of science, how children learn science, and pedagogy for student-centered learning.

            The UNI students were full-time undergraduate secondary science-teaching majors who had completed most science content courses, a few science methods, and preliminary field experiences. These students engaged in e-mail collaboration to furfill their requirements for an 8 week course, running concurrently with the DPU course. The UNI course focused on development and instruction of curriculum in junior-high middle-level science. Students were required to complete five hours of field experience. Most of the students had already taken a technology in science teaching course and were familiar with using e-mail.

            This Internet collaboration study involved seven cohorts, each composed of three to four students from DPU and one student from UNI. Students at both Universities were assigned email accounts and, when necessary, were provided with instructions on how to use university computers and the Internet. To facilitate intra-cohort communication each student was required to set up a distribution list for those members of their cohort which included the course instructor/researcher. This ensured that any message sent by one member would be automatically routed to all other members of the cohort and the instructor. The first assignment required the students to use e-mail contact to introduce themselves to the members of their cohort and carry on a brief discussion of their science backgrounds and how they shaped their attitudes toward science. The second assignment required students to discuss an article posted to the NARST listserver by Lemke (1995) which centered on issues of constructivism. It was the intent of the instructor/researchers to engage students on a regular basis through interactive e-mail discussion that focused on science teaching and science-content issues.

            Data collected from a pilot project a previous semester was used to modify the project for greater effectiveness and more-in-depth study during a following semester. The instructor/researchers corresponded via e-mail to create surveys, assignments, and to discuss project issues and logistics.

Data Collection and Analysis

            To determine changes in pre-service students' perceptions concerning the electronic mail collaboration, short answer response surveys were developed and administered at the beginning, in process, and at the end of the e-mail collaboration project (Table 1). These surveys addressed a variety of dimensions including attitudes toward the use of e-mail, participant-participant interactions, participant-instructor interactions, and actual and future application of the electronic collaboration for preservice instruction as well as K- 12 instruction. The e-mail correspondence within cohorts, between the instructor/researchers and the students, and between the instructor/researchers provided additional data. All e-mail correspondence was saved electronically.

            Responses to each survey question were summarized and categorized by frequency of the response. The e-mail correspondence was also summarized and categorized by frequency. The instructor/researcher interactions are not included in this paper.

            Three major data components were analyzed to understand student thinking about using email for science teaching and learning: pre and post e-mail networking survey, in-process survey, and copies of the actual messages sent among cohort members.

            The results of the pre and post surveys are represented in Tables 2-4. The initial question appearing on both the pre and post surveys asked students to list what they knew about e-mail. On the pre-survey, sixty percent said they never used e-mail prior to their networking experience while thirty eight percent identified knowledge about basic e-mail commands such as sending, retrieving, replying, printing, and deleting. One student had an advanced knowledge of using e-mail. The post survey revealed that eighty nine percent listed a working knowledge of basic commands in addition to more advanced commands useful for conferencing, creating folders, and creating distribution lists.

            Table 3 represents data collected from a question that asked students to list how they would use e-mail for science teaching in their future classrooms. Table 4 represents data collected from a question that asked students to list how they would use e-mail for learning science in their future classrooms. Categories of similar responses were identified based on the dynamics of the communication. These included interactions between "teacher and expert," "teacher to teacher," "teacher to student," and "student to student." Since the number of responses varied, Tables 3 and 4 represent the percentage of responses within a given category. Some students did not address the questions directly and simply replied that they would either not use e-mail, not sure about using e-mail, or felt the system would change making it difficult to use. These responses

List out several things you know about using electronic mail (E-mail)?

Are you aware of any schools using E-mail? If so what are they using it for?

Do you feel you need some formal training to begin using Ei,-mail in this class? Why? Why not?

Do you think it would be valuahle to use E-mail to help you learn in this class? Why? Why not?

List the kinds of ways you might use E-mail in your future science classroom for learning.

List the kinds of ways you might use E "mail in your future science classroom for teaching.

If you were allowed to collaborate over E-mail with other pre-service teachers list things you might do? Be as specific as possible.

How often do you use E-mail?

What have you used E-mail for?

How often do you use the World Wide Web?

What have you used the World Wide Web for?

In-Process Survey on EMnail Networking

How many times have you corresponded with students from the other university? If none, please explain.

List the topics you have discussed.

What is the nature of feedback have you received from individuals at the other university (short messages, long messages, substance, etc-).

P_t Course Survey on E-mai] Networking

List what you learned ahout using electronic mail (E-mail) by doing this project?

List ways you might wse E-mail in your future classroom to enhance your students learning science.

List the kinds of ways you might use E-mail in your future classroom related to your own professional growth.

In the future, if you were to collaborate over E-mail with other pre-service teachers as part of a class similar tO this one. list ou~ specific things (activities; assignments, etc.) that would enhance sTour iea~ning?

only appeared on the pre-survey and not the post survey. The "teacher to expert" category represented a response such as "wanting to ask experts at universities, NASA, and museums for answers to science questions." Another response was a desire to "talk to science educators". The "teacher to teacher" category included responses reflecting the desire to discuss science lessons and goals, receive feedback about successful teaching experiences, and find ideas and resources for teaching science. The "teacher to student" category represented responses such as using e-mail to give feedback and assess children's learning. The "student to student" category contained a wide range of responses such as having pen pals, sharing data, discussing science topics, and doing projects together.

            The percentages in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that similar responses appeared on both the pre and post surveys. In other words, e-mail correspondences experiences within cohorts did not add other dimensions (i.e., category responses) to students' thinking about the use of e-mail to enhance teaching and learning science. The only added dimension was the "teacher to expert" category which just appeared on the post survey. Overall, the responses given on the post survey were more specific than on the pre-survey. For example, students would say on the pre-survey that they wanted to discuss topics, gather ideas, or have students share data but did not provide any examples. On the post survey students gave specific examples such as "discuss the moon phases," "children could share data about the terrain and weather of their particular locations," or "students could do the same project such as examine the same outdoor plants and compare climate differences."

            Table 5 represents student responses to a question about their recommendation for using email networking in future science methods classes. Their recommendations are listed with percentages of the number of times they appeared in both the pre and post surveys. Share lesson plans represented 18% of the responses on the pre survey but was not mentioned on the post survey. Sharing hands-on activities represented 29% of the responses on the post survey but only 8% on the pre-survey. Wanting to obtain more resources for teaching science was a response that showed an increase on the post survey. Classroom management tips and a desire to discuss field experiences showed a decline compared to the other responses.

            Approximately half way into the e-mail networking experience, students completed the inprocess survey to identify their perceptions about the number of times they sent and received messages plus the quality and type of messages. At this point, the majority of student considered their messages to be short (two to three lines) and replies to each other as limited (Table 6). Only five students out of 29 perceived the messages to be in-depth. Three students said their cohort members did not respond and four said they only received introductory messages. Thus, most students did not engage in productive in-depth e-mail exchanges. However, a few individual attempts were well conceived, provocative, and demonstrated reflective thought.

            Table 6 indicates that all DPU students sent between 2-3 messages. However, according to the copies of the messages, 23% of the students had actually sent 9-12 messages. The discrepancy is due to the fact that the actual messages were analyzed a few days after the inprocess survey was analyzed. During this time, the DPU students sent additional messages not only to the other university students but also to their own peers within their cohorts. They were apparently motivated by the in-process survey. However, 29% of the UNI students said they sent 4-7 messages which could not be confirmed by the actual messages. There was a range of responses to the perceived quality of the messages. Student comments ranged from excellent, long messages and interesting discussions to one sentence replies. A few students never responded and claimed they received message too late or that the technology wasn't working.

            To cross-check for accuracy, the results of the in-process survey were compared with the actual student e-mail correspondence for both university groups (Table 7). Table 8 compares the topics that students said they discussed via e-mail with the actual exchanged messages. Messages from individual students within cohorts were analyzed to identify topics. The first four topics listed in Table 8 were given as assignments. The first assignment was to introduce themselves to each other. A discrepancy appeared between the in-process survey (17%) and the actual messages (8%) for DPU for this particular assignment. The second assignment asked students to discuss issues about teaching science that appeared in the e-mail message from Lemke (1995). Students were asked to discuss the article within their cohorts. Again, a discrepancy appeared for DPU

                                            DePaul (n=22)     UNI (n=7)

Perceptions

Excellent/long messages                  4                      1

Never responded                           3                      0

Good article discussions                 2                      2

Short message                                3                      1

Good feedback                              1                      1

Introductory message only              2                      2

Talked about teaching                    1                      1

Received messages too late            1                      1

between the survey (30%) and the actual (8%) messages. The final assignment contained three components: constructivism in the science classroom, examples from field experiences that corroborated constructivism, and barriers to implementing constructivist teaching. While Tables 7 and 8 display discrepancies between the survey and the actual messages, they only reflect what students remembered to put on the survey. Also some messages were completed after the survey. Besides discussing assigned topics, students also shared their frustrations (DPU: 12% and UNI: 17%) and benefits (DPU: 10%) of using e-mail. DPU students discussed non-assigned class topics with each other within their cohorts.

            In some cases, UNI students offered feedback to the DPU students on science content questions and issues. In turn, the DPU students offered insights to the UNI students regarding pedagogical issues of the upper elementary and junior high science teaching. The latter helped the UNI students develop more appropriate lessons for their field teaching experience which required them to teach 3 days in the field to junior-high level students.

Number                            DePaul (n = 22)  UNI (n = 7)

Category                Survey % Actual %  Survey % Actual %

9-12                             --             23                 --             --

4-7                               --             17                 29            --

0-3                             100            60                 71           100

______________________________________________________________________

                                                        DePaul                    UNI

                                             (n=32)      (n=40)     (n=13)      (n=11)

Topics                                 Survey %   Actual %   Survey %  Actual %

 ______________________________________________________________________

Greetings/introd.                    17             8                38            27

E-mail article                          30              8                31            45

Constructivism                       10             10                23           10

Field experience                     20             12                 8             0

Various class topics                  7             10                 0             0

Teaching experiences             13               0                0             0

Hands-on learning                   3              12                  0            0

Constructivism barriers            0             10                  0            0

Own learning expert                0               8                  0            0

Technology problems              0              12                  0          17

Benefits of e-mail                    0              10                  0            0

            Additional student perceptions obtained from the survey data are summarized in Table 9. The students at both universities perceived similar problems such as dealing with the lag time between sending a message and receiving a response, technical problems of using the system, and general communication problems. Students typically checked once a week for messages. Students from both institutions did not receive immediate responses. Students would often say they sent the message but had not heard from their cohort members. DPU students had more success communicating with each other than with those students from UNI. This success was apparently due to established bonds within given DPU cohorts. Students at both institutions had to be continually reminded to communicate with each other and much of class time was spent discussing computer and networking problems. The instructor/researchers developed additional assignments with deadlines to have a specific discussion completed.

            All students saw the need to have easy access to a computer system that works, a relevant topic about which to interact, and to have collaborative e-mail networking integrated within the methods course assignments and activities. The students recognized several advantages of using e-mail such as overcoming the time constraint of the class period, exchanging ideas and experiences, and increasing the resource and collaboration base for completing important projects in science teaching.

Typical problems:

• not sure who was in cohort

• students absent when cohorts were    assigned

• having incorrect addresses

• computers or system down

• differences in class size

• differences in class schedule

• excessive class time was spent discussing networking problems

Barriers to Collaboration:

• technical problems

• communicating with a faceless person

• time constraints

Recommendations:

• Students need training

• Easy access to a computer

• Stable computer software

• Relevancy for students must be established

• Networking must be completely integrated into course

Benefits:

• Opportunity for students to discuss topics in depth when class time is limited and student are not on campus.

• Exposes students to problems and benefits of having children communicating with each other.

• Increases access to ideas and resources. Enables the collaborative development of teaching and learning materials.

             This study examined some of the dynamics involved with attempting to use e-mail collaboration between students at different universities to enhance learning in science methods courses. The data suggests that the majority of elementary as well as secondary science majors who participated in this study gained confidence in using e-mail as a tool for learning about teaching science and developed positive attitudes toward the technology. E-mail collaboration became a useful tool for reflection which is critically important in science teacher preparation (Baird, et al. 1991; Russel, 1993). For those students who engaged each other long well thought out messages, it was clear that this kind of electronic discourse is a way for pre-service teachers to make sense out of issues and experiences related to science teaching. Many would agree that this kind of cooperative learning discourse is advantageous (Sharan and Sharan, 1992; Slavin, 1990; Sharon, 1990; Vygotsky, 1986).

            Further, previous studies have shown that learning is enhanced through small group collaboration over Internet for K-12 students (Goals 2000 Satellite Town Meeting, 1994). Other studies have identified many benefits of electronic collaboration at the K-12 level which correspond with those identified in this study at the university level. Such benefits include access to information and resources, being freed from time constraints of the classroom, and cooperative learning and sharing (Eisenberg, 1992).

            However, some students did not change their attitudes toward using e-mail as an instructional tool and their experiences created negative attitudes. For these students, the medium did not lead to much conceptual learning, constructing, or reflecting relative to science education issues. This was largely due to technology problems that prevented these students from developing systematic and in-depth correspondence with their cohort members. These problems included delays in receiving and sending messages, lack of technical knowledge, not having ready access to computers, and simply not having the time to interact. Application knowledge and technological accessibility are common problems as a recent survey of science teachers in New York revealed that 60% had no access to telecommunications and almost all were unfamiliar with common techniques used on the Internet (Murfin, 1995).

            Another factor affecting the results of this study was that all communication involved a "face-less" person. This undoubtedly depersonalized the communication and gave the e-mail correspondence lower priority than other class assignments.

            Based on the results of this study the following guidelines were developed to assist other science educators interested in using inter-university e-mail collaboration in their methods classes.

• Provide adequate time for orientation. During this time students must establish links between all members of a collaboration cohort and the instructor and develop a cohort distribution list. This will probably take at least a week as some students will not be as familiar with technology as others and will need training.

• Establish discussion guidelines. For example, this might involve setting a date by which all members of a cohort must have read the messages of the cohort and replied at least twice. This will force students to establish a regular timeline for getting on the system and interacting, which should be at least once a day.

• Establish assessment criteria for quantity and quality of interaction. This will not only motivate the students to interact but will provide the instructors with feedback that can be used to modify the student activities.

• Provide a relevant context for collaboration. The topics recommended by students for future e-mail correspondence supports the fact that relevancy is an important factor to consider. Students would probably have chosen such topics as lesson plans, classroom management techniques, and hands-on activities and resources over discussing constructivism in science education.

• Maintain flexibility and remember that "Murphy's law" applies to technology, perhaps more so than it should.

• Provide some class time for on-line discussions rather than trying to do it only as an after class assignment.

• Develop similar goals, objectives, assignment guidelines, and assessment criteria at each participating university. Every attempt should be made to work concurrently between universities.

            Future studies are needed to extend and refine the findings of this study. Other models of e-mail collaboration using relevant and constructivist-orientated contexts will need to be established and tested. For instance, students might use e-mail collaboration to work cooperatively to develop and modify lesson plans for field teaching. During or following the teaching experience, e-mail collaboration could provide an important source of reflection and feedback which would allow the pre-service teachers to make important changes in their teaching knowledge, process, and materials. Clearly, the user must value the e-mail medium and have some intrinsic motivation for using it (Stuhlmann, 1994). Future research must also develop and test assessment strategies that work effectively with e-mail collaboration. For example, students inquiries and responses might be graded on various factors such as originality, motivation, frequency of response, punctuality of response, concept development, concept connections, and Bloom's taxonomy. A mechanism for monitoring students successes and failures might involve forwarding all correspondence received as well as sent out to the course instructor. While this would require greater orchestration on the part of the instructor who would have to remind reticent students to interact, etc., it should lead to more productive discussions.

            Additional studies will need to investigate ways that communication with e-mail can be enhanced. For example, to reduce the depersonalizing nature of the medium students could ftp pictures of themselves as ""if" or "jpeg" files. If the universities are relatively close an initial field trip meeting could be very useful. Further, teleconferencing tools such as "Cu-SeeMe" (Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York, USA) could be useful at the beginning and during the experience.

            In sum, this study has shown there are many issues to consider and numerous problems to be overcome when integrating e-mail collaboration within science methods courses. Many of the problems encountered in this study resulted from lack of student knowledge, access to technology, and commitment to using the technology. The authors feel that many of these problems can be overcome with better planning, orientation, training, technological availability, inter-university integration, and assessment.

            Our nation seems to be moving toward a mixture of the "haves" and the "have nots" based on those who have control over the technology and those who do not. It follows, the power of technology is determining the "haves" and the "have nots" of the science teaching profession. The future uses of telecommunication technology offer exciting possibilities for improving science teacher preparation and creating a collaborative community of reflective practitioners. It is the responsibility of science educators to catch the rapidly expanding wave of technology and ride it toward new horizons for the benefit of not only our students but for our students' students. As educators of teachers we must pay careful attention to Goal #4 - Teacher Education and Professional Development of the National Education Goals Report - Building a Nation of Learners (1995) which states:

By the year 2000, the nation's teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century. All teachers will have continuing opportunities to acquire additional knowledge and skills needed to teach challenging subject matter and to use emerging new methods, forms of assessment, and technologies.

 

            Although interactive collaboration is a powerful tool it will require the combined efforts of teachers, students, and perhaps even media/technology staff experts before it can become a viable addition in science methods classes. We are open to working with our colleagues in the future on such e-mail collaboration projects and welcome your feedback on this paper.

 Aust, R. ( 1991, April). Computer networking strategies for building collaboration among science educators. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.

Baird, J. R., Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1991). The importance of reflection in improving science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 163-182.

Black, L., Klingenstein, K., & Songer, N. B. (1995). Observations from the Boulder Valley Internet Project. Technological Horizons in Education, 22, 75-80.

Buchanan, P., Rush, M. J., & Krockover, G. H. (1993). Project INSITE: Developing telecommunications skills for teachers and students. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 12, 245-260.

Coverdale, G. (1991). The global classroom. Science Scope, 14, 37-38.

Eisenberg, M. (1992). Networking, K-12 ERIC Digest. Syracuse, NY: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED354903.)

Goals 2000 Satellite Town Meeting, Learning On-Line: Education and the Information Super Highway. (1994). Telecomputing for teaching and learning: Stories of people using computer networking for learning. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education.

Hirth, M. A. (1993). Teaching via a distance learning network: A primer for beginners. Ed-Tech Review, Spring, 24-27.

Honey, M., & Henriquez, A. (1993). Telecommunications and K-12 Educators: Findings from a national survey. New York: Center for Technology in Education.

Hunter, B. (1992). Linking for learning: Computer-and-communications network support for nationwide innovation in education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1, 23-34.

Klink, W. R. (1994). A model manual for telecourse faculty. La Plata, MD: Charles County Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366376.)

Lavoie, D. R. (1994, March). Using telecommunications to engage science teachers, science students, and scientists in cooperative inquiry investigations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.

Lavoie, D. R. (1995, April). The use of telecommunications to deliver university science content/education courses to high-school in-service science teachers: An evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Lemke, J. (1995). Shamos and science education. NARST-L, October 12.

Murfin, B. (1995, April). A survey of telecommunications use by secondary school science teachers in New York city. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

National Education Goals Panel. (1995). National education goals report - building a nation of learners. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Goals 2000.

Office of Technology and Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology and Assessment Report.

Russell, T. (1993). Learning to teach science: Constructivism, reflection, and learning from experience. In K. Tobin, Ed., The practice of constructivism in science education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Sharon, S., Ed. (1990). Cooperative learning: Research and theory. Greenwood Press:

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stuhlmann, J. M. (1994). Telecommunications and teaching practices: What leads to change? Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 3, 199-21 1.

Go back to Table of Contents  

Go back to 1996 AETS Conference Proceedings  

Date of last revision/update : Oct 2, 1997