Está en la página 1de 2

Comparing works designed using the system with those designed using an Internet browser and word processor,

we have some encouraging findings. For example, previous studies (Small et al., 1998) indicated that seeking suitable materials from the Internet is time consuming and frustrating owing to the messiness of the databank, which then limits the amount of supplementary materials teachers can offer. We addressed this difficulty by providing a URL collector, a URL browser recorder, and a URL resource bank to assist teachers. Teachers in the experimental group all successfully and without much difficulty completed many instructional materials with the supporting functions. On the contrary, using the same of preparation time, teachers in the control group failed to produce instructional materials of similar quality. Furthermore, Roberts et al. (2000) found that teaching products made through computer-based technology were superior in design and required less time than handmade ones, but that there was no significant difference in the creativity of the two kinds of products. However, teachers in the experimental group not only completed better instructional materials, but also their materials were more creative and diverse, and the overall plans and materials were more coordinated and better structured. Innovative instruction relies on both a teachers willingness to engage in designing innovative teaching plans and on having access to facilities for helping achieve such innovation. Computer technology is one of the major tools that should provide facilities for innovation. However, increased access to equipment and training neither led to widespread teacher use nor altered existing patterns of teaching practice (Cuban, 2001; Havista & Lesgold, 1996). One possible reason for the failure to achieve the desired level of innovation despite the investment in effort and resources is the lack of suitable software to optimize the functions of equipment and training. Only when teachers believe that their workload can be reduced by using computers and quality of teaching can be enhanced will they be willing to increase their use of computers for instruction. The results of this study also support this assertion. Both the quantitative and qualitative data from our interviews demonstrate that teachers using our system experienced a lower workload and higher efficiency. The result was that they then generated more ideas and designed more activities reflecting their individual styles and originality. We believe that the design of software for instructional purposes and the exposure to such software are the most direct ways to link equipment and training, and to optimize the possible benefits of using information technology. The design and application of our system may serve as a reference for related studies. Due to time constraints and environmental factors however, this study did not conduct an observation and evaluation of the use of the system in a real teaching context. Future studies will investigate the usefulness of the system in a classroom context and other issues related to teaching material design on the Internet.

Acknowledgement
This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Council, Republic of China, under contract number NSC93-2524-S-003-014.

References
Chang, K. E., Chen, S. F. & Sung, T. C. (2001) Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 17 (1), 21-33. Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T. & Chiou, S. K. (2002). Use of hierarchical hyper concept map in Web-based courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27 (4), 333-351. Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T. & Lee, C. L. (2003). Web-based collaborative inquiry learning system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19 (1), 56-69. 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, 813-834. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 47-61. Fisher, M. M. (1997). The voice of experience: In-service teacher technology competency recommendations for pre-service teacher preparation programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5, 139-147.
148

Havista, N. & Lesgold, A. (1996). Situational effects in classroom technology implementations: Unfulfilled expectations and unexpected outcomes. In Kerr, S. T. (Ed.), Technology and the future of schooling: Ninety-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2 (131-171). Chicago, University of Chicago Press. International Society for Technology in Education (2000). National Educational Technology Standards for Students: Connecting Curriculum and Technology. O. R. Eugene: Author. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design and instruction. In Reiguluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (383-434). Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lawson, T. & Comber, C. (1999). Superhighway technology: Personnel factors leading to successful integration of information and communications technology in schools and colleges. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 8, 41-53. Leu, D. J., Hillinger, M., Loseby, P., Balcom, M., Dinkin, J., Eckels, M., Johnson, J., Mathews, K. & Raegler, R. (1998). Grounding the design of new technologies for literacy and learning in teachers instructional needs. In Reinking, D., McKenna, M., Labbo, L. D. & Kieffer, R. (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (203-220). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 781-796. Mannaz, M. (1999). An expert teachers thinking and teaching and instructional design models and principles: An Ethnographic study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46, 37-64. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S. & Soloway. E. (1998). New technologies for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 33-52. Niederhauser, D. S. & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15-31. Norum, K., Grabinger, R. S. & Duffield, J. A.(1999). Healing the universe is an inside job: Teachers views on integrating technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7, 187-203. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Park, O. (1991). Hypermedia: Functional features and powerful ideas. NewYork: Basic Books. Roberts, S. K. & Hsu, Y. S. (2000). The tools of teacher education: Preservice teachers use of technology to create instructional materials. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 133-152. Rogers, P. A. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22, 455-472. Scheffler, F. L. & Logan, J. P. (1999). Computer technology in schools: What teachers should know and be able to do. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 305-326. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). NonparametricSstatistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill. Small, R. V., Sutton, S., Miwa, M., Urfels, C. & Eisenberg, M. (1998). Information seeking for instructional planning: An exploratory study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 204-215. Topper, A. (1998). Co-constructing practices of teaching with technology: Working collaboratively with TE instructors on technology adoption. Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1998, 74-748. Willis, J., Thempson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology and teacher education: Current status and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 29-45.
149