technology in the middle grades...

Technology and Middle School 1

Running Head: TECHNOLOGY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL

The Intersection between Technology Integration

and the Middle School Concept

John M. Downes and Penny A. Bishop

University of Vermont

American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting

May 2010

Denver, Colorado


ABSTRACT

Technology integration continues to drive much of contemporary school transformation

efforts and middle schools are no exception. Some of the biggest educational technology

initiatives in the United States are based in the middle grades, largely due to the fact that young

adolescents are among the most avid computer users and find technology particularly engaging

(Simpson & Clem, 2008). The cornerstone practices of the middle school concept (e.g. Jackson

& Davis, 2000; National Middle School Association, 2010), therefore, often serve as the

backdrop for much of this technology integration. The purpose of this four-year qualitative study

was to examine the intersection between technology integration and the middle school concept.

Through extensive participant observation, interviews and focus groups, digital student work,

and document review, we consider the role of technology in the context of team efforts to

establish a cohesive community culture and explore relevant curriculum, among other reform

initiatives. The study informs technology integration initiatives in middle grades teams and

contributes to conversations among educators, researchers, and others seeking to use technology

to make middle schooling more responsive to young adolescents.


Introduction

Technology integration continues to drive much of contemporary school transformation

efforts and middle schools are no exception. In fact, some of the largest educational technology

initiatives in the United States have been based in the middle grades over the past decade.

Michigan’s Freedom-to-Learn program, instituted in 2001, provided tens of thousands of middle

schoolers with wireless laptops, the majority in schools not making adequate yearly progress as

defined by the No Child Left Behind Act. In 2002 the Maine Learning Technology Initiative

began providing 7th graders with one-to-one laptop computing opportunities. And the Texas

Technology Immersion Project, which began in 2004, equipped middle school students in high-

risk, high-need areas with laptops as well. Since then, more and more reform efforts have

focused on the middle grades as a key time to use technology to improve teaching and learning.

The choice to situate technology reform in the middle years is often predicated on

the fact that early adolescence is the time when youth typically begin to connect deeply with

technology. 71% of American households have Web access and, in those homes, middle

schoolers now spend more time online than in front of television (Sloan & Kaihla, 2006). 65% of

students in grades 6-12, and fully half of all sixth graders, are estimated to email or instant

message everyday. Of these adolescents, 54% go online for news, sports, weather and

entertainment news; 51% use graphic design, photo and video and music editing; 47% conduct

personal research; and 43% shop (Project Tomorrow, 2007). And middle schoolers are among

the most avid video and computer game players; “Eighth grade boys average 23 hours a week

and girls 12 hours, according to a study released in 2004 by Michigan State University”

(Simpson & Clem, 2008).


Concomitantly, the middle school concept (Jackson & Davis, 2000; NMSA, 2010)

continues to play a considerable role in contemporary school transformation efforts. Recent

research highlights the middle grades as a crucial time for identification of and intervention with

potential drop outs and reinforces the idea that the middle grades greatly influence later life

outcomes (Balfanz, Herzog & Mac Iver, 2007). The National Middle School Association issued

this year its newest edition of This We Believe, underscoring the continued importance of

elements such as teaming, relevant and integrative curriculum, and student involvement.

These two educational reform efforts- technology integration and the middle school

concept- each possess a substantial and growing base of research literature. However, few, if

any, studies have examined the intersection between the two. If a majority of technology

integration efforts is housed in the middle grades, as the past decade has illustrated, educators

would benefit from increased understanding of how the tenets of middle grades reform hold up

as they are integrated with this other reform initiative.

The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine the intersection between technology

integration and the tenets of the middle school concept. The research is guided by the following

questions:

1. How does the middle school concept intersect with technology integration?

2. What tensions arise from a marriage of the two?

3. What opportunities arise from a marriage of the two?

In this paper, we begin by providing perspectives on the middle school concept and

technology integration from both research and theoretical lenses. We then describe the

qualitative methodology employed to conduct this study. Next we present an analysis of our

findings, illustrating the connections and tensions involved in the marriage of these two school


reform initiatives. Finally, we explore the implications of these findings for teachers, school

leaders, and others trying to integrate technology into the schooling of young adolescents.

Theoretical and Research Perspectives

Middle School Concept

For the purposes of this study, ‘the middle school concept’ is based on tenets espoused by

National Middle School Association (2010) and Jackson and Davis (2000). According to

advocates, middle schools should be developmentally responsive, challenging, empowering and

equitable. They should be characterized by relevant and integrative curriculum that is taught and

assessed in varied ways. Such schools are organized to foster healthy relationships across

stakeholder groups and are led by courageous and collaborative leaders. And they are

characterized by a culture that is “inviting, safe, inclusive, and supportive of all,” in which all

students’ personal and social needs are addressed by caring adults specifically prepared to work

with the age group (NMSA, 2010). Although there has been considerable concern in some

communities about a perceived lack of rigor in middle schools, the recently released This We

Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents describes effective and responsive middle schools

as having the following characteristics:

Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Characteristics

• Educators value young adolescents and are prepared to teach them.

• Students and teachers are engaged in active, purposeful learning.

• Curriculum is challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant.

• Educators use multiple learning and teaching approaches.

• Varied and ongoing assessments advance learning as well as measure it.


Leadership and Organization Characteristics

• A shared vision developed by all stakeholders guides every decision.

• Leaders are committed to and knowledgeable about this age group, educational

research, and best practices.

• Leaders demonstrate courage and collaboration.

• Ongoing professional development reflects best educational practices.

• Organizational structures foster purposeful learning and meaningful relationships.

Culture and Community Characteristics

• The school environment is inviting, safe, inclusive, and supportive of all.

• Every student’s academic and personal development is guided by an adult advocate.

• Comprehensive guidance and support services meet the needs of young adolescents.

• Health and wellness are supported in curricula, school-wide programs, and related

policies. (NMSA, 2010)

The majority of research on the middle school concept has centered predominantly on

individual practices, rather than on the overall approach. Mertens and Anfara (2006) point out

that,

In order to answer questions related to the middle school concept and its effects on student

achievement and socio-emotional development, middle grades practitioners, researchers,

and policymakers must move beyond this focus on individual components and look at

research that addresses the reform as an integrated model, including the impact on student

learning and achievement.

The research that has been conducted on the concept overall has found promising results with

regard to academic and affective student outcomes (Mertens & Anfara, 2006). Students in


schools subscribing deeply and with fidelity to many of the middle school concept’s

recommendations, for example, were found to academically outperform and exhibit fewer

behavior problems than their peers in schools without a similar commitment (Felner, Jackson,

Kasak, Mulhall, Brand, & Flowers, 1997). Lee and Smith (1993) also found aspects of the

middle school concept to be positively associated with students’ academic achievement and

engagement. And the Center for Prevention Research and Development has conducted several

studies illustrating that implementing the middle school concept can positively impact student

achievement (Mertens & Flowers, 2006; Mertens, Flowers, & Mulhall, 2002).

Technology Integration

Like the middle school concept, the use of technology in schools has both strong

advocates and considerable opposition. Some argue that today’s prolific use of digital

technologies is damaging the development of youth’s capacity to learn. Oppenheimer (2003)

characterized today’s adolescents as an increasingly distracted lot, whose ability to reason, listen,

and feel empathy is quite literally flickering, exacerbated by their time spent on computers. He

condemned the federal government for what he called its biggest and most expensive promise

ever-expansive use of computers and the Internet-at a cost of approximately $70 billion during

the 1990s alone.

Agreeing that technology’s expense to schools and communities far exceeds its worth,

Cuban (2003) argued that technology too often sits idle and wasted in contemporary classrooms,

citing the pressures and demands on schools as too weighty to allow for meaningful technology

integration. Adding to these concerns, middle schoolers’ exposure to video game violence has

been linked to increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, and


cardiovascular arousal, and to decreases in helping behavior (Anderson, 2004) and empathy

(Funk, Bechtoldt Baldacci, Pasold, & Baumgardner, 2004).

In contrast, others (e.g. Johnson, 2005; Tapscott, 1998) have asserted that technologies

such as video games offer students complex cognitive tasks and teach students how to make

discerning, evidence-based decisions. A growing body of research supports the assertion that

technology can produce positive academic outcomes when properly integrated into schools

(Muir, 2007; Solomon & Shrum, 2007). Middle schoolers appear more motivated and engaged in

classrooms when provided the opportunity to use technology for learning (Nguyen, Hsieh, &

Allen, 2006; Penuel, 2006). Students’ attitudes toward learning, self-efficacy, and behavior have

also been noted to improve in cases of technology use in schools (Hsieh, Cho, Liu, & Schallert,

2008).

Prensky (2001) described an increasing and worrisome mismatch between the natural

capacities and interests of the “digital native,” such as these students, and the forms of literacy

taught in schools. Although many students rely daily on technology that connects them swiftly to

any information they may require, most teachers do not allow them to use these tools in the

classroom (Bushweller, 2006). Gee (2003) suggested that educators should learn new principles

of effective pedagogy from the technologies with which youth are already engaged outside of

school. Many agree that reaching and teaching the “net generation” (Tapscott, 1998, 2008) now

calls for understanding autonomous learners who learn best through trial and error, process

information quickly, connect with graphics before text, and require relevance (Deubel, 2006;

Glasser, 1998; Prensky, 2001).

“Today's youth may be coming of age and struggling for autonomy and identity as did

their predecessors, but they are doing so amid new worlds for communication, friendship, play,


and self-expression” (Ito et al., 2008, p. 1). Technology has dramatically altered how adolescents

experience their social world, and their in-school technology use appears to be increasingly out

of step with their out-of-school use, or, as Buckingham (2007) describes, as “a widening gap

between children’s everyday ‘life worlds’ outside of school and the emphases of many edu-

cational systems” (p. 96).

Differing student outcomes of technology use can be attributed largely to the level and

type of implementation. “Technology has the potential to improve teaching and learning, but it

depends heavily on teachers’ purposes in using the technology, under which contexts they use it,

and in which ways it is used” (Muir, 2007). Muir and other researchers have distinguished

between two pedagogical types of computer use. Maddux, Johnson, and Willis (2001)’s concept

of “Type I” and “Type II” technologies illuminates this distinction further. “Type I or sustaining

approach to educational computing uses computers to mimic the same behaviors and procedures

that teachers use without the technology” while “Type II applications make available new and

better ways of teaching” (Muir, 2007).

Examples of Type I technology use include using PowerPoint presentations instead of

overhead transparencies; directing students to content online instead of in paper text; and

engaging in online discussion forums instead of face-to-face classroom dialogue. In contrast,

Type II applications emphasize students’ active creation and acquisition of new knowledge.

Students are often empowered to create and complete tasks they could not have without

technologies such as wikis, digital stories, and simulations or games. Many assert that the

strongest outcomes of technology integration are realized when Type II applications are

employed (Muir, 2007).


As schools and communities begin to focus on 21st century skills, learning increasingly is

conceptualized beyond the acquisition of factual knowledge, particularly in constructivist

classrooms. Definitions of 21st century learning include an emphasis on global awareness; civic

literacy; and creativity and innovation. Students are expected to acquire strong skills in

communication and collaboration; information, media and technology; and. Leaders from

education, business and industry voice the importance of adaptability, initiative, self-direction;

leadership and responsibility as central to the intellectual capital of citizens during this

millennium (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009).

This distinction between traditional and innovative uses of technology -between Type I

and Type II- is important. It illuminates the potential for technology to emphasize the acquisition

of conceptual understanding and 21st century skills through active and engagement with complex

academic content. “Decisions about when to use technology, what technology to use, and for

what purposes cannot be made in isolation of theories and research on learning, instruction, and

assessment” (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007, p. 581).

Even when promising interventions are designed and implemented, the integrity of

implementation, not surprisingly, strongly affects the ultimate impact. In their attempt to

implement a technology-enhanced continuous monitoring system to support teachers’ attempts to

differentiate math instruction, Ysseldyke and Bolt (2007) found substantial differences in math

achievement gains among groups based on how teachers used the data gathered through the

system; the study’s authors emphasize the importance of integrity but also warned that research

that fails to grasp the quality of implementation may mask benefits of technology projects.

Johnson & Maddux (2006) argued that implementation is only one of many conditions that must

be satisfied for full technology integration. The desire to understand the implementation of


technology integration within the specific context of middle schooling was the genesis of this

research.

Methodology

This study applied a qualitative, instrumental case study approach (Stake, 1995). Relying

on participant observation, teacher and student interviews, meeting transcripts, and student work,

we explored what happens when a team whose practices are informed by the middle school

concept also tackles the challenge of intensive technology integration.

Participants and Site

The site for this research was a middle school within a largely rural town of roughly

10,000 residents. The school scored at or near the bottom among county schools in reading,

writing and math on state-wide standardized tests, even accounting for the 20% of students who

receive free and reduced lunch (a proxy for poverty). The towns also ranked consistently near the

bottom among county schools for average teacher salary and per pupil expenditures.

The research took place over the course of four years, from 2006-2010, and focused on a

two-teacher, or partner, team called “Engagers” (all names are pseudonyms) serving

approximately fifty seventh and eighth graders each year. The teachers brought to their

classrooms a deep understanding of the middle school concept. Both were licensed specifically

for middle grades teaching; both earned these licenses through a teacher preparation program

built upon on National Middle School Association program standards that was nationally

accredited for middle years teaching. Their educational philosophy aptly incorporated Turning

Points recommendations, such as meeting the needs of diverse learners; basing curriculum on

students’ interests and needs; developing students’ leadership and voice; and engaging students

in the community (Center for Collaborative Education, 2008).


As a result of a university/ private foundation partnership, this team received extensive

technology resources and professional development to infuse its practice with 21st century tools

and skills. All students and teachers received laptops for one-to-one wireless computing. The

team space was outfitted with media production technology, presentation equipment, and a wide

variety of software. A Web portal served as the program’s Web presence and as a central

location for curriculum resources. The team teachers were chosen because of their commitment

to using technology within an integrative curriculum that emphasized individualization, choice

and project-based learning. The teachers participated in long term professional development

focused on integrating technology in meaningful ways. This primarily took the form of

embedded professional development, with a coach providing support and mentoring twice

weekly throughout the first two years of the study.

Data Collection and Analysis

Table 1 lists the data sources and the intervals at which they were collected over the four

years. In particular, digital data played an important role in the form of students’ work, including

photo stories, digital movies, blogging, podcasting, and the Web portal.

Table 1

Data Sources and Collection Intervals

Qualitative Interval Participant observation Twice per week for first two years;

twice per month for last two years Formal interviews with teachers Twice per year Formal interviews with students Twice per year Focus group interviews Twice per year Informal interviews Ongoing School and district document review Ongoing Digital data review Ongoing


We used NVivo to conduct open and axial coding procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)

on the digital data, interview transcriptions, and field notes. Categories and themes that emerged

from the analysis, and their properties and interrelationships, were further examined for

trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) in light of related literature, triangulation across data

types, and member checking through subsequent interviews and consultations with participants

and colleagues.

Findings

Drawing on the characteristics delineated in the recently released This We Believe (2010)

we examine our findings in the following three sections: 1) Culture and Community

Characteristics; 2) Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Characteristics; and 3) Organization

and Leadership Characteristics. Rather than an exhaustive review of how each characteristic

intersects with the work of Engagers teachers and students, we highlight the most salient

intersections in order to expose how such an analysis can inform efforts to integrate technology

in the best interest of young adolescents.


Over the four years of the team’s existence, team development strategies varied

considerably and met with mixed results. When the teachers attended to team development as a

priority and a prerequisite to student learning, both teachers and students reported a more

welcoming and inclusive classroom climate and greater satisfaction and success with teaching

and learning. Throughout, technology played a critical role but could not in itself compensate for

less attention to team-building and team development planning.

A Struggle for Community. The Engagers project became a full partner team with a

dedicated special educator in its second year, providing the teachers an opportunity to create a


team community in which students would spend their core teaching hours each day. The teachers

regularly identified the importance of team building as central to effective teaming, teaching, and

student learning. However, they did not implement a comprehensive team-building program at

the beginning of the year. Minimal attention was given to team building tasks or to collaborative

development of norms, for example. Symptoms of a poor team climate were particularly evident

in Year 2 interviews and observations with students and teachers. Interestingly, technology

integration in these years suffered as well; a poor climate marked by behavior problems and a

lack of trust between teachers and students undermined teachers’ confidence that they could

effectively implement complex, technology-rich projects, particularly those that might

emphasize independent or community-based learning. Students reported disappointment that

technology projects weren’t more purposeful and meaningful. In short, the intersection of

technology integration and effective team-building were profound: teachers didn’t emphasize

community; team climate suffered accordingly; frustrated with student behavior, teachers backed

away from intensive, student-directed technology projects; and students felt betrayed that

teachers’ promises of engaging, technology-rich learning were not fulfilled.

Because of the multi-grade team configuration, Year 3 team building suffered from the

effects of returning students carrying the weak culture from the previous year. Although teachers

designed an appropriate team building agenda, including technology-rich projects such as

Portrait of a Teen podcasts, and My Home Town videos, the team building process was slowly

implemented due to conflicting demands on teachers’ time and attention. One Engagers teacher

described the dilemma he perceived in Year 3:


The beginning of the year seems like it’s kind of a balance because … you want to do

team building [but] we have the [NCLB-mandated standardized testing in October] and

it’s … really kind of hard to get in a rhythm in terms of actually doing, producing work.

This conflict led teachers to delay critical team building activities, such as a field trip to a

ropes course, until after the testing, by which time teachers observed “some disrespect towards

adults; there was just kind of a lack of expectations or lack of high expectations in terms of work

production.” By mid-December, after the field trip and the culmination of the podcast and video

projects, teachers said that they finally were seeing a more positive climate develop.

A Renewed Commitment to Team Culture. In contrast to the previous years, in Year 4

Engagers teachers planned and implemented intensive team building at the start of the school

year. One teacher described the process of,

[j]ust taking the first three weeks. We didn’t initiate any true academics. We did a lot of

academic type things but taking the first three weeks, going to [a nearby summer camp]

for overnight was the absolute key, I think, to starting the year off really, really, really

well. Being able to have meals together not in the school building. Outdoors, playing. It

was gorgeous weather. And it was just – it just let everybody’s shoulders down at the

beginning of the year, especially – I had the challenge of proving to the 8th grade that I

knew what I was doing; 7th grade, they just assume – I was a teacher – but 8th grade I

had a lot to prove because they hadn’t been through a year last year of a replacement. So

they weren’t trusting at first – some were, but not all. But that trip was the key.

During this year, technology strongly supported the community building. Instead of

withholding technology due to a difficult climate as in earlier years, teachers integrated it as a

means to establish the team culture. Students generated personal timelines using xTimeline


(xtimeline.com); explored digital photography and Voicethread (voicethread.com) to identify an

image to represent the team; created personal speaking avatars using Voki (voki.com); and

students chose among Prezi (prezi.com), PowerPoint, or Moviemaker for presentations on what

they wanted to be when the grow up.

The team’s identity as a hi-tech team was further bolstered by the use of Evernote

(evernote.com) for personal note taking, Google Docs for collaborative file sharing, and a

Google Domain, including student email accounts and collaboratively constructed Web pages.

This package of tools provided a nearly entirely electronic communication and workflow among

students and teachers, which was widely described as having transformed the organizational

lives of students, to their great relief. It also provided a team culture based on common language,

communication and processes.

The teachers suggested that these efforts contributed to an almost complete cultural

turnaround from the tumult of previous years. As one teacher said, “Taking the first three weeks

and having big … character-building, identity-building projects really helped…. I mean just from

seeing how the students felt about themselves and the team from the start of things to now….

There’s some people that are just extremely proud of what they do.”

Using technology in team building appeared to hold substantial benefits for students

having trouble fitting in with their peers in particular. Technology introduced a new dimension

of relevance that made a difference in the schooling experience of otherwise disengaged

students. For example, discussing one of these students an Engagers teacher shared,

[The student’s guardian] just said as far as socially and emotionally this year, he has

completely come up. He’s still very shy. He’s still not one to take social risks but she said

his social development has just been exponential. I think [the explanation is] two


pronged. I think, one, he loves technology. He’s so into what he’s doing. He’s had

opportunities to contribute, not so much … on an academic level, but beyond, been able

to make contributions to the team, whether it’s updating the website or having a little bit

higher purpose. But the other thing is that I think it’s been socially responsive for him. He

feels safer with the students that he’s around and the teachers.

In this case, technology motivated a reluctant student to participate in school and offered him an

outlet through which he could shine.

Team building activities infused with technology helped convey the team’s educational

philosophy as well:

We started with [digital] photography and Voicethread [for] team building, identifying an

image that represents the team. We voted on it and talked about being democratic and

that kind of set the stage for how this team was going to work.… Nothing happens

without your say, nothing works without your input.… And we meant it. And it was nice

to have that real, authentic, human-to-human, not teacher-to-student, but just like hey, we

have an organization to run here and the three of us [teachers] aren’t going to run it.

We’re all going to run it together if it’s going to work….

In this study, effective team building and bold technology integration appeared to play off

of one another. Students and teachers spoke of how these high-tech projects immediately

engaged students, helped them know each other and learn to work together, and shaped an

overall identity as a high-tech team. Team building activities contributed to a more positive team

climate and more ambitious use of technology. An intensive, technology-rich, team building

agenda to start off the year, such as in Year 4, was particularly beneficial to the team and its

students.


Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment

From the earliest days of the Engagers team, curriculum was technologically ambitious

and had a profound effect on the students and teachers. Throughout interviews and focus groups,

students consistently identified technology-rich projects as their favorite learning activities. Their

preferences ranged across the projects, but nearly all students believed they learned more through

the technology-rich work. In particular, the use of technology within the curriculum offered

authenticity of audience, opportunities for individualization, substantial engagement, a sense of

purposeful learning and meaningful student involvement. Table 2 lists examples of technology

use on the Engagers team.


Table 2

Examples of Technology Use on the Engagers Team

Year One Technology Use Our Town Digital Stories and Videos Our Town in the 1930s and 1940s Community Interviews, Digital Stories, and Videos Teens’ Questions Podcast Current Events, Team Life, and Writing Blogs

Year Two Technology Use Who Am I? Photo Stories Native American Myths Claymation Videos Mathematics Concepts Claymation Videos Stereotype Public Service Announcement Podcasts/Photo Stories Science Concept Web Pages

Year Three Technology Use Topical PowerPoints My Home Town Interviews, Videos, and Photo Stories Presidential Candidate Public Service Announcement Videos/Photo Stories Portrait of a Teen Interviews and Podcasts Science Concept Claymations

Year Four Technology Use Personal Timelines using xTimeline or Prezi Create a Team Image with Digital Photography and Voicethread Create Personal Speaking Avatars with Voki What I Want to Be When I Grow Up with Prezi, PowerPoint or Moviemaker Personal Note Taking with Evernote Collaborative Writing, Daily File Sharing, Surveys, and Quizzes with Google Docs Collaboratively Constructed Topical Web Pages with Google Domain Student Email and Electronic Student-Teacher Communication with Google Domain Functions of a Cell Claymations Diseases Public Service Announcements using FlipCams and Moviemaker People of the Revolutionary War using xTimeline Species Web Pages using Google Domain


Students consistently emphasized how technology marked them as unique on their team.

“A lot of our projects aren't really like a lot of other teams,” said Anna. “Like we use a lot of

technology during the year. It's like I can only think of one or two projects where we didn't use

technology.” In Year 4, students used more – and more varied -- technology than ever. Students

were given more flexibility in choosing technologies to use for each project. Some students

openly admitted that they sometimes chose a particular approach – creating a PowerPoint, for

instance – because it was easier and faster than creating a Prezi or video. Yet they were quick to

acknowledge that the latter are more rich and interesting, and when they were motivated by the

topic and had adequate time in their work schedules, they enjoyed more complicated

technologies.

Authentic Audience. The town community played a powerful role as an authentic

audience for the team’s work, and technology was particularly well suited to sharing student

work with audiences beyond the school. Senior citizens and other guests assembled in the town’s

historical society, to watch and listen to students’ Photo Stories and videos about town life in the

years of depression and war. Later the same year, the team hosted an evening at a local coffee

house to share with the community podcasts students developed for inquiries into issues of

personal concern to them, such as stereotypes applied to their community, bullying, and

MySpace safety. Parents, neighbors, schoolmates, administrators, other teachers, and a reporter

for the town newspaper were among the guests.

Students and teachers noted the impact of these audiences on engagement and effort.

Contrasting the experience of working only for their teacher with working for an authentic

audience, Tony, an eighth grader, offered his teacher a sentiment shared by many of his peers,


If we were to just give [our writing] to you, I mean obviously it seems like it’s

worthwhile, but when we actually put it out to the community, it’s kind of like it’s going

somewhere, there’s an actual point to it.

Teachers observed that technology provided students with means of sharing their work

that was new, that few in the audience would have mastered, and that impressed adults and peers

beyond their team. Sarah described the students’ experience with community audiences as

purposeful, prideful, and motivating:

When they had to stand in front of the people at the historical society and people

told them that they were impressed, I think that impacts them. Just more about it’s

up to me whether or not I make this something that I’m proud of versus doing

work for the teachers to correct…. [W]hen we’re involved in a project [with a

community audience] I just think they push themselves to create something that

they care about…. I just see a big difference when they have someone to show

their work to, what they get out of that…the pride associated with that.

Rather than being daunted by the challenge of public presentations, students spoke quite

directly to a convergence of technology, challenge, relevance, and efficacy evident in projects

that incorporated these elements. When asked why these projects help with learning, one student

noted,

With the podcast, we have to show people what we were doing and what students think,

which was pretty fun…. That’s what I like is that we get the chance to share it. Usually in

class, you know, you do a project and you throw it in the trash the next day because

you’re just there to get the grade and then be done with it.


Individualization. In spite of the challenge inherent in projects grounded in authentic

learning and audiences, Sarah noted that technology-rich projects allowed her to individualize

learning opportunities for the full range of students in her classroom.

The one thing that I remember from the Podcasting project, that it really lent itself to

individualizing almost on its own, that the kids that needed more time to work on the

writing or to work on the broadcasting piece of it had the time to do it while other kids

were going beyond that and incorporating visual slide shows…. I felt like when we're

doing a larger project, everybody gets what they need because they can go to different

levels with it.… They really worked to their own ability and I felt like that was a good

example of something being individualized.

The teachers continued to note the advantages of specific technologies to the unique

needs of some students. For instance, one teacher noted the benefit of combining laptops, music,

and headphones to students easily distracted in a busy classroom.

I’m really a big fan of students using music to keep themselves focused and I feel like

having the computer they can complete their work with that’s in front of them … and

having it be linked with music, we’ve had some work sessions that I feel wouldn’t have

turned out the way that they did if we took all that away and I was playing my own music

and we were putting it all on paper.

Particular technologies resonated quite strongly with some students, a phenomenon that

caught teachers’ attention, particularly when it involved otherwise disengaged students.

Claymation … can be so engaging for some…. They just get submerged into it. They

could work on it for 3 hours straight. For some – the kind of artistic piece, the creation,

trying to come up with this overall vision can be tough and kind of daunting and they end


up making Play Doh snakes all class. But certain students are just, like Andy for example

– he just basically asks me every week up until the point we do Claymation – Are we

going to do Claymation soon? Are we going to do Claymation soon? Are we going to do

Claymation soon?

Engaging Curriculum. Students regularly noted the significance of technology in

contributing to more diversified and engaging learning.

Yeah, this year has been fun for me because we do a lot of projects as a group and as a

team and have a lot of fun in the process. Like, we made claymations [portraying Native

American stories and myths] in the beginning of the year and it was fun because I was

with a lot of my friends and we have a lot of fun making the figures and shooting it.

The Home Town [community interview and video project worked for me as a learner]

because something I feel very strongly about is being connected to your home town and

being able to make that podcast and have people see it. Maybe it changed people’s

opinion about [the town]. Because every picture I took was people smiling. Not like

gangsters from [our town] that people think are here, [which] so aggravates me.

I like the hands on, doing the [technology] projects, because it’s like – if you have like a

short attention span or something and you really don’t like sitting and listening to

somebody talk, somebody reading something, if you learn better on actually doing

something,… you will have a better idea of what it is because you’re actually like doing

it yourself, you know? Like the whole podcasting thing that we did? I mean a trip to [the


local public radio station] and actually creating the podcast itself and when you got to

research your own topic. That made it more interesting for me doing whatever it was.

Students on the Engagers Team learned from these technology-rich projects and appeared

emboldened by them. As one teacher noted, “I think day-to-day they’re getting some real life

skills that maybe in more traditional classrooms they don’t get.” She was impressed by the range

of students for whom the technology projects worked, such as the podcasting project,

Half of me is looking at the kids who are flying and half of me is looking at the kids who

need more support. And I think it’s interesting to see that both are doing more than I

think they would in a traditional classroom.”

The teachers appeared to appreciate the role technology played in the success of the

program generally and in project-based learning in particular. The adults were of one mind that

“technology hooks the kids,” “gives students another avenue … to demonstrate learning,” and

with opportunities such as podcasts and digital movies, “touch[es] on people’s artistic sides,

…engaging the mind and teaching students.” As one teacher surmised,

What we saw is if we gave students a choice in their learning and assisted them with

some pretty high tech technology that that would help them buy into the system, take

ownership of their own learning, and really kind of make it their own and sort of change

their ways.

Near the end of year 4, the teachers were considering a new dimension of relevant,

authentic, and purposeful learning, and they saw technology as a gateway toward their vision.

Claymation has been kind of used as like a show-us-what-you-know-through-Claymation

type of thing. And the audience – you can do a culminating event where you invite

parents in or you can post on the web or whatnot, but [we’ve] been thinking just recently


about how do we make this much more about providing some sort of a usable content? So

that this isn’t just show what you know and be assessed on it; it isn’t just for your parents

to watch.… I think when you talk about engagement for some people to be truly, truly

engaged, they need some sort of purpose beyond what we can provide within the walls of

this school or within the walls of – or within the kind of confines of our immediate

classroom community.

Purposeful Learning. When asked how this trajectory relates to the team’s prior

emphasis on authentic audiences, the two core teachers identified significant differences, as

evident in the following exchange.

I think it ups the ante for what we’ve talked about in the past and what we’ve done in the

past. … I definitely saw a difference between producing work for just the teacher for

classmates, but then having something open to the community. But I think it ups the ante

even further; it also has some sort of real purpose beyond just that event. It doesn’t stop.

It’s not just oh, well – and I think I’ve seen it happen – people just say, oh, well, even

though my parents are going to be here or my grandparents are going to be here, it

doesn’t matter.

The desire is that we’re not just completing projects and then moving on to the next

thing. The desire is that everybody has a role and purpose and is excited to come in so

they can fulfill that role and that purpose. It’s trying to give – to build self-esteem by

purpose. Figure that out. It’s probably a really, really difficult thing to figure out. I don’t

know. You know what I mean? I’m so new to – that’s how like hungry I am personally,

like professionally to create an environment that at least gets us close to achieving.


The teachers saw technology as opening avenues for authentic purpose, and while only in

its nascent stages of development, they imagined examples that appear feasible and sustainable.

Well, we’ve been talking about some sort of combination of streaming, like radio station,

content website, so that – I don’t know – it’s in the very early stages. But one of the

things that we’ve been thinking about since we went to [a state educational technology

conference] was the idea of students having a role not only in the classroom, but – was it

Math Train? [mathtrain.com] – I think is one of the websites that has all these tutorials on

it, made by students, examples of how to do problems. So can we create some sort of

broadcasting station slash tutorial site – some sort of content site that is somehow

informing… turning and sharing and expressing artistic ideas, sharing research, sharing

insights into different types of math concepts or whatnot.

Student Involvement. Student involvement appeared to be central to the teachers’

emerging plan. As one teacher observed,

I think student involvement is huge. So we think we have this great idea. How do we get

students to, not only buy into it, but also kind of co-create it? And have kind of creative

license as to the product and the overall architecture of it. I think that’s crucial.

In spite of the challenges associated with such a bold new teaching challenge, the teachers

expressed confidence that their students can embrace the technical challenges that may lie ahead.

We have certain capabilities that other teams might not have, I think. Just being – having

the technology, being around it every day. I think students don’t have an idea how

technologically savvy they are compared to other students, compared to other teachers in

the school, compared to – I’ve heard anecdotes about students going upstairs and


basically teaching the rest of their classes how to do stuff. And so we have – we have that

built-in capacity right now.

The Engagers teachers also spoke of untapped pedagogical opportunities worth

exploring, such as students’ out-of-school technology use.

I have a student that did his project – he had to come up with kind of an artistic

representation for symbolizing a major kind of event in the book that he’d read. And he

drew a gallows in Google Sketchup, 3D. So he did it all at home. And I said, this is great.

And he said, yeah, I use it all the time at home. And he’s one of those students that even

with the technology sometimes it’s hard to engage him. It’s hard to get him to go beyond

what you would hope he would do. And hearing that he uses it all the time at home starts

me thinking, why? What’s he doing with it at home that he’s not doing here? And so why

is he much more inclined to be motivated to do something at home on his own free

[time]. But at the same time, are we really giving students the opportunity to do

something purposeful and contribute?

This teacher’s question – What’s he doing with it at home that he’s not doing here? –

echoes similar questions raised recently in literature on educational technology. What can we

learn from the pedagogy of youth’s out-of-school technology use that can inform in-school

technology use (Gee 2007)? As one Engagers teacher observed,

I just think there’s so much power in the technology that it seems like sometimes it’s kind

of dumbed down a little bit [in school] because [students] do see [that] they have a lot

more potential to contribute with some of the technology. But it’s kind of being fitted to

… standards, kind of the usual framework of school. And we were just thinking – and I

think that’s been kind of the basis of our recent conversations is, how do we go beyond


that. How do we provide some sort of bigger purpose to what we’re doing right now?

Because when you talk about 21st Century skills and using – I mean I’m not sure I really

understand what 21st Century skills are supposed to be but when I think of things, I want

students to be motivated to use technology in a way that’s going to contribute, not a way

that’s going to suck them into the ether world and never want to come back to our society

and contribute to our societies.

The teachers saw established standards and curriculum as impeding their ability to fully

exploit the power of technology. When asked what they need in order to achieve their vision for

powerful, high-tech learning, they noted,

I don’t know where it comes from, but some sort of liberation from kind of the – there’s

always this voice in the back of my head that you’ve got to do CMP [Connected Math

Program]. You’ve got to – there’s these standards, there’s these standards, there’s these

standards. This is the district curriculum. So making the decision: Do we go off the big

board and try and get to everything in our own way? Do we try and run things parallel,

having two separate things? Is our curriculum driving our product rather than our product

driving our curriculum? Best practice, backward design, would say let the product drive

the curriculum, but the State …, NECAPS [New England Common Assessment Program

NCLB testing] and other folks would say let the curriculum drive the product.

This quandary is somewhat familiar to teachers trying to create more responsive middle

grades classrooms, but the potential of student technology use seemed to exacerbate the conflict

between established curriculum – and many standards – and the promising innovations these

educators and their students wanted to pursue. The Engagers teachers’ exposure to the power of

technology raised still deeper questions about student engagement and success.


And when you talk about, what does engagement look like? I think overall, … it’s

students being, somehow feeling successful. And it goes back to assessment, feedback

…. [W]hat is the measure of success? Is it you get an A, is it you met the standard? Is it

you’re contributing to your classroom? Your community? To your world? So we’ve been

having a lot of conversations about standards-based assessments, but what does that mean

in terms of beyond just school?

Leadership and Organizational Characteristics

One often-cited cornerstone of the middle school concept is interdisciplinary team

organization, supported by collaborative time for planning. When asked how they would design

a project like Engagers based on what they’ve learned over four years, one teacher noted – and

his colleague agreed – that,

One of the places where we fall short, and it seems to be the story of our lives … in terms

of the history of Engagers … is just kind of uninterrupted time … where we can

collaborate as professionals…. Common planning time. Yeah. Whether it’s days or

whatever, but for whatever reason, it’s just been very tough to do.

Limited common planning time can undermine collaborative professional growth and coherent

pedagogy across the team, critical elements for serving individual students, particularly those

who are disengaged students.

This study illustrated that the need for collaboration was even more acute with a rapid

infusion of technology. The teachers faced steep learning curves as they grappled with a wide

array of technologies, and as they integrated technology into the curriculum and daily life of the

team. Further, as they transformed their work, their practice was ripe for reflection and inquiry.

In an ideal setting daily common planning time creates opportunities to collaboratively examine


student work, for instance, as well as discuss the successes and failures of day-to-day teaching.

For instance, students’ exposure to the highly engaging, creative, and self-directed potential of

technology-rich learning places more traditional pedagogy in stark relief. In this team’s case, the

special educator shared potent observations about the interaction among pedagogy, technology,

and a particular student, insights that if shared with colleagues could make a substantial

difference in the classroom experience of the student he mentions, and likely others as well.

[T]o me something like Google Sketch Up [an online 3-D modeling program] with kids I

think is a great idea. … Eric [a student] was off and running. He’s out front doing …

great. You go next door in Sarah’s class and they’re cutting and pasting stuff or they’re

using a Power Point [template] for a presentation ... and we’re back to the [Eric’s] head

on the table with a book [instead of participating in class]. As a kid it’s got to suck that

one minute you’re really excited and you’re fired up and you’re “Oh, cool, we’re going to

be working with Google Sketch Up and I get to finish my photo story,” to, “I’m on

Google searching images.” You know?

This special educator was dedicated to the team, occupied a desk in one of the team’s adjoining

classrooms, and was therefore intimately connected with the students and their primary teachers.

Nonetheless, the lack of daily common planning time to critically discuss the team’s pedagogy,

and the constraints that placed on the team’s ability to develop toward their goals, was a

consistent complaint when teachers were asked what impeded more effective technology

integration.

Engagers teachers were similarly concerned about feeling isolated in their reform agenda.

They expressed a desire to “talk to professionals or people who have done similar things,” or be

part of a teacher network. Instead, their extensive collaboration with their peers was poorly


aligned with the needs of the Engagers team. For instance, Engagers teachers were expected to

participate on district curriculum redesign committees, pulling them away from their classrooms

for whole day meetings 6-8 times during the year. These meetings replaced opportunities for

whole day planning to meet their team’s more relevant and immediate concerns, such as trying to

create a technology-rich, 21st century, responsive curriculum for a team uniquely outfitted with

1:1 laptops, electronic whiteboards, sets of still and video cameras, digital voice recorders, and

multimedia production software and hardware. District priorities to revamp curriculum to

comply with state standards, to vertically align the curriculum across grades K-12, and to involve

teachers democratically in the work – all worthy endeavors indicative of responsible leadership –

nonetheless ended up at cross-purposes with the innovative, technology-focused agenda of the

Engagers team. Working to develop curriculum to address the needs of the district necessarily

diverted energy away from developing curriculum to meet the needs of uniquely situated

Engagers students.

Most important, perhaps, leadership in this case did not adequately recognize the unique

professional development challenges technologically innovative teams face as they learn about

and manage the technology itself, invent pedagogically powerful methods for its use, and re-

create curriculum and team life – sometimes from scratch – to unleash their newfound

technological and pedagogical potential.

Conclusions and Implications

Our review of intersections between technology integration and the middle level concept

over the four years of the Engagers team yields a number of lessons worth considering as

educators search for ways to work with young adolescents in the 21st century. Teachers and

students made it clear that technology is a vital force for engagement, relevant to students’ lives,


and inspiring for their teachers. Their work offered convincing evidence that technology can be

thoughtfully integrated into fundamentals of responsive middle grades practice, such as

cultivating a responsive team culture and designing relevant and engaging curriculum. The study

also exposes vulnerabilities in technology-rich reforms.


Technology played a central role on successful team building activities. Both teachers

and students reported a more welcoming and inclusive classroom climate with team building was

the primary focus in the first weeks of school. Technology offered teachers innovative and

engaging ways for students to explore group and individual identity, come to know each other,

and learn to work together. Moreover, technology offered relevant and accessible avenues for

otherwise marginalized students to find their voice and place on the team. Students embraced a

group identity as a high-tech team.

Beyond these findings, the intersection of technology integration and principles of team

culture yields important lessons for 21st century middle schooling. Bold technology use and well

implemented team building can unleash the potential of both to create inviting, safe, and

inclusive learning environments. Moreover, technology integration can create engaging learning

environments that are relevant to students’ lives and reflective of 21st century cultures beyond

their classroom walls. However, once students come to expect such an environment, retreating

from or withholding purposeful and technology-rich pedagogy can seriously undermine

engagement and students trust in their teachers.

Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Characteristics

Teachers and students made it clear that technology-rich curriculum can be active and

purposeful, challenging and relevant, as well as creative and individualized. Students in our


study consistently regarded technology as engaging and beneficial to their learning. Students

were proud of their technology projects and appreciative of the benefits technology offered their

day-to-day work lives. Teachers saw technology as an inspiration for and pathway toward an

emerging vision of even more purposeful and authentic teaching and learning.

However, technology use can alienate some students when it is not coupled with core

middle grades precepts, such as choice, creativity, and purpose. And as teachers’ practice and

vision increasingly reflects 21st century skills and students’ lives outside of school, they may find

themselves increasingly at odds with established standards, curriculum, and assessments.

Leadership and Organizational Characteristics

Examining the technology integration on the Engagers team highlighted fundamental

principles of middle grades leadership. Teachers identified the lack of adequate common

planning time as a critical obstacle to serving students better with technology-rich pedagogy. The

need for common planning time was acute as teachers faced steep learning curves associated

with specific technologies and, more important, as they designed and implemented a brand new

technology-rich team and curriculum. Their challenging and innovative path was ripe for

collaborative reflection but they lacked a critical element of effective teaming: time to meet

daily.

The teachers’ lack of planning time was exacerbated by competing demands from

required curriculum committee work. Although Engagers teachers wanted to network with peers

confronting similar challenges, the considerable time they devoted to curriculum work with peers

had little to do with their team’s trajectory. Collaborating on district curriculum diverted energy

away from developing curriculum appropriate for Engagers students.


As leaders initiate technology-intensive transformation of teaching and learning, they

need to consider the extraordinary scope and complexity of the undertaking for teachers and

students. In the case of school-wide technology initiatives, all other school improvement agendas

– improving literacy and numeracy, for instance – may need to be carefully tailored to the

specific challenges and opportunities of technology-rich, 21st century teaching and learning so as

not to overwhelm teachers and undermine reform altogether. In short, the divide between non-

technological pedagogy and emerging 21st century teaching and learning is mirrored in the

starkly contrasting professional development agendas associated with each. When a single team

is leading the way with technology integration, as was the case with the Engagers team, leaders

may need to structure two distinct reform agendas: one to address the needs of students on the

high-tech team; and a separate agenda to address the needs of students on other teams. There

may be no other way to honor the professional development needs of teachers, the need for

transformative initiatives, and the inevitable disparities in technology access and teacher

disposition as educators confront the gap between a high-tech society and largely low-tech

schools.

The uniqueness of a 1:1 laptop team amidst more typical schools can also exacerbate the

reluctance -- sometimes among teachers, students, and administrators -- to allow teams to stand

out from one another. Rapid changes in technology and related pedagogy may lead to significant

differences among teams. Similarly, a focus on 21st century skills, including demands for

individualization and authentic, real-world learning may lead schools away from the widely

shared practices that minimize differences across teams. Leaders may need to discover ways to

exploit team diversity rather than resist it.


Leaders face a related tension between responsive, 21st century learning and established,

often standards-based, curriculum. The evolution of technology standards, even in the last

decade, is indicative of the lag between emerging learning opportunities on the one hand and

standards and official curriculum on the other. It is instructive to note that the original National

Educational Technology Standards (NETS) published by the International Society for

Technology in Education (ISTE) needed a complete overhaul before many educators had been

able to implement them. The standards for students (NETS-S), originally published in 1998,

were replaced by completely different – and far fewer – standards by 2007. The NETS for

teachers and administrators had similar shelf lives. Assertive and innovative leaders spent much

of the first decade of the century basing technology initiatives on the earlier standards, which by

mid-decade were widely regarded as out of date. Standards and written curriculum can be

propelling or conserving forces in school reform, a paradox particularly dramatic and

problematic amidst the fast-paced change of technological innovation.

Concluding Thoughts

To fulfill its promise technology integration must be considered within ongoing

conversations and initiatives of middle school reform. Researchers and educators must design

studies and interpret findings through the broader milieu of what is educationally effective with

and responsive to young adolescents. Recent work towards a new “technological pedagogical

content knowledge” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) for teachers should be matched by a similar

reinterpretation of teaching, teaming and leadership practices for young adolescents living in the

technological worlds of the 21st century, or technologically responsive middle schooling. We

hope this study is a small step toward that end.


The intersections we pursued between technology integration and the middle level

concept are only a few worth examining. We hope that future research will uncover insights into

how technology intersects with teacher advisory or comprehensive guidance programs. For

instance, we know a student support team that electronically “pushes” information and strategies

to teachers in an effort to promote classroom-based guidance. We wonder how technology

integration intersects with varied and ongoing assessments, such as comprehensive portfolio

assessment and student-led portfolio conferences. We are also confident that much can be

learned by exploring the intersection of technology integration, ongoing professional

development, and organizational structures that support meaningful relationships. We suspect

that embedded in much of our pedagogical struggles with technology integration are more

familiar lessons about how to engage middle schoolers in learning. These inquiries may help us

forge ahead with technology integration, despite the many challenges, to address the widening

gap between the in-school and out-of-school technology lives of young adolescents.

The Engagers teachers are witnessing, along with the rest of us, the rapid infusion of

technology into classrooms as more and more schools adopt laptops, netbooks and other

technologies. With their team’s greater fluency with high-tech teaching and learning, they note

the new challenges that lie ahead, challenges they want to embrace. They also ask important

questions of the middle level movement.

I think having access is key, but at the same time, access is becoming just more and more

readily available. And I think that’s part of our motivation is that everybody is going to

have access to technology. There is great power or great – and we talk about it in terms of

… not only access to information but being able to produce content and put out

information. And so how do we – with that ever-increasing reality, how do we get


students to use it in the best possible way? So I think having the technology … puts us a

step ahead of others at this point, just having – having used it, being comfortable with it

and using it for purposeful things within our class. But it also, it’s kind of pushed us to

the next step of, okay, so now we’ve done these kind of cool things; what’s next? What’s

the greater vision of where do we go from here?

References

Anderson, C.A. (2004). Video games and public health. Journal of Adolescence, 27(1), 113-122.

Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and

keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early

identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 223-

Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology: Children’s learning in the age of digital culture.

Malden, MA: Polity.

Bushweller, K. (2007). Tune in, turn off. Teacher Magazine, 17(5), 49.

Center for Collaborative Education. (2008). Our vision for middle level students. [Electronic

Version]. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from http://www.turningpts.org/vision.htm.

Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Deubel, P. (2006). Game on! [Electronic Version]. T.H.E. Journal, 1/1/2006. Retrieved March 2,

2006 from http://www.thejournal.com/articles/17788.

Felner, R. D., Jackson, A. W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., & Flowers, N. (1997). The

impact of school reform for the middle years: Longitudinal study of a network engaged in

Turning Points-based comprehensive school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7),

528-532, 541-550.


Funk, J. B., Bechtoldt Baldacci, H., Pasold, T., & Baumgardner, J. (2004). Violence exposure in

real-life, video games, television, movies and the internet: Is there desensitization?

Journal of Adolescence 27, 23-39.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York,

NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory in the classroom. New York: HarperCollins.

Hsieh, P., Cho, Y., Liu, M., & Schallert, D. (2008). Middle school focus: Examining the

interplay between middle school students’ achievement goals and self-efficacy in a

technology-enhanced learning environment. American Secondary Education, 36(3), 33-

50.

Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P., Pascoe, C.J., &

Robinson, L. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the

Digital Youth project. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved

January 11, 2009 from http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouth-

WhitePaper.pdf

Jackson, A., & Davis, G.A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st

century. NY: Teachers College Press.

Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad is good for you: How today's popular culture is actually

making us smarter. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Johnson, L., & Maddux, C. D. (2006). Information technology: Four conditions critical to

integration in education. Educational Technology, 46(5), 14-19.


Lawless, K. & Pelligrino, J. (2007) Professional development in integrating technology into

teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and

answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4) 575-614.

Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement

of middle-grades students. Sociology of Education, 66(3), 164-187.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Maddux, C., Johnson, D., & Willis, J. (2001) Educational computing: Learning with tomorrow’s

technologies. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Mertens, S. B., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2006). Research summary: Student achievement and

the middle school concept. Retrieved April 1, 2010 from

http://www.nmsa.org/ResearchSummaries/StudentAchievement/tabid/276/Default.aspx

Mertens, S. B., & Flowers, N. (2006). Middle Start's impact on comprehensive middle

school reform. Middle Grades Research Journal, 1(1), 1-26.

Mertens, S. B., Flowers, N., & Mulhall, P. (2002). The relationship between middle-

grades teacher certification and teaching practices. In V. A. Anfara, Jr., & S. L. Stacki

(Eds.), Middle school curriculum, instruction, and assessment (pp. 119-138). Greenwich,

CT: Information Age Publishing.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Muir, M. (2007). Research summary: Technology and learning. Retrieved December 15, 2008

from

http://www.nmsa.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/TechnologyandStudentLearning/tabi

d/275/Default.aspx


Muir, M. (2007). Research summary: Technology and learning. Retrieved December 15, 2008

from

http://www.nmsa.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/TechnologyandStudentLearning/tabi

d/275/Default.aspx

National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young

adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.

National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young

adolescents. Westerville, OH. Author.

Nguyen, D. M., Hsieh, Y., & Allen, G. D. (2006). The impact of Web-based assessment and

practice on students' mathematics learning attitudes. Journal of Computers in

Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(3), 251-279.

Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom

and how learning can be saved. Westminster, MD: Random House.

Penuel, W.R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research

synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329-348.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, Digital immigrants: Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Project Tomorrow. (2007). Learning in the 21st century. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from

http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/learning21Report.html

Simpson, E. & Clem, F. (2008). Video games in the middle school classroom. Middle School

Journal, 39(4), 4-11

Sloan, P., & Kaihla, P. (2006, August 2). Business 2.0: Blogging for Dollars - September 1,

2006. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from

http://www.nmsa.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/TechnologyandStudentLearning/tabid/275/Default.aspx

http://www.nmsa.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/TechnologyandStudentLearning/tabid/275/Default.aspx


http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384325/inde

x.htm.

Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Washington, DC:

International Society for Technology in Education.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net Generation. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the Net Generation is changing your world. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. (2007). Effect of technology-enhanced continuous progress

monitoring on math achievement. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 453-467.

technology in the middle grades...

Documents