ARTICLE IN PRESS

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002– 2013

0742-05

doi:10.1

� Cor

E-m

Chingsi

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Rethinking classroom-oriented instructional developmentmodels to mediate instructional planning in technology-enhancedlearning environments

Cher Ping Lim a,�, Ching Sing Chai b

a School of Education, Edith Cowan University, 2 Bradford Street, Mt Lawley, Perth, Western Australia 6050, Australiab National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 6 April 2007

Received in revised form

27 April 2008

Accepted 8 May 2008

Keywords:

Instructional planning

Technology-enhanced learning

environment

Activity theory

Instructional development models

1X/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright &

016/j.tate.2008.05.004

responding author. Tel.: +6108 9370 6203; fa

ail addresses: c.lim@ecu.edu.au (C.P. Lim),

ng.chai@nie.edu.sg (C.S. Chai).

a b s t r a c t

Although classroom-oriented instructional development (ID) models have the potential to

help teachers think and plan for effective instruction with technology, research studies

have shown that they are not widely employed. Many of these models have not factored in

the complexities that teachers faced when planning for instruction in technology-

enhanced learning environments (TELE). They also fail to facilitate teachers’ critical re-

examination of their existing practices and exploration of other practices to take up the

affordances of technologies for effective instruction. Adopting an activity theoretical

perspective towards instructional planning in the TELE, this paper examines two existing

ID models: Reiser and Dick [1996. Instructional planning: A guide for teachers. Boston: Allen

and Bacon] and Morrison, Ross, and Kemp [2004. Designing effective instruction (4th ed.)

New York: Wiley]. It then constructs a classroom-oriented expansive and reflective ID

model that: (1) facilitates the teacher’s re-examination of their existing practices to

identify contradictions in his/her instructional planning process in the TELE; (2) treats the

ID elements in a nonlinear and non-sequential way; (3) accounts for the decisions made

by other participants in the TELE, especially students and other teachers; (4) supports

teachers’ formulation of solutions to the contradictions and transforms practices to take

up the affordances of technology in the TELE; and (5) recognizes the need for teachers to

move beyond the current activity by reflecting upon it so as to enable the emergence of

new norms of practice.

Crown Copyright & 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Research of technology-enhanced learning environ-ments (TELE) in schools has moved away from focusing ontechnology-related conditions such as hardware, software,and infrastructure issues since 1990s. The emergingconcerns of current research in TELE are switchingtowards teachers’ thinking and instructional planning for

2008 Published by Elsevier

x: +6108 9370 6044.

effective instruction. Studies about the impacts of instruc-tional decisions made by teachers during the planningstages for TELE have shown that these decisions influencethe effectiveness of lesson significantly (Ertmer, 2005;Kitsantas & Baylor, 2001). TELE in this paper is understoodas learning environments that are mediated by technolo-gical tools to support effective instruction; where effectiveinstruction is not only about designing specific learningactivities to meet certain instructional objectives, butmore importantly, it is about engaging and facilitatingstudents’ knowledge construction activities that involvehigher-order thinking as intentional processes for solvingauthentic problems within a collaborative social context.

Ltd. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.P. Lim, C.S. Chai / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002–2013 2003

While there are other forms of meaningful learningwithout involving the computers, we argue that usingcomputer has become almost inevitable for knowledgeworkers (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2006). As such, design-ing meaningful learning in TELE is increasingly a key taskfor teachers.

Classroom-oriented instructional development (ID)models have the potential in helping teachers to designmeaningful learning in TELE. These models are conceptualand communication tools that engage teacher in analyz-ing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluatinginstructional activities across different contexts (Gustafson& Branch, 2002). Seels and Richey (1994, pp. 30–31)explain that:

y analyzing is the process of specifying what it to belearned; designing is the process of specifying how it isto be learned; developing is the process of authoringand producing the instructional materials, implement-ing is actually using the materials and strategies incontext, and evaluating is the process of determiningthe adequacy of the instruction.

All the abovementioned five steps of the ID process arepresent in most ID models. While the ID process has beenshown to produce effective instruction in the past, weargue that it may need further expansion and enrichmentto address the complex problems inherent in designingmeaningful learning in TELE.

Although teachers generally hold favorable attitudestowards the ID models, studies have shown that teachersseldom plan instruction according to them (Mishra &Koehler, 2006; Neiss, 2005; Smith & Ragan, 2005). Thediscrepancy between teachers’ positive attitudes towardsID models and their failure to use these models may bedue to the impracticability of the models in the complexschool system. The lack of understanding of the uncer-tainties faced by teachers has resulted in significantdifferences between ID models and teachers’ models ofinstruction (mental image of the learning environment,ideas about instructional activities, and ways of integrat-ing technology into instruction) that are often lessorganized and less goal-oriented. The ID models may alsohave failed to initiate teachers’ re-examination of theirexisting practices and exploration of alternative practicesfor effective instruction.

Adopting an activity theoretical perspective towardsinstructional planning in TELE, this paper examines twoclassroom-oriented ID models and formulates guidelinesfor the construction of an ID model that recognize thecomplexities and uncertainties faced by teachers planninginstruction in TELE. The two models are Reiser and Dick(1996) and Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2004). Thesemodels have been chosen as they are widely used inteacher education programs. An activity theoreticalperspective is adopted because it ‘‘seems the richestframework for studies of context in its comprehensivesand engagement with different issues of consciousness,intentionality, and history’’ (Nardi, 1996, p. 96). Its basicassumption about human activity as situated and histor-ical contingent provides a radically different starting point

and more dynamic understanding of classroom practicesfor effective instruction in TELE than existing ID models.

This paper first describes the complexities and con-straints that teachers faced in TELE, and their failure toperceive and take up the affordances of technologies insuch environments. Affordances refer to a collection ofperceived and actual properties of a thing, primarily thosefunctional properties taken with reference to the observerthat determine just how the thing could possibly be used(Gibson, 1986). The discussion on the complexities of theTELE and the affordances of technology points to thesociocultural–historical nature of instructional planning.Being a collective activity, the decisions that are made byother participants and exchanges with other participantsin and surrounding the TELE have to be acknowledged byteachers when planning for instruction. Planning ofinstruction, when view from this perspective, constitutewhat Schon (1983) alluded as solving ‘‘messy, confusingproblems’’ in the ‘‘swampy lowland’’ (p. 3).

The two ID models are then examined to identify theirstrengths and shortcomings based on the followingquestions:

�

Does the model present the ID elements as a processthat captures the complexities of the TELE? � Does the model account for the decisions made by

students and other participants in the TELE?

� Does the model acknowledge teachers’ interactions

with their instructional and sociocultural–historicalcontext?

� Does the model facilitate teachers’ re-examination of

existing practices?

� Does the model provide teachers with guiding princi-

ples to adopt instructional practices that take up theaffordances of technology for effective instruction?

With such questions answered, it is then more likely toformulate a set of guidelines for the construction of an IDmodel that mediates the instructional planning processfor effective instruction in TELE.

2. TELE: complexities and affordances of technology

For technology to be incorporated within learningenvironments with authentic goals and purposes forstudents, all stakeholders of students’ learning have tomake accommodative changes. The case example of theknowledge-building community (KBC) may serve toillustrate the complexities that teachers face when theymove into TELE. The KBC is a pedagogical model that isbased on sociocultural theories of learning. It is supportedby a computer-supported collaborative learning environ-ment called the Knowledge Forum (KF) (Scardamalia &Bereiter, 2006). In a KBC, students are to assume epistemicagency in defining and resolving problems of under-standing within the broader framework of the statecurriculum. They also assume collective cognitiveresponsibility in advancing each others’ understanding.Students’ understanding/ideas about the phenomena are

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.P. Lim, C.S. Chai / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002–20132004

articulated in the form of online postings/notes andrecorded in the KF.

The diversity of ideas spurs online and face-to-faceknowledge-building discourse as students attempt toimprove their ideas. The progression of the discourse isaccompanied by research activities such as literaturereview and empirical experiments. Essentially, studentsin a KBC function as researchers under the guidance of theteachers. Assessment in this TELE becomes more em-bedded in that all ideas are subjected to the community’sscrutiny. While the KBC does not discount traditionallearning outcomes, Bereiter and Scardamalia (2006)argues that it goes beyond traditional schooling toenculturate essential soft skills pertaining to knowledgecreation.

The role of KF is indispensable for the KBC. Dependingon the class progression, KF plays different mediatingroles in the KBC: as informative tools, situating tools,constructive tools and communicative tools (Lim & Tay,2003). It allows students to search the notes for informa-tion and it situates students’ ideas in the broader contextof the classroom discourse. It opens up the discoursespace through asynchronous computer-mediated commu-nication, which allows all students to voice their ideas andenable many-to-many communication. KF also allowsstudents to make use of multiple medium to constructtheir understanding through multimedia attachment.Other forms of technology beside KF are also employedin a KBC when necessary. Case studies of the KBC indicatethat teachers employing this model of learning have toconstantly manage students’ diverse and emerging under-standing, scaffold students’ inquiry, and facilitate groupprocesses for the formation of community (Chai & Merry,2006; Moreau, 2001).

Given the complexities of TELE and the affordances oftechnology, as exemplify by the KBC, there are two majorimplications for instructional planning. First, the use oftechnology by teachers fundamentally changes the in-structional activities in the learning environment, makingthem more dynamic and complex. Teachers have toreconsider the purpose of education and adapt instruc-tional tasks, learning activities and methods of assess-ment. There is a need for teachers to reflect on theirmodels of instructional practices and reconceptualizetheir roles and the role of technology in TELE.

Second, teachers may not be fully cognizant about theaffordances of technology in enhancing the learningactivities. A number of studies have reported teachers’failure to perceive and therefore take up availableaffordances of technology in TELE (Akhras & Self, 2002;Jonassen, Hernandez-Serrano, & Choi, 2000). The percep-tion of useful affordance of the technological tool isdependent on the objectives that inform the instructionalactivity, and reciprocally, the tool shapes the objectivesand activity. This is consistent with Gibson’s (1986) ideathat the individual and environment are inextricablylinked. In other words, while the affordance is ‘a propertyof the environment’—the perception of the affordancescannot be taken for granted. It depends on the propertiesof both the learning environment, and the other tools andparticipants in it.

While Gibson (1986) uses ‘perceive’ and ‘attend to’interchangeably, we differentiate the two terms in thispaper. The term ‘perceive’ does not necessary entail anovert action; whereas the term ‘attend to’ encompassesboth perception and overt action. The perceptions andtaking up of the affordances of technology may be affectedby the objectives and constraints of the socioculturalsetting of schools (Lim & Khine, 2006). Gibson (1986)refers to this act of taking up as determined by thesalience of an affordance. For example, teachers under thepressure of producing good grades among students mayconduct more remedial lessons and drill-and-practiceclasses; practices that they believe would produce goodresults in examinations. For these teachers, the mostsalient affordance of computer is the automated markingcapability embedded in computer-assisted instruction orinstructional games. Technology is then used to mediatethe transmission and stimulus-response models of in-struction to meet the objectives of the school system. Thefocus on examination results may obscure teachers’perception of the affordances of technology in the learningenvironment (see Lim & Khine, 2006).

Even if teachers are made aware of the affordancesthrough professional development workshops, perceivedaffordances that do not fit into the objectives of the schoolsystem are unlikely to be taken up. Moreover, there maybe technical (lack of technical support, lack of time),structural (inflexible time-table, lack of professionaldevelopment), and cultural (teachers’ perceptions ofteaching and technologies) constraints in the socioculturalsetting of schools (Cuban, 2005; Ertmer, 2005; Zhao &Frank, 2003). Therefore, there is a need for teachers toexamine the meaning technology has in the context of theconstraints and uncertainties they must deal with, andalso for them to address the assumptions that they andtheir students make about the role and value of technol-ogy in schools.

3. An activity theoretical perspective to instructionalplanning in TELE

Several researchers have identified teachers’ re-exam-ination of their practices and students’ learning in theinstructional planning process as essential to effectiveinstruction in TELE (Kitsantas & Baylor, 2001; Moallem,1998). Teachers need to critically examine their existingpractices and explore new ones that take up theaffordances of technology. They also need to approachlearning situations of uncertainty and complexity in theTELE by bringing to bear all their professional knowledge,in addition to their understanding of the specific context,in order to make the best possible decisions. Thecomplexities arise because teachers have to plan forinstruction that is influenced by the context in whichthey work (reciprocally, they influence the context), theirexperiences as students and pre-service teachers, theirexisting models of instruction, their interactions, negotia-tions and collaborations with participants in the learningenvironment, and their own and others’ (students, otherteachers, principals, and parents) interpretations of their

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.P. Lim, C.S. Chai / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002–2013 2005

performances with respect to the instructional context(Moallem, 1998).

To account for the where and how ID models aresituated in the sociocultural–historical process of instruc-tional planning, this paper adopts the activity theory as itstheoretical lens to instructional planning in TELE. Activitytheory has facilitated the analyses of successes, failuresand contradictions in complex situations without reduc-tionist simplifications (for example, Edwards, 2005;Engestrom, Engestrom, & Suntio, 2002; Roth & Lee,2004). It has also enabled positive development of TELEsuch as the KBC (Hewitt, 1996).

In the activity theory, an activity is a series of goal-directed actions that are performed to achieve someintended objects. All activities are performed within alarger cultural–historical context. Rather than acting orreacting directly to the environment, activity theorypostulates that individual’s activity is mediated bycultural means and tools, and the dynamic nature of theactivity. From this perspective, instructional planningshould not be viewed as an isolated activity. Instead,instructional planning is an activity that is carried out bythe teacher with a variety of tools in a socioculturalcontext. Other people in this context may support orinhibit the teacher’s effort in carrying out his/her goal-oriented activity. The tools include an ID model thatmediates the teacher’s visualization, direction and man-agement of his/her instructional planning in the TELE.

3.1. Instructional planning in the TELE as an activity system

The prime unit of analysis for the activity theory is thecollected object-oriented activity system. Analyzing theactivity system enables one to examine the actual learningprocesses in its dynamic sociocultural context. It inte-grates the subject (individual participant), the object, thetools and the settings, which are explicated through therules, community and the division of labor (DOL) toprovide a holistic understanding of the activities. Fig. 1below is Engestrom’s (1987) representation of the idea ofactivity system as a unit of analysis.

The activity of the subject is directed towards theobject that is then ‘‘molded and transformed into out-comes with the help of physical and symbolic external

Subject

Division of LaborRules Community

Tools

OutcomeObject

Fig. 1. Engestrom’s (1987) representation of the idea of activity system.

and internal tools (mediating instruments and signs)’’(Engestrom, 1993, p. 67). The tools through which thesubject interacts with the world are dependent on his/herobject in the activity system, and this shapes his/herinterpretation of the tools. The subject exists in acommunity comprising of other individuals and sub-groups that share the same general object. The commu-nity’s relationship to the object of the activity is the DOL,that is, how the activity is distributed among themembers of the community. More commonly, DOL refersto the roles that member in the community assume. Tasks,powers, and responsibilities are continuously negotiatedamong its participants. This relationship is importantbecause in order for a community to achieve a commonobjective, the activities of the individuals in it must beorganized, and the paths of communication coordinated(Stetsenko, 2005). The community also ‘‘specify andregulate the expected correct procedures and acceptableinteractions among the participants’’ mediated by rules(Cole & Engestrom, 1993, p. 7); where rules are ‘‘theexplicit and implicit regulations, norms and conventionsthat constrain actions and interactions within the activitysystem’’ (Engestrom, 1993, p. 67).

In the activity system of teacher’s instructional plan-ning in TELE, the teacher is the object-oriented subject.He/she is actively seeking out appropriate technologicalaffordances to achieve the object of effective instruction.Tools, including the teacher’s personal ID model, mediatethe interactions between the subject and object. Othermediating tools in the TELE consist of material andsymbolic resources (including technology) that are usedin the instructional activities and interactions. Within thissetting, there is a community of interdependent personsthat include the students, other teachers and technicalassistants who may also participate in the decision-making process directly or indirectly. The communityshares a set of social meaning with the subject, mediatedby the rules that may include end-of-the-year examina-tions, weekly continual assessments, scheme of workset by the department head, criterion of a good class orgood teacher, disciplinary rules and school operationprocedures.

The common objective of effective instruction isachieved when the activities of the individuals in theTELE are sufficiently organized and the paths of commu-nication well coordinated. This implies that the commu-nity members need to continuously negotiate the tasksand responsibilities among themselves (DOL). For exam-ple, instructional planning should be viewed as a dynamicsocial process. As the common discourse of the instruc-tional activity is appropriated by the students, the teacherwill need to constantly facilitate students’ appropriation‘‘to a new level of self-regulation’’ (Wertsch, 1991, p. 113).This ‘‘discourse is guided by a backlog of ‘commonknowledge’ that has been constructed within the courseof a history of social exchange’’ between the teacher andstudents; where the students are ‘‘persistently invited toreconstruct earlier experiences in terms of their currentactivity and its outcome’’ (Edwards & Mercer, 1987, p. 19).

Conceptualizing common knowledge as characteristicsof persons-in-activity where ‘‘the individual is understood

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.P. Lim, C.S. Chai / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002–20132006

as an active living being transacting with many changingenvironments, most prominently other human beings’’(Moll, Tapia, & Whitmore, 1993, p. 161), both the teacherand students are perceived as members of the classroomcommunity in which ‘‘each participant makes significantcontributions to the emergent understandings of allmembers, despite having unequal knowledge concerningthe topic under study’’ (Palincsar, Brown, & Campione,1993, p. 43). The teacher is a moderator that providesguidance, strategic support, and assistance to help his/herstudents assume epistemic agency. It is linked to theconcept of ZPD where it involves a kind of negotiationbetween the teacher and students in which the teachertends to use directives that require students to take onadditional responsibility for regulating the activity.

Consequently, instructional planning focuses on thecontinuous process of negotiation in the learning environ-ment that is socially shared. Rather than subject abidingby fixed rules, the teacher constantly negotiates andreformulates emerging rules with the community, Thetools are continuously re-conceptualized or new tools aredeveloped or introduced by members of the communityto meet the object of the activity system. This point isilluminated by Barab, Barnett, Yamagata-Lynch, Squire,and Keating (2002), who use an activity theory perspec-tive to demonstrate the shifting trajectories occurring in aTELE course. In addition to applying activity theory toidentify the primary course contradictions, they demon-strate how objects or DOL in one set of transactions arelater used by the students and teacher as tools insubsequent interactions.

In these cases, the dynamic nature of the activitysystem is illustrated. As the teacher interacts with thelearning environment, the ID model evolves. The roles ofthe community member are developed and changed withthe activity system. Even the object is constantly under-going redefinition, as ‘‘it manifests itself in different formsfor different participants and at different moments of theactivity’’ (Hasu & Engestrom, 1999, p. 4). Therefore,instructional planning in the TELE is not necessarily astable and harmonious process. Contradictions may occurwithin and between activity systems as emerging dilem-mas, disturbances, and disco-ordinations. Although theyappear in the form of tensions that are involved inachieving the goals of the intended activity, these contra-dictions are developmentally significant for the better-ment of the activity system. Further explanation isprovided in Section 3.2.

3.2. Contradictions in the activity system of instructional

planning in TELE

There are two main types of contradictions within anactivity system. While the primary contradictions exist ineach component, the secondary contradictions appearbetween the components of the system. For example, aprimary contradiction can occur when the intended objectof planning effective instruction in TELE is replaced by theobject of fulfilling a school requirement that demandsteachers to use TELE for certain hours weekly. In this case,there is a constant latent tension between the intended

object of effective instruction and the object of usingtechnology.

Secondary contradictions occur when there is a conflictbetween different components in the activity system. Forexample, a teacher (i.e. the subject) who wishes to set aKBC may encounter problems in enculturating students toadopt the role (DOL) collaborative knowledge builders.He/she may also encounter the problems of studentsusing the asynchronous platform (tool) for off-task chatrather than building knowledge (object). Research on TELEindicate that teachers who are apt in facilitating students’autonomous knowledge construction are more inclined toexploit the affordances of technology for effective instruc-tion than teachers who are more traditionally inclined. Inother words, there may exist a secondary contradictionbetween the subject and tools. Teachers who are inclinedtowards traditional views of teaching may be biased toexpect students to be passive receiver of knowledge(Windschitl & Sahl, 2002; Wood, 2007; Zhao & Frank,2003). As a result, many affordances of technology such asusing computers as communicative or constructive toolsare not taken up.

3.3. External contradictions in the activity system of

instructional planning in TELE

Other than the primary and secondary contradictions,the activity system of teacher’s instructional planning inTELE is situated within the sociocultural context of school,the education system and society-at-large. As such, theclassroom-oriented activity system may encounter exter-nal contradictions that arise when it interact with otheractivity systems that are situated at different level ofsociocultural contexts. In other words, activity systemcannot be viewed in isolation with other activity systems.Some studies have documented how one activity in aparticular context is affected by other activity systems(Hirst & Vadeboncoeur, 2006; Smardon, 2004). Forexample, the teacher’s activity system of instructionalplanning in TELE could operate in conjunction withcollaborative inquiry activities organized by universityresearchers, which could change the object of effectiveinstruction. The researcher’s activity system is likely to begeared towards publication while the teacher’s activitysystem, as a consequent of the school’s object, is gearedtowards achieving good grades. These activity systemsdemand and afford different, complementary but alsoconflicting tools, rules and patterns of social interactions.

Disturbances and breakdowns in the instructionalplanning process due to the myriad contradictions andconflicts within and between activity systems may not beresolved through separate solutions. Disturbances in thispaper refer to deviations from a smooth instructionalplanning process. Breakdowns are ‘‘disruptions in thenormal functioning of things forcing the individual toadopt a more reflective or deliberative stance towardongoing activity’’ (Hasu & Engestrom, 1999, p. 5).While these breakdowns and disturbances may result infailure to achieve the intended object of the activitysystem, they can also serve as the beginning points for the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.P. Lim, C.S. Chai / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002–2013 2007

re-mediation of the entire activity system that helps toresolve the internal and external contradictions.

Generating re-mediation for the disturbances andbreakdowns in the instructional planning process in theTELE is essential for teachers to manage the complexitiesof the TELE and to take up the affordances of technology.According to Il’enkov (1982), most innovative humanactivities started off as deviation from accepted normsbefore they are accepted:

Thus, any new improvement of labor, every new modeof man’s action in production, before becoming gen-erally accepted and recognized, first emerge as acertain deviation from previously accepted and codi-fied norms. Having emerged as an individual exceptionfrom the rule in the labor of one or several men, thenew form is then taken over by others, becoming intime a new universal norm. If the new norm did notoriginally appear in this exact manner, it would neverbecome a really universal form, but would exist merelyin fantasy, in wishful thinking (pp. 83–84).

As such, contradictions can be the ‘‘springboards y ornew specific instruments yfor breaking the constraintsand for constructing a new general model for thesubsequent activity’’ (Engestrom, 1987, p. 189). For thenew activity to emerge, however, contradictions need tobe first made explicit.

The ‘springboards’ or ‘new specific instruments’ in thecontext of instructional planning are the ID models thatmediate teachers’ instructional planning to identify andaddress the contradictions in the TELE. From thisperspective, ID models as mediational tools must helpteachers to make sense of the complexities of the TELE;reflectively analyze the existing practice of instructionalplanning, identify the contradictions, search for thesolutions, and finally design and implement new ap-proaches towards instructional planning that exploit theaffordances of technology for effective instruction.

Evaluate Impleme

Develop

Analyz

Revision

Revision

Fig. 2. Core elements of instr

Whether or not the existing classroom-oriented ID modelsprovide this support for teachers is the question we willreview next.

4. A review of existing classroom-oriented ID models

ID is concerned with the best ways to create learningenvironments that yield learning. It seeks to apply theoryto instructional problems and systemize the processesthat take theories and turn them into learning environ-ments. Although ID was initially founded in the behavior-ist/cognitivist framework, a paradigm shift towardsconstructivism in the last decade has occurred. None-theless, the core elements of the ID process remains to be:analyze, design, develop, implement and evaluate (ADDIE)(see Fig. 2) (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). These fiveelements are considered to be essential for the productionof effective instruction by the ID community (Gustafson &Branch, 2002).

In the classroom-oriented ID process, the teacheranalyzes and determines who, what, where, why and bywhom the instruction is for. Analysis of how the previousepisodes of instruction worked and what the teacher cando to improve them are also included. Design focuses onthe articulation of the instructional objectives, instruc-tional strategies, instructional resources (including tech-nology); sequencing of instruction, and the selection ofevaluation techniques and tasks. Development includesthe preparation of students (e.g. inform students todownload and read the materials), the teacher (e.g. testingwork network connection), and instructional resources(e.g. manual for logging on to the online platform) forinstruction. Implementation is the actual delivery of thelesson to support students’ mastery of the instructionalobjectives. Finally, formative and summative evaluationsare conducted to assess the effectiveness and efficiency ofinstruction. Formative evaluation is ongoing process thatruns throughout the ID process while summative evalua-tion is conducted at the end of the instruction.

nt Design

e

Revision

Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p.19

Revision

uctional development.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.P. Lim, C.S. Chai / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002–20132008

In the past decades, the ADDIE model has moved awayfrom linear and rigid representation to emphasize theiterative, flexible and interconnected nature of the fiveelements. Emphasis has also been made on users(students) and designers or developers (teachers) jointdecision-making. Fig. 2 depicts the nonlinearity andacknowledges the complexities associated with theprocess, and communicates the simultaneous iterationsthat characterize the ID process in reality.

While the ADDIE process has wide application acrossdifferent instructional contexts, it is insufficient to providepractitioners (teachers) on how to practice specificelements to yield effective instruction. Guidelines onhow to practice each element in different instructionalcontexts are established in the ID models. As this paper isabout the instructional planning of teachers, and due tospace constraint, we have chosen to discuss two mostcommon classroom-oriented ID models: Reiser and Dick(1996) and Morrison et al. (2004). These models provideteachers with a more detailed guidance and they alsoidentify alternatives for specific situations. Nonetheless,both of these models need fundamental changes to bemore flexible and participatory. This is essential for an IDmodel to support teachers to take up the affordances oftechnology for effective instruction in TELE.

4.1. Reiser and Dick model

According to Reiser and Dick (1996), four key principlesunderlie the systematic instructional planning process:identification of goals and objectives that students areexpected to attain, planning of instructional activities andchoosing of instructional media that correspond with theobjectives, development of assessment instruments tomeasure attainment of objectives, and revision of instruc-tion based on student performance and dispositions(Fig. 3). This model may have unintentionally reinforcedteachers in maintaining existing practices rather thancritically question and analyze them (Gustafson & Branch,2002). Although there is an element of evaluation in themodel, its emphasis is on student performance; theteachers are not engaged in their re-examination of theirexisting practices and employment innovative approaches.

4.2. Morrison, Ross and Kemp model

The focus of Morrison et al. (2004) model is curriculumplanning and considers the fundamentals of instruction

Identify Instructional

Goals

Identify Objectives

PlanInstructional

Activities

Revi

Fig. 3. The Reiser an

from the students’ perspective rather than the contentperspective. The development model is a continuous cycleplaced in the context of goals, priorities and constraintsthat consists of nine major elements: instructionalproblems, learner characteristics, task analysis, instruc-tional objectives, content sequencing, instructional stra-tegies, instructional delivery, evaluation instruments, andinstructional resources (Fig. 4). The model acknowledgesthat instructional planning is non-sequential. That is, theteacher may start with any element and proceed in anyorder. The authors emphasize that every teacher is uniqueand will employ the elements differently. The model alsoallows for ongoing revisions of the elements based onformative and summative evaluation. However, questionssuch as ‘‘Where do we go from here if current expecta-tions/objectives have been met?’’ are left unanswered.That is, the model fails to engage teachers in re-examiningtheir practices; it assumes that if the existing instructionmeets the objectives, there is no need to revise andinnovate.

5. Examining existing ID models through activitytheoretical lens

5.1. Incorporation of expansive cycles into ID models

From the above discussion, both the Morrison et al.(2004) and Reiser and Dick (1996) models fail to provideguiding principles to help teachers in re-examiningcurrent practices and exploring other practices thatexploit the affordances of technology for effective instruc-tion. Moreover, the models are skewed towards depictinginstructional planning as a problem-solving process.Engestrom (1987) dismisses such a process as reactivesince individuals are ‘‘diligent problem solving andstructuring in order to cope with changes that haveshaken their lives, there are already new qualitativechanges quickly getting ripe to fall upon them’’ (p. 2).

The systemic contradictions that teachers face inschools are unlikely to be resolved through isolatedtechnical solutions (Engestrom et al., 2002). Engestrompropose that in order to eliminate the contradictions,new activity systems have to be constructed at thesystemic level. This process, which involves the creationof new knowledge and understandings in respond to thechanged circumstances, is known as expansive learning.(Engestrom, 1987). In TELE, teachers’ ability to create

Develop Assessment

Tools

Choose Instructional

Media

Implement Instruction

se Instruction

d Dick model.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Instructional Strategies

Content Sequencing

Instructional Objectives

TaskAnalysis

Learner Characteristics

Evaluation Instruments

Development of Instruction

Designing the Message

Instructional Problems

Revision

Planning

Implementation Confirmative Evaluation

Formative Evaluation

Project Management

SupportServicesSu

mm

ativ

e E

valu

atio

n

Fig. 4. The Morrison, Ross and Kemp model.

C.P. Lim, C.S. Chai / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002–2013 2009

enhanced learning environments through the affordancesof technologies becomes a key factor for new practice toemerge. As such, the ID models that teachers held mustenable teachers to identify the areas for improvement andtransformation in their practices (Korpela, Mursu, &Soriyan, 2002). In essence, what we need are perceptiveteachers and that perceptiveness is a type of expertise thathas to be acquired through reflective practice as Schon(1983) proposed. Wearing the activity theory lenses onthe various ID components can be a means to scaffoldteachers’ development towards the required expertise.The reviewed ID models, however, are unlikely toenable teachers for the transformation of instructionalplanning practices.

5.2. Classroom-oriented expansive and reflective ID model

The preceding discussion supports two interdependentimplications for a classroom-oriented ID model mediatinginstructional planning in the TELE. The implications forthe ID model are:

�

It accounts for the complexities of instructionalplanning in the TELE by being nonlinear and non-sequential, accounting for decisions made by studentsand other participants in the TELE, and recognizingteachers’ interactions with their instructional andsociocultural–historical contexts. � It supports teachers to perceive and take up the

affordances of technology in the instructional planningprocess by making them re-examine their existing

practices, identify, address and solve the contradic-tions, and transform practices for effective instruction.

Fig. 5 below shows our attempt to develop a class-room-oriented ID models that may support teachers tomove into expansive and reflective ID processes. Thecharacteristics of the model and necessary illustrationsare elaborated subsequently.

(1)

The ID model facilitates the teacher’s re-examinationof their existing practices to identify contradictions inhis/her instructional planning process in the TELE.Current ID models usually confine the evaluationelement to answer questions such as ‘‘What revisionsare necessary if a tryout of the program does notmatch expectations?’’ (Morrison et al., 2004, p. 4).From the perspective of expansive learning, the keyquestions should be ‘‘Where do we go from here ifcurrent expectations have been met?’’ The assumptionthat there is no need to re-examine practice if theexisting instruction meets the objectives cannot holdin a TELE. As illustrated in the case of the KBC, itsimplementation entails a host of changes, from theobject of instructional activities to forms of classroomcommunity formed. Fig. 5 depicts an ID model thatlooks into the entire activity systems, questioningthe outcomes and object of the activity system evenif there are no apparent gaps in performance.Many virtual learning environments, such as theQuest Atlantis, is designed with object that are beyondwhat traditional classroom has envisioned (Lim,Nonis, & Hedberg, 2006). When teachers employ

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 5. Classroom-oriented expansive and reflective ID model.

C.P. Lim, C.S. Chai / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002–20132010

these environments without re-examining their cur-rent practices, multiple contradictions may occur. Inthe best case scenario, the technology may become‘‘bolted-on to existent classroom teaching methods,leaving the traditional curriculum, learning objectives,teaching strategies and student learning activitiesmore or less intact’’ (Baker, Hale, & Gifford, 1997,p. 43). More likely, it would lead to the collapse of theclassroom activity systems.The discussion earlier draws upon Engestrom’s (1987)expansive cycle to be incorporated within the IDmodel to engage the teacher in questioning, challen-ging and rejecting existing practices in his/her activitysystem, followed by reflectively analyzing existingpractices for contradictions. Such reflective analysis ofthe existing activity structure requires the teacher toknow and understand what he/she wants to trans-cend. The idea of transcending is linked to theresolution of contradiction between the central activ-ity (instructional planning for recitation) and aculturally advanced form of activity (instructionalplanning for fostering knowledge-building discourse).These actions by the teacher are crucial steps towardstransformed practices that take up the affordances oftechnology in the TELE. Therefore, the ID modelshould facilitate the teacher’s re-examination of theirexisting practices to identify contradictions in his/herinstructional planning process in the TELE.

(2)

The ID model treats the ID elements in a nonlinear andnon-sequential way.Given the complexities of the TELE and the need toincorporate an expansive cycle into instructionalplanning in the TELE, it is essential that the newmodel be non-sequential and nonlinear in nature.While there are arrows drawn in Fig. 5, they do notimply any sequencing of the ADDIE processes. Theteacher can start with any elements of the activitysystem and attempt to articulate the primary andsecondary contradictions before they attempt toredesign the activity systems. This flexibility allowsteachers to start from any contradictions that appears

salient to them. As they evaluate the contradictionsthat arise from some particular elements of theactivity system in relation to other elements, webelieve that they will form more holistic view inaccounting for the generation and resolution of thecontradictions. Therefore, this flexibility not onlyacknowledges the complexities of the TELE, but alsopromotes the creation and employment of trans-formed practices for effective instruction in the TELE.

(3)

The ID model accounts for the decisions made byother participants in the TELE, especially students andother teachers.In advanced TELE model such as the KBC, it ispedagogically incompatible for teacher to assumethe role of sole decision maker. This would underminethe importance of student ownership of the learningprocess (Scardamalia, 2002). The sociocultural ele-ments that should be duly recognized for instructionalplanning in TELE are captured in the rules, communityand DOL elements in Fig. 5. It is now widelyrecognized that enhancing learning through TELEentails a substantial design of the social infrastructurethat is enabled by the technological tools (Bielaczyc,2006). Taking the example of fostering a KBC, it isnecessary for the teachers to apply the concept ofappropriation as a two-way process in the ZPD. As thestudents appropriate the common discourse ofthe activity with the guidance and strategic supportof the teacher, the teacher concurrently reciprocallyapplies the process of appropriation in the interac-tions with the students and incorporates students’actions and decisions into his/her own activity system.Besides the students, Wood (2007) notes that theteacher community in the school is crucial in theinstructional planning process where teachers sharebest practices and hiccups in the TELE. Teachers mayform a community of practice where they engage in anon-threatening sharing process and break the isola-tion of the instructional planning process. This idea ofa community of teachers also highlights the role ofprofessional development in facilitating effective

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.P. Lim, C.S. Chai / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002–2013 2011

instruction in the TELE. For example, in a cognitiveapprenticeship type of model where a teacher firstattend a specific focus workshop, followed by timespent observing and working with other teachers whoare comfortable with using technology will encourageteachers to risk uncertainty, plan for changed rolesand develop their own ICT and pedagogical skills. Sucha mentorship model provides individualized attentionand creates a safe environment for teachers to try outnew teaching methodologies with technology. It alsosupports teachers in the instructional planning pro-cess where they are encouraged to think, reflect andput their thoughts into practice (Schrum, 1999).

(4)

The ID model supports teachers’ formulation ofsolutions to the contradictions and transforms prac-tices to take up the affordances of technology in theTELE.Other than explicating the contradictions arising fromexisting practices, teachers have to design solutions toresolve the contradictions. This process may lead tothe emergence of transformed practices in the TELE.We believe that this process can be facilitated throughcollaborative building of a new activity structure withother teachers, students and experts. Within thiscollaborative social settings, teachers can be engagedin examining and debating the new structure; experi-menting and identifying the potentialities and limita-tions of the new structure; implementing it to theTELE; reflecting on and evaluating aspects of theprocess and then consolidating the transformedpractice. The model illustrated in Fig. 5 could facilitateteachers in examining the existing activity structureand help them to formulate resolution. For example,in employing KF (the tool) to facilitate classroomknowledge-building discourse, teachers may discoverthat students are postings without reading others’posts. This phenomenon is not desirable for the KBC asit reflects an individualistic orientation among thestudents (subject) that contradict the principle ofcommunity’s collective responsibility. To resolve thiscontradiction, the teachers may have to design rulesthat discourage such individualistic behavior andperhaps redesign the DOL to encourage collaboration.In other words, contradictions that arise from twoelements may be resolved through design on otherelements as the elements are inextricably linked toeach other. These expansive actions in the TELE canfacilitate teachers’ development towards the forma-tion of new practices that make better use of theaffordances of TELE. Therefore, the ID model shouldsupport teachers’ formulation of solutions and em-ployment of transformed practices for effective in-struction in the TELE.

(5)

The ID model recognizes the need for teachers tomove beyond the current activity by reflecting upon itso as to enable the emergence of new norms ofpractice.Teachers make instructional decisions based on acomplex set of pre-existing professional knowledgeabout the community, students, context, etc. that he/she accumulated through years of with the socio-

cultural–historical contexts. This knowledge basesignificantly influences the way teachers plan foreffective instruction both positively and negatively. Assuch, the ID model must recognize the teacher’sinteractions with his/her instructional and sociocul-tural–historical contexts. However, the mere recogni-tion of the influences of teachers’ personal interactionwith his/her instructional and sociocultural–historicalcontexts would not engender expansive learningcycle. Nikiforov (1990) explains that individuals makemeaning of the changes around them by interactingwith their sociocultural contexts, and then adapt andtransform their practices accordingly:

Indeed, if the subject of activity is no more thanpersonified society, that is, if he acts only inaccordance with social norms and standards, thenwhere do changes in these standards come fromand how do new norms appear? We cannot answerthis question if we do not turn to the personality ofthe acting subject, if we do not recognize that he ismore than just a product of social relations (p. 102).

In other words, the ID model should allow teachers tomove above the activity system and reflect upon thesystem, where the reflective loop comes into play. Schon(1992) argues that reflective conversations with theteaching and learning situations are essential means forpractitioners to generate usable knowledge. It helps theteachers to explicate his/her personal theories that areunderlying the decisions made. Without such externaliza-tion, it is difficult to change the teachers’ perspective. Wepropose that the model we have created may help providea handle for the teachers to better manage the process ofexpansive learning and the reflexive change of perspectivewithin the teachers that can enable them to exploit TELE’saffordances. Hewitt (2001) reported a case how a teacherreflective conversation with his effort in building aknowledge-building classroom helps to create the peda-gogical model of KBC.

6. Conclusion

The art of instructional planning in the TELE is contextdependent and subjected to idiosyncratic application dueto its complexities and the opportunities and problemsassociated to technology. It requires teachers to examinethe meaning of technology in the context of theconstraints and uncertainties they must deal with. It alsorequires them to address the assumptions that they andtheir students make about the role and value of technol-ogy in the instructional context. Classroom-oriented IDmodels have the potential of mediating this process foreffective instruction. However, the two most commonlyused ID models reviewed are unlikely to support teachersin their exploration of new practices to take up theaffordances of technology for effective instruction. Suchperceptiveness may be acquired through reflective prac-tice. In order to formulate guidelines for the constructionof an ID model that will scaffold teachers’ development

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.P. Lim, C.S. Chai / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002–20132012

towards such perceptiveness, this paper acknowledges thesociocultural nature of instructional planning, andadopted the activity theoretical perspective with activitysystem as its unit of analysis and contradictions as itsfocus of attention. It provides analytic lenses to examineinstructional planning in TELE and reformulate the idea ofclassroom-oriented ID models.

The instructional planning of a teacher for effectiveinstruction in the TELE is the activity system whereinstructional planning is depicted as a socially sharedactivity. This dynamic system is characterized by contra-dictions within and between the activity systems. Thesecontradictions are identified, addressed and resolved;allowing teachers to re-examine their existing practicesand transform their practices to take up the affordances oftechnology for effective instruction. Therefore, the IDmodel is a mediational tool that helps teachers to makesense of the complexities of instructional planning in theTELE, and supports them to identify and resolve thecontradictions to take up the affordances of technology.

By using activity theory as an analytical lens for IDmodels, a classroom-oriented expansive and reflective IDmodel is constructed. This model (1) facilitates theteacher’s re-examination of their existing practices toidentify contradictions in his/her instructional planningprocess in the TELE; (2) treats the ID elements in anonlinear and non-sequential way; (3) accounts for thedecisions made by other participants in the TELE,especially students and other teachers; (4) supportsteachers’ formulation of solutions to the contradictionsand transforms practices to take up the affordances oftechnology in the TELE; and (5) recognizes the need forteachers to move beyond the current activity by reflectingupon it so as to enable the emergence of new norms ofpractice. This model challenges the assumptions andconstruction of existing classroom-oriented models. Itprovides an alternative model that will mediate instruc-tional planning in the TELE to bring about fundamentaltransformation of instructional practices; as opposed toreinforcement of existing practices in technological guise.

References

Akhras, F. N., & Self, J. A. (2002). Beyond intelligent tutoring systems:Situations, interactions, processes and affordances. Instructional

Science, 30, 1–30.Baker, W., Hale, T., & Gifford, B. R. (1997). Technology in the

classroom—From theory to practice. Educom Review, 3(5), 42–50.Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T.

(2002). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensionscharacterizing a technology-rich Introductory Astronomy course.Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76–107.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age.In P. A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational

psychology (2nd ed., pp. 695–713). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in

creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329.Chai, C. S., & Merry, R. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of teaching and

learning in a knowledge-building community: An exploratory casestudy. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(2), 133–148.

Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural–historical approach todistributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions:

Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Cuban, L. (2005). The blackboard and the bottom line: Why schools can’t bebusinesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Edwards, A. (2005). Let’s get beyond community and practice: The manymeanings of learning by participating. The Curriculum Journal, 16(1),49–65.

Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. London: Methuen.Engestrom, R. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical

approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Engestrom, R. (1993). Developmental studies on work as a test bench of

activity theory. In S. Chaiklin, & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice:Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 53–72). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Engestrom, Y., Engestrom, R., & Suntio, A. (2002). Can a schoolcommunity learn to master its own future? An activity-theoreticalstudy of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In G.Wells, & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century(pp. 211–224). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in ourquest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 53(4), 25–39.

Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructionaldevelopment models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse onInformation and Technology.

Hasu, M., & Engestrom, R. (1999). Measurement in action: An activity-theoretical perspective on producer– user interaction. Working paper ofUniversity of Helsinki. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Hewitt, J. (1996). Progress toward a knowledge-building community.Doctoral thesis. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Hewitt, J. (2001). From a focus on tasks to a focus on understanding: Thecultural transformation of s Toronto classroom. In T. Koschmann, R.Halls, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation(pp. 11–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hirst, E., & Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2006). Patrolling the borders ofotherness: Dis/placed identity positions for teachers and studentsin schooled spaces. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(3), 205–227.

Il’enkov, E. (1982). Dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx’sCapital (Transl. Sergei Kuzyakov). Moskow: Progress.

Jonassen, D. H., Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Choi, I. (2000). Integratingconstructivism and learning technologies. In J. M. Spector, & T. M.Anderson (Eds.), Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning,instruction and technology: Understanding complexity (pp. 103–128).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kitsantas, A., & Baylor, A. (2001). The impact of the instructionalplanning self-reflective tool on preservice teacher performance,disposition, and self-efficacy beliefs regarding systematic instruc-tional planning. Educational Technology Research and Development,49(4), 97–106.

Korpela, M., Mursu, A., & Soriyan, H. A. (2002). Information systemsdevelopment as an activity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,11(1–2), 111–128.

Lim, C. P., & Khine, M. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICTintegration in Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation, 14(1), 97–125.

Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multi-uservirtual environment (MUVE): Engaging students in science lessons.British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211–231.

Lim, C. P., & Tay, L. Y. (2003). Information and communicationtechnologies (ICT) in an elementary school: Engagement in higherorder thinking. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,12(4), 425–451.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical contentknowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers CollegeRecord, 108(6), 1017–1054.

Moallem, M. (1998). An expert teacher’s thinking and teaching andinstructional design models and principles: An ethnographic study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 37–64.

Moll, L. C., Tapia, J., & Whitmore, K. F. (1993). Living knowledge: Thesocial distribution of cultural resources for thinking. In G. Salomon(Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considera-tions (pp. 139–163). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moreau, M. J. (2001). Knowledge building pedagogy and teacher change:One teacher’s journey. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2004). Designing effectiveinstruction (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory,situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.),

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.P. Lim, C.S. Chai / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 2002–2013 2013

Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human– computerinteraction (pp. 69–102). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Neiss, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematicswith technology: Developing a technology pedagogical contentknowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.

Nikiforov, A. L. (1990). The common and the individual in activity. In V. P.Lektorsky (Ed.), Activity: The theory, methodology, and problems(pp. 90–112). Orlando: Paul M. Deutsch Press.

Palincsar, A. M., Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1993). First-gradedialogues for knowledge acquisition and use. In E. A. Forman,N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Context for learning: Socioculturaldynamics in children’s development (pp. 43–57). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Reiser, R. A., & Dick, W. (1996). Instructional planning: A guide for teachers.Boston: Allen and Bacon.

Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y. J. (2004). Interpreting unfamiliar graphs: Agenerative, activity theoretic model. Educational Studies in Mathe-matics, 57(2), 265–290.

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility. In B. Smith(Ed.), Liberal education in the knowledge age. Chicago: Open Court.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory,pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook ofthe learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Schon, Donald A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London, UK: TempleSmith.

Schon, Donald A. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey’s legacy toeducation. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(2), 119–139.

Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers.Education Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90.

Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definitionand domains of the field. Bloomington, IN: Association for EducationalCommunications and Technology.

Smardon, R. (2004). Streetwise science: Toward a theory of the code ofthe classroom. Mind, Culture and Activity, 11(3), 201–223.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken,NJ: Wiley.

Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomyof individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture andActivity, 12(1), 70–88.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach tomediated action. New York: Simon & Schuster International Group.

Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in alaptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, socialdynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational ResearchJournal, 39(1), 165–205.

Wood, D. (2007). Teachers’ learning communities: Catalyst for change ora new infrastructure for the status quo? Teachers College Record,109(3), 699–739.

Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses inschools: An ecological perspective. American Educational ResearchJournal, 40(4), 807–840.