Author Archives: lawrence liang

T-GEM and Balancing Chemical Equations

One of the major advantages to using digital simulation is the ability to aid students in visualising the invisible.  In the Science 10 unit, balancing chemical equations is something that many of my students have had difficulty with.  In the past, I have always fallen back on drawing and counting molecules before transitioning to more abstract calculating of number of atoms when helping students.  But the process of balancing chemical equations also lends itself to a T-GEM process using PhET simulations that both help students understand the process with analogies and also to provide them a visual reference of the atoms.  Moore, Chamberlain, Parson, & Perkins (2014) found benefits in using simulations in chemistry classes, noting that “students can engage with and discuss dynamic systems that provide feedback specifically designed to support student learning.”  This fits neatly with the T-GEM process which plans a series of lessons that support individual learning by encouraging students to explore scientific concepts and generate theories about their relationships, then evaluate their newly constructed knowledge, and finally modify their knowledge based on the feedback from their evaluation. (Khan, 2007)

The lessons utilize three PhET simulations to start students on the concept of balancing, analogies of balanced processes, and finally the act of balancing chemical equations.

Lesson 1: Initiate Ideas – Balancing Simulation (Balance Lab)

The goal of this lesson is to prime students on the concepts of balancing.  While the simulation is not strictly related to chemistry, it does visually demonstrate the concept of two parts of a single system being in balance.  This will be revisited in a few lessons when students are to balance reactants and products in a chemical equation.  In addition, it will serve as a starting point of a brainstorm/discussion on what other common everyday events require “balancing” and the beginning and end of the process have some quantifiable link.

Lesson 2: Generating A Theory – Reactants & Products (First with Sandwiches, then with Molecules); Additional activity – Law of Conservation of Mass Undemo

The next lesson will take the concepts of balancing and start to connect them with chemistry concepts.  In particular, the simulation allows students to change the number of sandwich ingredients (reactants) and see the number of complete sandwiches (products) that can be made.  During this activity, the discussion will lead towards the ideas of the ratio of reactants to products.  Once students feel they have a grasp of the sandwich analogy, they can move to the molecule simulation to transfer their thinking to atoms and molecules.  In addition, a live demonstration of the Law of Conservation of Mass using chemical reactants will be shown and, using the results from all three activities, students will start to formulate for themselves a concept of balanced chemical reactions.

Lesson 3: Evaluating Their Knowledge – Intro to Balancing (Introduction activity only)

As a way of evaluating their knowledge, the students will balance the three chemical equations provided in the Introduction activity.  For each equation, they will first predict the adjustments necessary to balance the chemical equation.  They are encouraged to using the knowledge generated from the lesson prior to complete the equations.  After their prediction, they can explore both visualization tools (scale and bar graph) as well as the actual molecular diagrams as they adjust the number of each molecule to balance the equations.  As part of their individualized learning, they are encourage to pick one of the three visualisation methods to use regularly.  The class will finish with a sharing of various balancing strategies in order to highlight general processes used to tackle the problems.

Lesson 4: Modify Their Knowledge – Continue with Balancing (Game activity)

The Game activity has 3 difficulty levels, each with 5 questions.  The students are to work through all 15 questions from Level 1-1 to Level 3-5, utilizing the strategy from Lesson 3.  They are free to choose whether they want their attempts to be timed or not as a personal challenge.  During this process, the teacher should be circulating and guiding students as they work through these problems, helping them re-formulate their processes as necessary if they answer a question incorrectly.

Lesson 5: Extension Of Knowledge – Working with Balanced Equations (Game activity)

The Reactants & Products simulation from Lesson 2 has a Game activity that can be used to assess and challenge student understanding.  The Game provides students with a balanced equation and a specific number of either reactants or products.  Using the ratio given in the balanced equation, the students have to determine the number of molecules required to complete the equation.  This will challenge students to consider balanced equations from a different perspective from Lesson 4.  Student understanding can be assessed formatively by engaging in discussion with them as they answer the 15 challenge questions.



Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

Moore, E.B., Chamberlain, J.M., Parson, R., Perkins, K.K. (2014). PhET Interactive Simulations: Transformative Tools for Teaching Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1191-1197


Knowledge construction in networked communities

  • How is knowledge relevant to math or science constructed? How is it possibly generated in these networked communities? Provide examples to illustrate your points.

In the past few weeks, much of the discussion regarding knowledge and STEM education has focused on the construction of knowledge in practical, hands-on environments.  In these cases, the relevant knowledge that the learner constructs is knowledge that helps bridge the user’s understanding of the world and their ability to function and interact with it.  Carraher, Carraher, & Schliemann’s (1985) study of working youngsters in Brazil seemed to corroborate this, with findings that point to the street youth excelling in math problems that had real-life context and using strategies different from the traditional ones they would have learned had they stayed in school.

While this certainly bodes well for the ideas of constructivism, I do feel that this type of or learning is limited to practical knowledge and not to more abstract, higher level concepts.  In Carraher et al.’s study, the youth were able to calculate using strategies they had developed selling fruit on the streets of Brazil including repeated addition (in place of multiplication).  However, further examination showed an inability for the children to solve problems using more tradition school-taught strategies.  This certainly supports the idea that knowledge construction that occurs in the real-world can provide a stronger functional ability with the necessary concepts, despite not building a stronger theoretical ability that lays the groundwork for more abstract and higher level concepts.

Networked communities provide a method of bridging this gap by connecting students with people and places that allow them to ground their knowledge in practical, real-world contexts.  Spicer & Stratford (2001) found that the link between students, experts, and real-world context is something that students saw as necessary for their own learning.  In their study, they set up a “virtual field trip” by using a program called Tidepools that simulated intertidal marine life and their responses to low oxygen environments.  While a survey of the undergraduate students that took part showed a general amicability to the simulation, all the students acknowledged that it could not nor should not replace real-life field trips, not can it replace interactions between students and experts.  Instead, the simulations would be ideal in a supporting role to either pre- or post-field trip as a way to introduce or review the topics.

However, despite knowledge coming from a variety of sources and the learning being spread across all participants, the construction of knowledge needs to be carefully monitored and guided by the teacher.  Moss (2003) noted concerns regarding the difference in knowledge and ability level between students and scientists in global communities.  This difference manifests in the activities that the students participate in which often resembles that which would normally be given to technicians, such as data collecting, and do not experience the full spectrum of scientific research.  His study into students using the JASON project supported this concern, showing that while students did benefit in the short term, their knowledge gains were not maintained at the end of the year.

From one perspective, the results from all three studies suggests that the constructed knowledge is that of functional, working knowledge required for students to be proficient at the tasks required in that environment.  However, care must be taken to ensure that the constructed knowledge is not constricting due to the limited foundational knowledge the students bring to the community.  Ideally, the activities and the community should foster the development of knowledge while still allowing students to take part as peers; a balance is easier said than done.


Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British journal of developmental psychology, 3(1), 21-29

Moss, D.M. (2003). A window on science: Exploring the JASON Project and student conceptions of science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 21-30

Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 345-354

Embodied Learning and AR vs VR

Attempts to understand the psychology of learning has led to a variety of perspectives of cognition. While learning and activities have been common place in classrooms, Winn (2003) suggests that cognition is deeply tied to learning and the activities used for learning. Traditionally, the approach to cognition and adaptation of technology use, namely that it had to do with connecting knowledge with its representation as symbols in the mind. However, this approach removed the environmental context from the individual’s unique process of understanding. Instead, cognition is, Winn argues, embodied in physical activities, with the activities embedded in the environment. Learning then is a result of the connection of the learner between their cognition and the environment via their external body, the process which Winn terms embodiment.

This concept is support by Novack, Congdon, Hemani-Lopez, & Goldin-Meadow (2014) who explored embodied learning with third graders learning math by separating a group of students and providing each group a different learning method: one with physical actions with objects, one with concrete gestures, and one with abstract gestures. While all three groups learned to solve the problems they were presented with, they found that acting with objects only provided students with a shallow understanding of the math concept, quantified through pre- and post-testing of student knowledge. By contrast, the abstract gestures allowed students to develop a more generalised understanding that allowed them to solve more complex problems as well. This supports the Winn’s notion that learning cannot simply be a structured representation of one approach, it must be contextually relevant to the student’s environment and, more importantly, be relevant to their individual perception of said environment.

Both Winn and Novack et al. support the notion that an individualised learning experience is more effective and leads to a more generalised and better understanding, and embodied learning is more able to cater to this type of learning. Thus, technology use in the classroom should focus no only on connecting ideas to symbols, but to enhance the embodiment of learning. Bujak, Radu, Catrambone, MacIntyre, Zheng, and Golubski (2013) extends this further by suggesting augmented reality (AR) combines the strengths of virtual learning environments with the context of reality. Compared to virtual reality (VR) which seeks to replace the real environment, AR adds to the real environment which allows “the creation of embodied metaphors inspired by physical manipulatives, or new kinds of metaphors otherwise difficult to convey through concrete physical objects.”

In my STEM classrooms, this does serve to add an extra factor to consider when designing lessons and units. Activities that may seem to be open and allow for constructivist learning may not accomplish that task if the connections that students make are not unique to themselves. Instead, activities need to balance focus on a specific topic while still allowing the freedom for students to engage with the activities and embody their learning.

Some questions for consideration:
1. Winn notes that a virtual reality learning environment is inherently limited because the interactions and responses between user and environment are pre-programmed, and thus not unique to the user. If virtual reality, as Bujak et al. argues, cannot accurately simulate the tactility of real-life, do VR and simulations still have a place in learning? How worthwhile would any learning be?

2. Science in elementary and high school focuses primarily on “playing catch up” with the vast amount of scientific knowledge currently available, so that students can eventually move to the forefront and discover new scientific knowledge. If that statement is true and science learning leading up to that point is about competence in scientific facts, then how does embodied learning fit into that goal? Does specifying a specific, focused assessment of a lab experiment rob not students the opportunity to learn within their own context? Should there be concern with students constructing their own knowledge that is deeper and more personal, but counter to commonly accepted scientific understanding?

Synthesis of TELE

The past few weeks has been enlightening for me with regards to seeing the range of TELE’s available and the possibilities of their integration.  I summarised my understanding of them in the table below, with particular reflection on how they each used technology as well as the depth of which they used technology.  I felt it was important to consider how much of a learning environment the technology contributes to, as it provides some sense as to what a teacher’s role may become in that environment.  For example, a WISE-based learning environment can become the primary lesson type for a unit, which allows more student independence in their learning.  If this is the case, then the teacher takes on more of a guidance role.  On the other hand, Anchored Instruction, using the Jasper series as an example, only uses technology as a means of content delivery and much of the student work will take place in a more traditional classroom setting.

Technology in the classroom can take many forms, from secondary or even tertiary roles of content delivery to primary roles of create an immersive learning environment.  Looking at T-GEM, WISE, Anchored instruction, and LfU, it is clear that technology’s breadth of abilities translates into an equally broad spectrum of possible uses.  While each method provides its own unique advantages and benefits to learning, I find myself aligning mostly with the T-GEM and LfU approaches, which are both inquiry-based methods that leverage simulations in order to demonstrate phenomena to students.  In both, there are constructivist components that require students to formulate and refine theories as they progress deeper into the concepts.  With science in particular, the inquiry-based approach to understanding the world underlies the scientific method and there is enormous benefit to having students hone this skill through their science career.

The other advantage is that technology provides an alternative to complex and/or expensive lab experiments.  In a traditional classroom, labs and demos are limited by the resources that a teacher can access.  But with technology, simulations can bring the labs and demos to the students in a cost effective and accessible way so that students can experience the science.  These approaches help to expand a teacher’s available tool set.


T-GEM is a pedagogical approach used to design technology-enhanced, inquiry-based learning activities.  It’s primarily goal, as defined by its name, is have students “G”enerate ideas about scientific relationships, “E”valuate their constructed knowledge, and “M”odify this knowledge as they apply their knowledge to more complex problems that help refine their understanding. (Khan, 2007)

An area that may benefit from the addition of T-GEM instruction would be the Science 9 electricity unit that I teach.  In it, one of the learning outcomes is for students to understand the relationship between voltage, current, and resistance in both series and parallel circuits.  Traditionally, this may have been taught didactically through notes and post-lecture activities simply to reaffirm the lesson topics.

However, in recent years I have approached this from an inquiry-based perspective that has students building various circuits, measuring the three properties, and drawing conclusions.  I feel that this can be extended even further with the T-GEM approach.

Below is a flow chart of how I envision an “Electrici-T-GEM” would progress, as well as key points to guide student focus.

Links to simulations:

Sim #1

Sim #2

Sim #3



Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

Save the boxes! – Bridge building with LfU

Imagine how LfU principles might be applied to a topic you teach. Now switch out the My World technology. What other domain specific (and non-domain specific) software might help you achieve these principles while teaching this topic? By domain-specific, we mean software designed for STEM education, and by non-domain specific, we mean software or other forms of technology that could be used generally in multiple domains (eg. Wikis). Other GIS software can be selected for the switch.


Traditional images of education usually involve a teacher lecturing in front of a group of students, didactically transmitting knowledge to students.  There are also images of students in labs or activities, taking their learned content and engaging in activities that more often than not are designed primarily to confirm and reinforce said content.  This view that the teaching of content and engaging in process are opposed to each other is challenged by Edelson’s Learning for Use (LfU) theory (2001) which contends that inquiry can be means to help students understand content.  Edelson’s LfU is based on 4 main principles:

  1. Learning occurs through constructivist methods.
  2. Construction of knowledge is a goal-driven process that is guided by an understanding of the reasoning behind the goals.
  3. The constructed knowledge is used as a foundation for building subsequent knowledge.
  4. Knowledge must be constructed in a meaningful and useful way before it can be applied.

In doing do, Edelson argues, inquiry-based activities can be used as a means to both deliver content and reinforce concepts.  LfU theory also outlines how these learning processes should be designed and highlights three important areas of consideration: motivation, construction of knowledge, and refinement of knowledge (Edelson, 2001).  In this process, motivation first helps students recognize the need for more knowledge and serves to drive their engagement in the activity.  The construction of knowledge occurs when students develop an understanding and then use it as a basis for further knowledge construction.  Finally, the refinement of knowledge allows students to connect and reinforce learned ideas in order to make them useful.

One topic that I have taught that fits neatly with LfU theory is the bridge building unit in my Science & Tech 11 course.  The overall theme of the unit is to understand the shapes and structures commonly used in bridge building and culminates in a popsicle stick bridge building challenge.  To aid student understanding of basic bridge structures (namely, trusses), a domain specific bridge building simulator can be used to allow students to test and verify their ideas.

Reading Edelson’s description of the LfU process, I realised that my unit plan could be separated into the three stages discussed above.  With Edelson’s LfU process applied, the unit progressed as follows:

Stage 1: Motivation

  • The unit starts with showing students various bridges from the around the world with a discussion regarding how the different architectural and engineer designs set out to solve some problem.  The students are provided with some materials and challenged, as a class, to build a suspension bridge to see how much weight can be supported.
  • In the classes following the introduction, a discussion on structural shapes and force distribution is followed by taking the students to the computer lab where they can begin using the bridge simulator.  The cartoon-y design and gamified approach the simulator has helps to motivate and engage students.

Stage 2: Construction of knowledge

  • The students are asked to draw a diagram of every successfully bridge they design as they progress through the game.
  • The students are given two classes to advance as fair as possible through the game.  At the beginning of the second class, students are asked to share their successful bridge designs and the teacher asks guiding questions that eventually lead to the highlighting of triangular truss structures and their role in supporting bridge forces.
  • The students can use this knowledge and more actively think about their bridge design as the game becomes more difficult.

Stage 3: Refinement

  • The students continue to use their understanding to build more complicated bridge designs.
  • Once complete, the students are given their final project – a bridge built of popsicle sticks.
  • They are tasked with first sketching and planning their project using the knowledge gained from the simulator, and then proceed with the build and test.

Edelson’s LfU theory and process provides a rather pragmatic approach to unit design that not only allows for the tighter integration of content and process, but also offers a measured approach to its implementation in the classroom.




Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.

Discovering New Lands!

To investigate WISE projects more closely, I selected “Plate Tectonics with Automated Essay Guidance” (ID: 18449) to view.  The project leads students through a lesson on plate tectonics, the forces that drive their movement, and the results geological features that they produce.  I felt that the lessons two main teaching objectives (visualizing and understanding the convection currents in the mantle that drive plate tectonics, and the geographical features that the plate interactions produce), were well suited to both WISE and SKI principles.

WISE, as described by Linn, Clark, and Slotta (2002), aims to “making thinking visible, making Science accessible, helping students learn from each other, and promoting lifelong learning.”  As such, this particular WISE project starts by connecting students to their prior knowledge by reflecting on various US geological features such as mountains and volcanoes.  It then guides students into exploring the concept of plate boundaries and provides them a scaffolded, inquiry-based path to understanding how plates move and ways plates can interact with each other, using animations and formative assessments along the way.  It then concludes with putting the ideas together and having students explain convection currents and plate movements, and even provides an extension “Challenge” lesson that encourages students to consider geological events in other parts of the world as well as other activities such as building a model or identifying mystery locations.  This last section helps to foster lifelong learning by having students apply their knowledge to other parts of the world they may not have seen before.

For my modification, I focused on the “Graphing Challenge” component that asked students to graph the changing density of the wax blob in a lava lamp over time.  Instead of the graphing, I replaced it with a “Discovering New Land” component that was similar to an analysis activity I did a few years prior with my Science 10 class.  In the modification of the WISE project, the students are provided with a fantasy map of an island with various Earth-like features such as mountain ranges, valleys, volcanoes, and shoreline similarities between landmasses and islands.  The students are asked, in a response box, to list the features that they can identify, using reflection notes to record their reasoning.  The section after supplies students with a transparent map of the fantasy world’s tectonic plates, overlaid on top of the original map.  Using the “label” function, the students are tasked with deducing the direction of each plate’s movement based on the geological features being produced.  Finally, students are given response boxes to justify their choices of plate direction as a means of assessing their understanding.

While my students had completed this activity using pen, paper, and a few sets of the maps, the WISE project allows for a more interactive, individually-paced method of presenting the same assignment.  The ability to dynamically add labels and keep reflection notes along the way ensures that students can mark up the maps as they consider the problem at hand, whereas the pen and paper method was more limited due to the fact that the master maps had been laminated to preserve them and other logistical factors.  Overall, this WISE method would provide greater freedom for students to explore their learning compared to more traditional methods.



Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003. Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 516-538

Anchored Instruction & The Jasper Series

The Jasper series uses context-specific stories (“anchors”) to serve as a guide for problem solving.  Anchored instruction, in the Jasper series, uses interactive video clips stored on a videodisc and accompanying physical items (such as maps) to help students with problem solving by presenting to them a situation.  Anchored instruction and examples such as the Jasper series help to support learning by providing meaningful, real-world contexts to math concepts as well as a way to scaffold complex problem solving.  The authors note that Jasper provides generative learning; a way for students to regularly use their current understanding to connect and construct new knowledge.  

As technology has improved vastly since Jasper’s invention, there are now ways to further enhance Jasper’s effectiveness.  For example, the amount of data that can be stored on a flash drive many times greater than that of the videodiscs the researchers used.  This would allow for many more or longer videos, providing opportunity to develop more engaging and deeper problems for students to view.  It would also be quite the experience for the students if anchored instruction were to take place in virtual reality.  This would allow students to explore the environment that the problem is situated in, perhaps looking for clues or manipulating objects to learn more about them.  In addition, the researchers noted that another benefit of the Jasper series was the embedded data in the problems themselves, and virtual reality would allow even more data to be shown when a student examines an object.

In particular, the object manipulation will be extremely useful in math learning.  Particularly in junior grades, many math concepts focus on objects and their characteristics such as surface area and volume which lends itself well to augmented or virtual reality manipulatives.  As they progress into senior math with more abstract concepts, dynamically changing graphs will allow students to alter equations and see, in real-time, the effects on the graph to better understand the patterns and relationships between values.

However, the Jasper method is not without fault.  Its narration still feels as if someone is reading a word question from a textbook, but overlaid on top of visuals.  Perhaps relaying the information (such as the plane’s fuel tank size) in dialogue between the characters in the video, as opposed to narrating it, may have it feel more natural.  Also, aside from its somewhat dated delivery method, one aspect that may be limiting is that the videos do not provide any feedback or ability to adapt to students’ progress.  For example, assessment of alternative solutions would have to be done by the teacher, but an expanded, interactive virtual reality environment may allow students to test solutions and self-assess their viability and validity.  But the concept of provide an interactive space to “anchor” student learning is one worth considering.



Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.

PCK and TPACK Skill

One aspect that struck me about PCK and TPACK is that, in certain ways, it does help to identify the qualities that make a good educator and a good educational plan.  By connecting the conceptual, pedagogical, and technological knowledge a teacher has, it provides a guide to thinking about teaching.  Shulman develops this further in a discussion about what he terms “aspects of pedagogical reasoning and action” (1987).  Still salient currently, Shulman breaks down pedagogical thinking into various aspects that, in sequence, help to formulate the process of teaching, from personal comprehension of the topic to selecting and delivering lessons and activities to the assessment of student work.  Many of what Shulman lists can still be considered relevant in teaching although the fluency in technology must now be considered.  This point is made more evident by Shulman qualifying his “Aspects of Pedagogical Reasoning” section by claiming his presumption that the teacher is starting with some form of “text” only, with no consideration for other mediums of knowledge.

My own personal experience with TPACK (although I did not think about it in such terms) came in a Science & Technology 11 course in which I did a unit on bridge building.  Throughout the design of the unit I went through the various stages that Shulman discussed, from comprehension (understanding trusses and force distribution), to transformation (planning lessons and designing activities), to instruction (lessons), and evaluation (assessing their final bridge projects).

Interestingly, discussing teaching as a set of pedagogical skills helps to identify something as intangible as “good teaching”.  Certainly knowledge in the pedagogical, conceptual, and technological areas is needed, but effective teaching comes from an educator’s ability to meld the knowledges together and not only develop lessons, but to deliver them well.  This intangibility is acknowledged by Shulman later when he warns that an overly technical approach to teaching robs it of its human quality, stating that “we must achieve standards without standardization” (Shulman, 1987).  This is an important consideration when discussing technology integration as technology (currently, anyway) is not yet able to operate with as much flexibility and adaptability as a human can.  Thus, the T in TPACK becomes ever more crucial as educators and administrators continue to make decisions on which technologies to use in the classroom.



Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1)1-23

Tools of Learning

Of the various descriptions of technology and its impacts on learning, I found Chris Dede’s comments in Robert Kozma’s book (2003) to resonate with my views.  He noted that technology’s mere presence and availability in schools does not immediately or automatically produce better learning environments.  Instead they are tools that facilitate a myriad of new possibilities from ones that directly impact individual learning (empowerment of disenfranchised learners), classroom environments (richer curricula and enhanced pedagogies), and the larger learning community (stronger links between school and society).  This very neatly supports Jonassen’s (2000) assertion that “[S]tudents learn from thinking in meaningful ways. Thinking is engaged by activities, which can be fostered by computers or teachers.”  In total, technology provides stronger, more interactive, more meaningful, and more engaging learning opportunities which in turn provides students with a deeper and more connected understanding.

To me, a technology enhanced learning experience is one that uses technology to bridge the needs and desires of both students and teachers in order to provide a more meaningful and effective learning environment.  For students, this would mean that technology offers them more stimulating and engaging activities, an adaptable pace for individualized learning, and ways to explore and connect their curiousity.  On the other side of the classroom, technology would provide teachers with automation of menial tasks for time efficiency, dynamic but focused learning activities, and opportunities for students to create and formulate their own knowledge.



Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Google Scholar:

Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective, (A report of the Second Information Technology in Education Study, Module 2). Eugene, OR: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, ISTE Publications.