Instructional Science 31: 317–340, 2003.© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

317

Using Internet delivered video cases, to support pre-serviceteachers’ understanding of effective early literacy instruction:An exploratory study ∗

P.G. SCHRADER1∗, DONALD J. LEU, JR.2, CHARLES K. KINZER3,ROSEMARIE ATAYA2, WILLIAM H. TEALE4, LINDA D. LABBO5 &DANA CAMMACK3

1California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, USA; 2Department ofEducational Psychology, University of Connecticut, CT 06269, USA; 3Department ofTeaching and Learning, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA; 4College ofEducation, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1040 W. Harrison M/C 147, Chicago, IL 60607,USA; 5Department of Reading Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA(∗author for correspondence, e-mail: peegee@peegee.net)

Abstract. This preliminary study explores the effects of using CTELL (Case TechnologiesEnhancing Literacy Learning) cases on preservice teachers’ learning. Students participatedin one of three instructional treatments: traditional, traditional plus video, and traditionalplus CTELL cases. A pre-post concept web, describing students’ understanding of effectivereading instruction, served as the major outcome measure. This was supplemented with aunidimensional confidence measure, journal entries, and student interviews. No significantdifferences were found for any of the three treatment conditions on the concept mapping taskor the confidence measure. However, the journal entries and interview data highlight importantissues, challenges and benefits, with respect to the use of multimedia cases. Implications forteacher education are explored.

Keywords: internet delivered video, Literacy and Technology, multimedia case-basedinstruction, pre-service teacher education

Nations around the world have discovered the important challenges facingeducational systems that seek to prepare citizens for their future within aglobal information society (Web-based Education Commission’s Report tothe President and Congress of the United States, 2000). This is especiallytrue with respect to a skill critical to success in an information society:reading (International Reading Association, 2001). Numerous countries havedeveloped higher national standards in reading along with a regular programof testing students to determine the extent to which they have achieved thesestandards (Leu, 2000), especially those with more centrally organized educa-tional systems (e.g., Finland, Ireland, the UK), and nations in which federal

∗ All appendices may be found at http://www.isspecissue.uconn.edu

318

policy significantly affects educational practices in schools (e.g., Australia,the US) (Leu & Kinzer, 2000).

Interestingly, although the literacy requirements demanded of an informa-tion society have increased substantially (International Reading Association,2001), the abilities of American students have not changed over the past threedecades according to recent data from the National Assessment of Educa-tional Progress (NAEP) (Donahue, Finnegan, Lutkus, Allen & Campbell,2001). Only 14% of students coming from low socioeconomic backgroundsperformed at the Proficient Reading Level on the NAEP. Additionally, lowscoring students (10th percentile or less), scored lower in 2000 than they didin 1992, while higher scoring students, at the 75th and 95th percentile, scoredsignificantly higher in 2000 than they did in 1992. These data suggest that animportant challenge exists with regard to preparing all students for the readingdemands that will be an important part of their future in an information age.

Central to effective reading instruction in the classroom is effectiveteacher preparation in reading instruction. A recent report by The NationalResearch Council’s Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties inYoung Children (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998) suggests that young childrenof diverse abilities, ethnicities, and socioeconomic levels learn best inclassrooms where teachers are expert decision makers who are able to effec-tively use available curriculum materials and resources to design productiveinstructional activities that meet the literacy needs of their students. However,preparing new teachers for the complex decision-making they will face inthe classroom is not a simple matter (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999).Recently, new attention has been focused on the nature of teacher educationin reading instruction (Darling-Hammond & Young, 2002).

Traditionally, teacher education involves a transmission delivery systemcentered on a craft and competency-based model (Alvermann, 1990; Brans-ford, Brown & Cocking, 1999). Such a traditional model relies on lectures,textbook readings, supplementary readings, a series of overheads, and a fieldexperience, and attempts to provide simulations of instructional practicesthrough role-playing or viewing of video tapes of instructional practices(Kinzer & Risko, 1998). Students do not usually see the identified practicesactually used in context-rich or complex situations; rather, the materials oftenpresent imagined scenarios or show lessons taped under pristine conditions.As a result, this commonly-adapted perspective on teacher education deniesstudents opportunities to engage in analysis, reflection, or decision-makingthat enables them to begin thinking like an expert or considering how tomodify the learned procedures in ways that meet differing instructional needsof real children in real elementary classrooms. The weakest link in preserviceteacher education appears to be the translation from knowledge to applied

319

skill in the classroom (Fizgerald, Wilson & Semrau, 1997). Furthermore,the process of making decisions during classroom interactions – i.e., whatto teach, when to teach it, and how best to do so – is a critical componentof good teaching. However, with respect to all but knowledge instruction,teacher education has remained relatively unchanged over the past 50 years.Pre-service teacher education has ranged from traditional classroom instruc-tion to an apprenticeship model as well as many other approaches elsewherein the spectrum (see Sikula, Buttery & Guyton, 1996; Richardson, 2001 fordiscussion of models). But the preparation has focused primarily on one ofthree areas: content knowledge, knowledge of process and procedures, andknowing when to implement the processes and procedures. Thus, much ofteacher education is limited to increasing teachers’ knowledge rather thantheir decision-making abilities (see Munby, Russell & Martin, 2001).

With respect to literacy instruction, many pre-service teachers reportvery little time focused on reading pedagogy in their coursework. Somealso report that they have not encountered a strong mentor or teachersdemonstrating effective practices in literacy instruction (Teale, Leu, Labbo &Kinzer, 2002). And although teacher preparation aims to prepare educatorsboth to understand the content and to make exemplary decisions duringinstruction, in traditional preservice classes it is a challenge to engage incomplex problem solving. Such problem solving environments are criticalfor learning in general and this includes the instruction of literacy (Brown,Collins & Duguid, 1989; CGTV, 1997; Jonassen & Hernandez-Serrano, 2002;Lave & Wenger, 1991). To develop pre-service teachers’ authentic, complexproblem solving abilities, teacher preparation needs to increase the amountof time their students spend in the company of good teachers instruct them inappropriate decision-making strategies (Teale, Leu, Labbo & Kinzer, 2002).

Review of literature

Over the years, researchers have increasingly recognized the influence ofeducational and environmental contexts on learning. Early scientists andphilosophers like Locke and Berkeley argued that nothing existed outside of aperson’s ability to think and perceive (Boring, 1957). More recently, however,researchers like Vygotsky and Bandura asserted that the environment had amuch greater impact on learning than previously believed (Woolfolk, 1998).Contemporary researchers argue that teaching students how to perform partic-ular skills without regard to context may improve their ability to performthat particular skill but not necessarily help them in other situations wherethat ability can be applied (e.g., Brown & Campione, 1990; Greeno, 1994;Greeno, Collins & Resnick, 1996; Kirshner & Whitson, 1998; Lave &

320

Wenger, 1991). For example, math students may be able to perform calcu-lations while sitting at a desk in the classroom but fail to apply what theyhave learned in a real life situation like shopping or banking. Real-life prob-lems can be incredibly complex because they are situated in dynamic socialcontexts and influence multiple goals, issues and problems. In light of thiscomplexity, theorists have offered several design theories. With respect to theCase Technologies to Enhance Literacy Learning project (CTELL), cognitiveflexibility theory, situated cognition, and anchored instruction are particularlynoteworthy.

Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson and Coulson (1991) argue that in order forinstruction to be effective, the learning domain must attempt to approx-imate the complexity of the environment where the learning will be used.A complex, ill-structured knowledge domain requires thinking skills noteasily attained in a traditional, non-contextually cued instructional system.Tergan (1997) reminds us, however, that although complexity and multiplecontexts are valuable, it is also important to support the learner during instruc-tion. Understanding does not necessarily result from a complex environmentif a “teaching” curriculum is employed (Lave & Wenger, 1991). As Laveand Wenger state, “a learning curriculum is a field of learning resources ineveryday practice ‘viewed from the perspective of the learners.’ A teachingcurriculum, by contrast, is constructed for the instruction of newcomers”(p. 97). Future teachers are not, in Lave and Wenger’s sense, newcomers.Rather, they require complex skills to function in a complex environment.

Extending the view that the environment is a crucial factor in learning,researchers like Brown, Collins and Duguid (1988) and Feiman-Nemserand Remillard (1996) argue that each learner experiences a situation whichserves as the foundation for further learning. According to situated cognition,learning is both situated and contextually cued. Thus, learners not only benefitfrom interacting with an instructional tool, but they also benefit from theprofessor and other classmates. Agents who interact with the environmenthelp develop that environment while they are, in turn, changed as a resultof the interaction. As Greeno (1994) and Shaw, Kadar, Sim and Repperger(1992) argue, learning is best suited in a carefully constructed contextualenvironment guided by the instructional goals, learning contexts, and learnerinteractions.

Applying tenets of situated cognition, the Cognition and TechnologyGroup at Vanderbilt (CGTV) has successfully used anchor videos as aninstructional tool (CGTV, 1990, 1997). According to CGTV, an anchor isa video segment that functions as a macro-context for the learner. Anchoredinstruction involves the development of confidence, skills, and knowledgenecessary to solve a problem. The anchor itself typically contains (1) a

321

random access feature, through DVD, video disc, or Internet delivery and (2)a careful description of the problem solving environment, and it provides (3)multiple perspectives (Shyu, 1997). Within an anchored instruction model,anchors and the use of random access video provide a deeper context fromwhich mutual experiences are drawn and explored. In the CTELL project,anchored instruction to address important instructional issues: (1) differingstudent backgrounds, (2) the sharing of knowledge between instructor andstudents, and (3) making knowledge accessible rather than inert.

Many areas of instruction have progressed beyond traditional, lecture-based instructional models, and teachers have begun to explore newmethods.1 Though not new, case-based instructional approaches in educationhave garnered more attention and become increasingly popular over the pastseveral years (see Jonassen & Hernandez-Serrano, 2002; Lundeberg, 1999;Lundeberg, Bergland, Klyczek, Mogen, Johnson & Harmes, 1999; Merseth,1991; Shulman, 1992; Silverman & Welty, 1995). This approach is usefulfor students who will eventually find themselves in a complex classroomenvironment, requiring many decisions not easily learned from a textbookor a traditional, lecture-based instructional environment. In the area of medi-cine, for example, professors may present students with several medical casesand ask for their diagnoses. An advantage here is that students are allowed a“hands on,” complex learning example that they may draw upon later. Otherprofessions, like law and social services, have also used cases for instruction.In actual practice, each of these professions requires constant decision-making and re-evaluation of current progress. Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobsonand Coulson (1991) note that traditional methods of instruction do poorlyin complex, ill-structured domains like the ones mentioned.

Researchers have tried to capture the complexity in such domain areaswith the use of various delivery systems. However, Kinzer and Risko (1998)illuminate the differences between print, video, and random access deliverysystems for case-based instruction. They argue that random access video ispreferable to other delivery systems owing to the inherent constraints in othermethods (e.g., that to return to a segment of video tape, one must stop andrewind or that print media lacks some utility in access and analysis). Randomaccess video has the advantage of presenting information in a complex waythat users may view in iterations. Kinzer and Risko assert that repeated view-ings and reflections are crucial for the understanding of a complex contextualenvironment like the literacy classroom.

Presently, digital presentation techniques involving CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, or Internet-based video are methods that both capture the complexityof the classroom and allow for random access functionality. The randomaccess feature of these delivery systems enables students to visit and revisit

322

scenes or segments of the lesson quickly and easily. This capability canbenefit classroom discussion and exploration in a case-based instructionalcontext. This kind of exploration promotes greater understanding of the sub-tle, but important, complexities present in classrooms. Additionally, randomaccess multimedia empowers instructors to break the class into separategroups with separate goals. The process of repeatedly viewing video frommultiple perspectives and goals allows for a richer, deeper understandingof the interaction of factors present in any instructional situation. Usingcognitive apprenticeship as an instructional model, the CTELL cases attemptto at least partially capture the complexity of the teaching environment.

The CTELL project

Funded through the Interagency Educational Research Initiative under theauspices of the National Science Foundation, the Case Technologies toEnhance Literacy Learning (CTELL) project (http://ctell.uconn.edu) seeksto determine if the use multimedia cases based on anchored- and case-based instructional methods can (1) enhance preservice teacher candidates’knowledge of best practices for teaching reading, (2) result in the imple-mentation of these practices in the candidates’ classrooms when they becometeachers, and (3) foster teachers who teach in ways that positively and signifi-cantly affect children’s reading achievement. This five-year project bringstogether an interdisciplinary team from many areas including: preserviceteacher education, early childhood literacy development, instructional tech-nology, cognitive psychology, survey research, quantitative and qualitativemethodologies, computer-related early literacy instruction, and web design.

In CTELL, we have focused our developmental work around a centralconstruct, anchored video cases, as we investigate new approaches to teachereducation in reading instruction. Anchor cases (CTGV, 1990; Jonassen& Hernandez-Serrano, 2002; Lundeberg et al., 1999), involve sustained,repeated explorations of classroom instructional scenarios that allow preser-vice teachers to understand the kinds of problems teachers encounter andthe knowledge they use in their decision making. The video cases becomea common anchor for instructors and students to construct knowledgethrough discussions of theory, research, and practice. Cases contain videos ofclassroom lessons and related materials that serve as a springboard for discus-sion, as data for students’ critical exploration and analysis, and as a practicetool. The random access capabilities of Internet technologies let teachers andstudents call-up clips of interactions for re-viewing and extended study, apowerful capability not possible in the real world and difficult to accomplishwith videotapes. In addition, Internet-delivered, multimedia cases can provide

323

students with (1) extension assignments as well as class and course readings,(2) an interactive on-line discussion forum, (3) links to other relevant sites,and (4) access to supplemental information (e.g., running record sessions,hard copies of testing instruments, lesson plans, comments by experts in thefield, and summaries of information about students).

A cognitive apprenticeship model described by Collins (1991) andCollins, Brown and Newman (1989) supports the use of these digital anchorcases. Teachers and students share visual images, sustained and malleablevideo clips of practice, related readings, and a social context that providesfor exploration of in-depth, effective decision-making and classroom inter-ventions. This theoretical insight is at the center of the use of such cases.Preliminary findings from previous research on video anchor cases indi-cated that preservice students engage in high levels of problem solving,gain expertise, confidence, and the ability to implement literacy instructionalstrategies in the field (Kinzer & Risko, 1998; Labbo & Field, 1996, 1997;Risko, 1995). Sustained, repeated explorations of classroom instructionalscenarios and best practices appear to enable students to understand the levelsof complex decision making involved in real classroom situations.

The cognitive apprenticeship model also suggests the use of cognitivegoals in the context of a classroom environment. The use of a mentor or guideallows students the benefit of information as well as models and demonstra-tions. Apprenticeship models also allow the complexities experienced by thelearner to grow as they become more competent (Collins, Brown & Newman,1989). Generally speaking, cognitive apprenticeship models usually applysix important strategies: modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflec-tion, and exploration (Woolfolk, 1998). The CTELL cases were designed toprovide the means for each of these six instructional practices as well asproviding the stage for classroom instructional complexities which preserviceteachers may not be fully cognizant.

Rationale for the study

This article reports the results of a first step in evaluating the issues andthe potentials involved in the use of CTELL cases during preservice teachereducation courses in reading/literacy instruction. Its major goal is to providepreliminary information for upcoming studies of CTELL cases that will takeplace during the third year of the project, when 20 universities from aroundthe US begin to use and study the use of CTELL cases of K-3 classroomsengaged in reading instruction, organized around twelve, research-based,principles of effective practice (Kinzer, Labbo, Leu & Teale, 2002). Wewere especially interested in how learning outcomes might be different when

324

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample

Traditional Traditional plus Traditional(n = 13) video series plus cases

(n = 9) (n = 11)

Gender Females 12 9 9Males 1 0 2

Age Mean 21.08 20.56 21.45Std. Deviation 0.494 0.527 2.622

Number of previous Mean 5.38 4.22 4.09teaching experiences Std. Deviation 1.710 2.386 1.375

Previous experience Yes 9 7 10teaching reading No 4 2 1

CTELL cases are used compared to two other, commonly found, instructionalconditions: a traditional approach with readings, presentations, discussionsand field experiences, and a traditional approach combined with the viewingof a video series showing classroom reading instruction in action. We wereparticularly interested in how a professor new to using a case approachresponds to the situation and how students in this professor’s class, usinga novel approach, compare to those of other professors using more familiarapproaches.

Methods and procedures

Participants

Pre-service teachers enrolled in three different sections of the same reading/literacy methods course at a large east coast university participated in thestudy. All students who were enrolled in the course were invited to participatein the study. A different professor instructed each section but all used the samecore syllabus with common readings, assignments, topics and schedule andhad several years experience teaching this class, or similar class at anotheruniversity. At pre-test, sample size was 37. Thirty-three students completedboth the pre- and post-test measures and were included in the study. As isthe case with many colleges of education, the majority of the participantswere women (approximately 90%). All of the participants had at least oneprevious experience with teaching, from volunteering, their coursework orother experiences. In particular, approximately 79% of participants had a

325

previous experience with the teaching of reading. None of the participantshad served as a full-time classroom teacher. Table 1 summarizes the data onstudent participants.

CTELL cases

The CTELL cases are delivered via the Internet and utilize a multimediainterface that incorporates images, voice, and video to promote literacyinstruction using a case-based instructional approach. Each case is intendedto present a detailed yet broad range of information on the featured classroom.The scope of information is potentially daunting; therefore the interface hasbeen designed to be easy to use while affording the necessary navigationalcomplexity of each case.

When users first log in to this interface, they are channeled toward theanchor video, which is to be viewed prior to interfacing the remainder of thecase. Each case has its own anchor that contains a 15–20 minute summaryof the instructional setting. This anchor is typically organized around thestructure of a day presenting a stereotypical day and represents and beginswith an introduction by the teacher. The anchor video has been edited torepresent the teacher’s reading instruction over time and to demonstrate thenature of the classroom literacy program. An example of the anchor videofrom a kindergarten class (independent of the interface used in this study)may be viewed at http://ctell.uconn.edu/sample.html

After viewing the anchor segment, students are afforded the freedomto freely navigate the CTELL application (shown in Appendix A). Fromthis screen, users have the ability to select multiple aspects of the sameclassroom. The super-ordinate navigation bar contains three broad categories:children, class, and interviews. The children tab links to detailed informationon three students, a high-achieving student, an average-achieving student,and a low-achieving student with respect to reading and literacy. In eachcase, the classroom teacher selected the three target students using factorslike performance during reading and writing activities as well as standardizedtest scores. During filming, these students were followed closely. The threetarget students’ information is available from the subordinate navigation bar.Selecting the appropriate student will load their image and a menu of detailedinformation for further browsing. Each student tab contains examples theirwritten work, formal and informal assessments, running records, standardparent teacher conferences, as well as parent and student interviews. Thestudent interviews address questions with respect to their perceptions ofliteracy, their desires to read and write, and their behaviors with respect toliteracy. The parent interviews provide additional background informationabout the target child, parental attitudes about literacy, and parental views

326

about their child’s performance and attitudes about literacy. Near the bottomportion of the interface, there is also the option of printing the scannedexamples of student work.

The other two super-ordinate categories, class and interviews, are orga-nized in a manner similar to the children tab, with the most detailedselection available under an icon or photograph. These tabs provide contentrelating to the classroom and school as a whole. The class tab contains aclassroom diagram and layout, additional student work, teacher lesson plans,group assignments, and any classroom resources found in the video footage.Notably, this section also contains 5–6 instructional examples that demon-strate appropriate literacy instruction in greater depth than was possible in theanchor. Each segment was 3–5 minutes in length. The CTELL group selectedthese instructional segments based depending on how well they demonstratedhow any one of the 12 research-based principles of effective practice in earlyreading was integrated into the classroom.

The final super-ordinate category contains voice-over comments onthe anchor as well as contextual information about the school. For eachcase, the classroom teacher provided their insights and aspects of theirdecision making process with respect to the anchor video. These voice-over comments describe, from the teacher’s perspective, motivation andrationale for classroom organization, instructional strategies, and encourage-ment opportunities. Upon selecting a comment to hear, the anchor plays froman appropriate point while the comments play on top of the original sound.In addition to their personal insights, each case includes interviews with thebuilding principal, teachers above and below grade, media specialist, readingspecialist, and any other individuals instrumental in the featured class’sliteracy program. The content of these interviews ranges in scope from indi-vidual background information to educational philosophies and classroomroles. The principal, for example, was questioned about their views and atti-tudes about literacy instruction on a school level. The media specialist wasquestioned about their role in providing support for literacy activities. Theabove and below grade teachers were questioned about the abilities of theirstudents before and after a year of instruction. In addition to individuals fromthe school, experts from the field of literacy comment on certain aspects ofthe anchor, providing the user with additional informed perspectives.

While the majority of the interface is dedicated to presenting informa-tion, a portion is dedicated solely to user interaction. The lower right handportion of the CTELL application contains another navigation menu intendedto increase user functionality. Each user has the ability to electronicallybookmark a portion or multiple selections of video at any time and at anypoint during playback. These bookmarks are stored in the student’s personal

327

account and can either be accessed in class to support discussion or emailedto classmates directly from the interface (see Appendix B). The professor isalso afforded this ability, providing a means to record their own electronicbookmarks relevant to existing or upcoming classroom discussions.

Instructional treatments

The three sections served as the three instructional treatments. Section 1followed a previously established sequence of readings, in-class presenta-tions, discussions, assignments, and field experiences and is referred to asthe “traditional” treatment. Section 2, followed the identical series of read-ings, in-class presentations, discussions, assignments, and field experiences.However, this section incorporated several viewings of a commercial videoseries followed by classroom reading lessons and discussions and thereforetermed the “traditional plus video” treatment. This instructor opted to usea commercial video series that he had used for several years prior that hehad also deemed a successful teaching tool. Similarly, section 3 attemptedto follow the identical series of readings, in-class presentations, discussions,assignments, and field experiences but included the first iteration of CTELLcases.

The instructional format of section 3, referred to as the “traditional plusCTELL cases” treatment, enabled a more dynamic instructional approachthat sometimes deviated from the established timeline. Toward the end ofthe semester, this professor altered the traditional format of class sessionsto be more centrally oriented around the cases. Course assignments for thissection involved viewing the cases and investigating segments. Instructionalreadings were then selected based upon the findings and interests of the classand were presented as supplements to discussions. Thus, instead of the casebeing used to complement the readings, the readings were used to comple-ment the viewing and discussion of the case. All other assignments and fieldexperiences remained the same as the other treatment sections. The professorusing the CTELL cases had not previously used anchored instruction or caseapproaches though he was very experienced in technology use, especiallyInternet technologies.

Research-based principles of effective practice

Each professor was provided with a set of 12 principles of effective readinginstruction, developed from a large review of the research literature onreading instruction and from several national reports on reading research(Kinzer, Labbo, Leu & Teale, 2002). These principles reflect common compo-

328

nents of most reading/literacy methods courses and were found to be evidentin the common, core syllabus and readings for all three sections of this course.This set of principles is listed in Appendix C.

Design

The design included one between-subject variable (nature of instruction) andone within-subject variable (time). There were three levels of instruction,corresponding to each of the sections: (1) section 1: traditional, (2) section 2:traditional plus video, and (3) section 3: traditional plus CTELL cases,delivered over the Internet. Students completed the concept map task andconfidence measure at two time points: one at the beginning of the semesterand the other at the end of the semester. Four dependent variables were usedin the analysis: (1) the number of first level nodes appearing in concept mapsof effective reading instruction, (2) the number of total nodes correspondingto the principles of effective reading instruction, (3) the number of nodesthat corresponded to distinct principles of effective reading instruction, and(4) the student confidence score in his/her ability to teach reading. The mainmethod of data collection was survey and performance assessment, with apre/post design. Additionally, reflective journal data from the CTELL caseprofessor as well as student interview data were analyzed for any majorthemes using qualitative analysis with inductive procedures. While limitedin nature, the data were analyzed inductively using constant-comparativemethodology (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998) in an attempt to capture fundamentalcategories or themes that emerged. The analysis was recursive until satur-ation, when all data fit the major themes that emerged from this analysis.These qualitative data from the “traditional plus CTELL cases” treatmentwere included to assist in the interpretation of the quantitative analysis, depictsome of the dynamics involved in the use of CTELL cases by a professor whohad not used them previously, and provide new directions for future studieswithin the CTELL framework.

Data sources

Concept map. Students began the concept mapping task by viewing a two-minute segment of video. Students were given a completed concept map forthe concept “restaurant,” followed by discussion about the nature of a conceptmap and instructions explaining how they were to complete their own conceptmap using a paper and pencil. Students were then prompted to construct aconceptual map of the instructional activities found in the video segment byconnecting related concepts to the central node in ways that represented theirunderstanding of “effective reading instruction.” Students participated in the

329

concept mapping activity two times, at the beginning and at the conclusion ofthe course (see Appendix D for sample concept map).

The literature on concept mapping recognizes many different strategiesfor scoring concept maps. Novak and Gowin (1984) begin by defining theelements of concept mapping (i.e., propositions, hierarchical levels, crosslinks, and examples) as well as describing some early scoring techniques.Beyerbach and Smith (1990) look for changes in the number of items on themap as well as a hierarchical comparison. Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson (1996)recommend a scoring strategy that focuses on the adequacy of propositionsand links rather than the frequency or number of nodes. Ruiz-Primo, Schultz,Li and Shavelson (2001) describe two types of concept maps, a fill-in mapand a constructed map, as well as scoring strategies for each type of conceptmap. Synthesizing the work of these researchers, the scoring procedures usedin this study resulted in three dependent measures: (1) the number of first-level nodes, (2) the number of first level nodes that are adequate, and (3) thenumber of nodes that are both distinct and adequate. In each instance, welimited our analysis to first-level nodes, since these are thought to representthe greatest saliency in an individual’s understanding of a concept and sincethe task called for students to represent specific elements of effective readinginstruction. Furthermore adequacy is determined by whether a first level nodecorresponds to one the 12 principles of effective practice in K-3 readinginstruction.

We sought a variety of dependent measures related to the concept mapsince this was an exploratory study and we wanted to gauge the efficacyof a variety of measures. The first measure, the number of first-level nodesrepresented in the concept map, allowed us to roughly measure students’ability to identify what they considered to be elements of effective practicein reading and provided a gross measure of student understanding. However,this was not sensitive to whether or not each element was also consistent withthe research literature and recent national reports on early reading. FollowingRuiz-Primo and Shavelson (1996), the number of first level nodes that are alsoadequate were measured. While this provided a representation based on moreexpert conceptualization of effective reading instruction, we found studentsoften listed two or more first-level nodes that corresponded with the sameprinciple of effective practice in the research literature. As a result, we choseto also include a third measure, the number of nodes that are both distinct andadequate.

Confidence measure. This exploratory study is primarily concerned with thelearning outcomes of pre-service teachers. Nevertheless, work by Bandura(1997) suggests that it is important to explore constructs like self-efficacy,interpreted here as confidence in teaching ability. While there are more

330

detailed measurement techniques available, constraints on time permittedonly a simple measure of confidence in order to explore possible changesin self-efficacy. Serving as an additional quantitative measure, all studentscompleted a unidimensional self-efficacy item, representing their confidencein their ability to teach reading effectively to children. The item ranged from1 (not at all confident) to 5 (absolutely confident) and was administered atthe beginning and at end of the course. Several experts in the area of literacyinstruction constructed the item. The item was presented in the followingformat:

Please provide a rating, from one through 5 (with 5 being thehighest/most confident), that reflects your confidence in being able toteach reading to children right now. Rating:1 2 3 4 5Not at all confident absolutely confident

Reflective journal entries from case professor. Due to his unfamiliarity withcase-based instruction, the professor who used the CTELL cases kept areflective journal. This contained a series of entries, completed after everyclass session, recording and exploring ideas about the use of cases thatoccurred immediately following each class session. These data were limitedto 15 pages of typed entries.

Student interview data. At the conclusion of the course, students were askeda four general questions concerning their likes and dislikes about each classalthough interviewers probed for their understanding of effective literacyinstruction. Interviews typically lasted for 5 to 10 minutes and were digitallyrecorded after participants had given their consent to be filmed. A group ofexperts in the area of literacy instruction developed the interview protocolwhich pertained to students’ overall learning experiences, specific courseexperiences, understanding of literacy instruction, and intent to apply whatthey learned. Students were questioned generally at first, and then probed fordetails. A total of 13 students sampled from all three sections were inter-viewed but only three of the students interviewed had also used the CTELLcases.

Results

Quantitative data

Prior to analysis, the scores for all measures, as well as demographic informa-tion, were examined for outliers, missing data, and non-normality. Skewness

331

Table 2. Effects of time and course using Wilks’ Lambda

Within subjects Between subjects Interaction

F(1, 30) Partial η2 F(1, 30) Partial η2 F(2, 30) Partial η2

Total first level nodes 28.696∗∗ 0.489 0.027 0.002 0.801 0.051

Total principles represented 37.967∗∗ 0.559 0.029 0.002 0.761 0.048

Principles present and 35.779∗∗ 0.544 0.404 0.026 3.492∗ 0.189

distinct

∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.001.

and kurtosis ratios were calculated for each variable. The assumptions wereupheld for each subsequent analysis, including the assumption of sphericity.

Concept maps. Three repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted toassess the effect of time and course section on: (1) the number of first levelnodes, (2) the number of first level nodes that were adequate (i.e., correspondto the 12 principles of effective practice in K-3 reading instruction), and (3)the number of nodes that are both distinct and adequate. The ANOVA analysisindicated a significant time effect for each variable, the number of first levelnodes (Wilk’s λ = 0.50, F(1, 30) = 29.466, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.496),first level nodes that were adequate (Wilk’s λ = 0.44, F(1, 30) = 37.967, p <

0.001, partial η2 = 0.559), and first level nodes that are both distinct andadequate (Wilk’s λ = 0.46, F(1, 30) = 35.779, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.544).However, the effect of course section was not statistically significant for anyof these variables. Table 2 summarizes these findings. Furthermore, neitherthe number of first level nodes nor the number first level nodes that wereadequate yielded a significant interaction between time and course section.However a significant interaction was found between time and course sectionfor the number of nodes that are both distinct and adequate (Wilk’s λ = 0.81,F(2, 30) = 3.492, p < 0.05, partial η2 = 0.189). Unfortunately, follow uptests using univariate ANOVAs for pre and post scores found no significantdifferences among the three sections using an alpha of 0.05 [F(2, 32) = 1.220and F(2, 32) = 2.30 respectively].

The results indicate that each analysis was statistically significant overtime when sections were grouped together. The effect sizes varied from d =0.49 to d = 0.56 and were in the medium range (Cohen, 1988). Overall,there were significant gains in students’ total number of first level nodes, thenumber of first level nodes that were adequate, and the number of nodes thatare both distinct and adequate. However, contrasts between sections did notyield any significant results.

332

Confidence measures. As with the concept map variables, confidence scoreswere inspected for outliers, missing data, and non-normality. Upon initialexamination of the standard deviations for each of the pre and post scorecells, the students in the traditional course section had greater variability inratings than the other two sections. This variability affected the homogeneityof variance assumption for post test scores [Levene’s F(2, 28) = 6.924, p <

0.01] and as a result, we inspected the cell variances for patterns in the data(Kirk, 1995). Since sections with higher n’s appeared to have greater vari-ability than those with smaller n’s, a conservative alpha of 0.01 was used forthe indication of statistically significant effects (Kirk, 1995).

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effects oftime and course section on student confidence in teaching reading. A signifi-cant time effect for confidence rating was found, Wilk’s λ = 0.36, F(1, 28) =49.282, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.638. The effect of course section was notfound to be statistically significant, F(2, 28) = 3.979, p = 0.03, howeverthe interaction between time and course section was statistically significant,Wilk’s λ = 0.72, F(2, 28) = 5.546, p < 0.01 partial η2 = 0.284. The significantinteraction indicates that the confidence rating changes linearly over time andthe slopes of the lines for the three course sections are different from oneanother.

Two univariate ANOVAs were conducted to follow up the significantinteraction. We tested the effect of course section on pre-test scores and theeffect of course section on post-test scores. The ANOVA was significant forpre-test confidence score [F(2, 32) = 7.317, p < 0.01], but not for post-testconfidence score [F(2, 30) = 1.219, p < 0.05]. Follow-up test were conductedusing Tukey’s HSD to evaluate pairwise differences on the pre-test means.A statistically significant difference was detected between the CTELL casesection and the traditional section, and between the CTELL section and thetraditional plus video section. No significant differences were found betweenthe traditional and traditional plus video section. These findings indicate thatstudents in the traditional plus cases section were more confident in theirability to teach reading than the other sections on the pre-test (see Figure 1).However, students in all sections increased their confidence related to theirability to teach reading and students in each section, on average, were noless confident than their counterparts in other sections on the post-confidencescore.

Qualitative data: Reflective journal entries

Reflective journal entries from the professor who used the CTELL caseswere analyzed using inductive analytic techniques and constant-comparativemethodology (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998) in an attempt to capture fundamental

333

Figure 1. Confidence score in ability to teach reading.

categories or themes that emerged. This showed two major patterns: the needto view all elements of a case before using it in class and a growing tensionover which would be paramount in the class experiences, the cases or thereadings.

Viewing all elements of a case before using it in class. The professorrepeatedly expressed the need to completely explore all elements in a casebefore introducing it in class for two reasons: (1) to familiarize himselfwith the complexities represented in the case so that these might be sharedduring discussions and (2) to view and explore connections between distinctelements of the case which were important for class discussions. The caseprofessor made several observations such as the following:

I didn’t have time last yesterday to fully explore the Granato case andthis limited my effectiveness in class today. I simply could not quicklylocate examples of issues that came up during our discussion. This wasfrustrating since we only discussed comprehension today in general, asopposed to specific, terms. I wanted students to see the complexity ofthis issue in an actual class and I don’t think they did.

One lesson I have learned in using these cases is that one has tohave spent substantial time exploring each one before bringing theminto class. I simply couldn’t take full advantage of the complexities in

334

each case, and the dilemmas teachers face during reading instruction,because I only knew the cases in a general sense.

At other points, the professor saw important connections between differentelements of the case, after it had been discussed in class, connections thatstudents did not mention and therefore left the professor disappointed thatthey had not seen them. For example:

The principal indicated that reading should be fun and enjoyable; Mrs.Granato talked about the love of reading; and the weakest student inthe class talked about reading as imagination. Also, her mother talkedabout how much her child loved to write at home about things and thatshe saw this as important to her developing success with reading. I wishI had seen these connections before class. We only talked about Mrs.Granato’s philosophy. It would have been better to see how this has beenshaped by the principal and how it affected the student and her mother.

What is paramount, the cases or the readings? A second theme appearedas the professor felt a growing tension over which should be paramount inorganizing each class session – the cases or the readings? Initially, the read-ings served as the organizing theme and the cases supplemented conceptsencountered in the readings. This quickly became problematic, however, asthis entry suggests: “I continually have a hard time truly integrating the caseswith the readings. No case really represents the “ideal” presented in the read-ings. As a result, students don’t see the connections.” Later he notes, “I ambeginning to think the cases should be paramount and drive the readings.I think the classroom should be the starting point and the readings used toinform students about the classroom.” Ultimately, the professor shifted focus,making the cases paramount while using the readings to inform studentsthinking about instruction seen in the cases.

Finally, I made the shift today and class was so much better. First theyreviewed the case and then they did the readings. Students were finallyable to make connections between the case and the readings. Insightsabout the case were really informed by the readings. This is the way Iam going to teach next semester. Understanding the case really groundsthe readings in the reality of that classroom.

Qualitative data: Student interviews

Using the same qualitative analytic techniques describe previously to investi-gate possible themes in the professor’s reflective comments, student interview

335

data from section 3 were also analyzed. This analysis revealed two importantthemes related to the benefits derived from the study of complex contextualexperiences: (1) the CTELL cases promoted important classroom discus-sions and (2) students found the multiple perspectives on literacy instructionbeneficial.

CTELL cases promote classroom discussion. Students recognized that thecases were not only dynamic and complex, but that they incited discussionsinspired by what they viewed. One student observed that the cases “promoteddiscussion among . . . among our class and with [the professor].” Anotherstudent stated:

The biggest thing was that [the cases] kept generating more of a conver-sation among us as a class. And one topic would lead to another topic,um, which is always great to gather insight, not only from the professor’sperspective but our peers . . .

These statements suggest that students were aware of the benefits forenriching class conversations about reading instruction and that the CTELLcases provide the students with a common context in which to enrichdiscussions and refer to examples.

Multiple perspectives. The students commented on the importance of viewinga literacy classroom both as a whole and on a detailed level. Students reportedthat through reflection they benefited in ways beyond what texts were capableof accomplishing. One student reported that:

I was able to see it first hand instead of, just, you know, reading aboutit. And I can see different ways that teachers have implemented specificthings like independent reading . . . ways different classrooms use it. SoI guess that was the most important aspect of the class.

Another student acknowledge the importance of a textbook but added “thecase studies were useful to me ‘cause I was able to . . . get insight onto,you know, different kids learning at different levels. There was high andlow students, you know how different techniques are used.” This student alsomaintained that the most effective learning experiences in their course was:

. . . definitely the case studies, um, viewing them, talking about them onthe webboard, looking at the different interviews, the parent interviewsand the student interviews. I learned a lot through that and I saw a lot ofthe teacher’s methods and practice, how they structured things.

336

The multiple perspectives and opportunities to collaborate with their peerson projects afforded students with new opportunities to interact with thecourse content. In these examples, students indicate that their experience withthe CTELL cases was both meaningful and engaging.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to pilot the first iteration of the CTELL casesand provide preliminary information for upcoming studies of CTELL casesthat will take place during the third year of the project when 20 universitiesfrom around the US will begin to use these materials for pre-service teachereducation in beginning reading instruction. We were especially interestedin how learning outcomes might be different when CTELL cases are usedcompared to two other, commonly found, instructional conditions, especiallywhen a professor, unfamiliar with a case approach, used the CTELL cases.

It is important to note that this research takes place during the finaldesign phases of the CTELL interface. As a result, the students in the treat-ment section, traditional instruction plus CTELL cases, only had two of theCTELL cases available. Furthermore, not all of the attributes described earlierwere available to users in this study. Aspects like the expert commentary,voice-over information, and email functionality were still under development.Additionally, a portfolio system, which requires users to demonstrate theirunderstanding of literacy instruction through the use of electronic bookmarks,was undergoing final testing (see Appendix E).

The results indicate that students in all three classes completed the coursefeeling equally confident in their ability to teach reading. In addition, therewas no difference between the three sections in their performance (pre-post)on several measures derived from a concept map of effective reading instruc-tion. One may conclude from these results that students in all classes gainedequally in their general understanding of this concept from course experi-ences. Furthermore, students in all three classes were equally confident intheir ability to teach reading at the end of the course. Considering that theprofessor using these cases had no previous experience with a case approach,we consider the similarity in learning outcomes encouraging.

The lack of differences on the quantitative measures may be explainedby the qualitative data. Of particular interest was the initial frustration feltby the case professor in trying to integrate the case experiences with thecourse readings. This professor was challenged to successfully integrate thecase experiences into the traditional syllabus organized around readings andtopics. He became comfortable only after he shifted the primary organizationof the course to the CTELL cases, using readings to strengthen discussions

337

and findings. This suggests that CTELL cases may require new instruc-tional strategies that are not completely compatible with more traditionalapproaches to pre-service teacher education. In addition, it suggests thatprofessors new to case approaches may require more time than we anticip-ated before any possible learning gains appear. It may be that professors newto the CTELL cases will require more than a single semester to reorganizetheir teaching to take advantage of the potential within video cases that aredelivered over the Internet. Alternatively, it may be that if professors newto a case approach and to the CTELL cases are provided with support andinstruction before using the cases that this process may be speeded up. Weare beginning to investigate each of these possibilities.

In addition, journal experiences appear to indicate the need for thisprofessor, who used cases containing extensive video and other resources, tobecome completely familiar with each entire case before using it in class. Thecase professor regularly commented on this challenge as it impeded his abilityto show students connections between different elements in the case and torelate different elements in the case to topics that came up during discussions.It is likely that professors new to the use of cases will experience similarchallenges unless they are thoroughly familiar with the cases they will usein their class. When complex cases are used in preservice teacher education,representing the complexity of classroom literacy contexts and including atleast an hour of video as well as many samples of student writing (not yetimplemented in this preliminary case), this complexity appears to requiregreater preparation on the part of the professor. It was not possible for thisprofessor to use the cases effectively without this preparation.

Considering the challenges the professor experienced during the instruc-tion of this course, the student comments may be of special significance. Thestatements made by students suggest that even though the instructor struggledwith aspects of the cases and the instructional style, the format provides atleast two very beneficial characteristics to classroom interaction. The studentscommented on the capability for the CTELL cases to promote and encourageclassroom discourse as well as provide a multiple perspectives on literacyinstruction.

In summary, this study identified important insights into the use of thecomplex cases being developed in the CTELL project. Future studies maywish to evaluate the extent to which a professor became familiar with acomplex case of reading instruction before using it in his/her class. Thismay make an important difference in the learning outcomes students achieve.Also, future studies may wish to consider contrasting journal entries betweenprofessors of each section may add additional insights into literacy instructionas a whole. Furthermore, a more comprehensive investigation of self-efficacy

338

may offer insights with regards to literacy and technology as well as thetechnology of the CTELL cases themselves. However, despite the smallsample size, a professor unfamiliar with case approaches was able to achievelearning outcomes similar to experienced professors who used more familiarapproaches. The case professor also identified several important lessons thatshould be considered when professors seek to use a case approach withintheir classes and student comments offer encouragement towards the benefitof using CTELL cases.

Note

1. We do not mean to imply that lectures or transmission models are inappropriate whenmatched to appropriate instructional goals. In the problem-based, “fuzzy” domain that wetarget in this discussion, however, they appear to be lacking in their effectiveness.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.Beyerbach, B.A. & Smith, J.M. (1990). Using a computerized concept mapping program

to assess preservice teachers’ thinking about effective teaching. Journal of Research inScience Teaching 27(10): 961–971.

Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative Research in Education: An Introduction toTheory and Methods. 3rd Ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Boring, E.G. (1957). A History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts.

Brown, A.L. & Campione, J.C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context byany other name. In D. Kuhn, ed., Contributions to Human Development: Vol. 21. Devel-opmental Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Thinking Skills, pp. 108–126. Basel,Switzerland: Karger.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher 18: 32–41.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relation-ship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher 19(6): 2–10.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997). The Jasper Project: Lessons inCurriculum, Instruction, Assessment, and Professional Development. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol &B.F. Jones, eds, Educational Values and Cognitive Instruction: Implications for Reform,pp. 121–138. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, A., Brown, J. & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching thecrafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick, ed., Knowing, Learning,and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

339

Darling-Hammond, L. & Young, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does“scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher 31(9): 13–25.

Donahue, P.L., Finnegan, R.J., Lutkus, A.D. Allen, N.L. & Campbell, J.R. (2001). TheNation’s Report Card: Fourth-grade Reading 2000. Washington, DC: National Center forEducational Statistics. [Available: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/results/]

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F.B. Murray,ed., The Teacher Educators’ Handbook: Building a Knowledge Base for the Preparationof Teachers, pp. 63–91. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fizgerald, G.E., Wilson, B. & Semrau, L.P. (1997). An interactive multimedia program toenhance teacher problem-solving skills based on cognitive flexibility theory: Design andoutcomes. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 6(1): 47–76.

Greeno, J.G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review 101(2): 336–342.Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M. & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner &

R. Calfee, eds, Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp. 15–46. New York: Macmillan.International Reading Association (2001). Integrating Literacy and Technology in

the Curriculum. Newark, DE: Author. Available: http://www.reading.org/positions/technology.html

Jonassen, D.H. & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructionaldesign: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment 50(2): 65–77.

Kinzer, C., Labbo, L.D., Leu, D.J. & Teale, W.H. (2002). Best Practices – teacher preparation –technology: Connections that enhance children’s literacy acquisition and reading achieve-ment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, April, 1–5.

Kinzer, C. & Risko, V. (1998). Multimedia and enhanced learning: Transforming preser-vice education. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo & R. Kieffer, eds, Handbookof Technology and Literacy: Transformations in a Post-typographic World, pp. 185–202.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kirk, R.E. (1995). Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Kirshner, D. & Whitson, J.A. (1998). Obstacles to understanding cognition as situated.Educational Researchers 27(8): 22–28.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Leu, D.J., Jr. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education inan information age. In M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr, eds, Handbookof Reading Research, Volume III, pp. 743–770. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leu, D.J., Jr. & Kinzer, C.K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction and networkedtechnologies for information and communication. Reading Research Quarterly 35: 108-127.

Lundeberg, M.A. (1999). Discovering teaching and learning through cases. In M.A.Lundeberg, B.B. Levin and H.L. Harrington, eds, Who Learns What from Cases and How?,pp. 3–23. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lundeberg, M.A., Bergland, M., Klyczek, K., Mogen, K., Johnson, D. & Harmes, N. (1999,April). Increasing interest, confidence and understanding of ethical issues in sciencethrough case-based instructional technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, Montreal, PQ.

Merseth, K.K. (1991). The early history of case-based instruction: Insights for teachereducation today. Journal of Teacher Education 42(4): 243–249.

340

Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Richardson, V., ed. (2001). Handbook of Research on Teaching. Washington, DC: AmericanEducational Research Association.

Ruiz-Primo, M.A. & Shavelson, R.J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept mapsin science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33(6): 569–600.

Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Schultz, S.E., Li, M. & Shavelson R.J. (2001). Comparison of the reli-ability and validity scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research inScience Teaching 38(2): 260–278.

Shaw, R.E., Kadar, E., Sim, M. & Repperger, D.W. (1992). The intentional spring: A strategyfor modeling systems that learn to perform intentional acts. Journal of Motor Behavior24(1): 3–28.

Shulman, J.S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. Shulman, ed., Case Method in TeacherEducation, pp. 1–30. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shyu, H. (1997). Anchored instruction for Chinese students: Enhancing attitudes towardmathematics. International Journal of Instructional Media 24(1): 55–63.

Sikula, J.P. (ed.), Buttery, T.J. & Guyton, E. (1996). Handbook of Research on TeacherEducation. New York: Macmillan.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S. & Griffin, P., eds (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in YoungChildren. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J. and Coulson, R.L. (1991). Cognitive flexib-ility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledgeacquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology 31(5): 24–33.

Teale, W.H., Leu, D.J., Jr., Labbo, L.D. & Kinzer, C.K. (2002). The CTELL project: New waystechnology can help educate tomorrow’s reading teachers. The Reading Teacher 55(7):654–659.

Tergan, S. (1997). Multiple views, contexts, and symbol systems in learning with hyper-text/hypermedia: A critical review of research. Educational Technology 37(4): 5–18.

Web-based Education Commission’s Report to the President and Congress of the UnitedStates (2000). The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice.[Online]. Available: http://interact.hpcnet.org/webcommission/index.htm#adobe [2000,December 31].

Woolfolk, A.E. (1998). Educational Psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.