You are here:

A Blended In-service Arrangement for Supporting Science Teachers in Technology Integration ARTICLE

, University of Twente, Netherlands

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 18, Number 1, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


A blended in-service arrangement was designed to support Russian science teachers from rural schools in the integration of technology. Blended learning combines multiple delivery modes that are designed to complement each other and promote learning and application-based behavior. The blended in-service arrangement consisted of two main components: 1. a teacher network with workshops, classroom observation and on-line collaboration and 2. exemplary curriculum materials. In the arrangement a train-the-trainers approach was applied: expert-teachers were prepared to support science teachers (target-teachers) in technology integration. During the implementation phase target-teachers were given feedback by expert-teachers and fellow teachers through online collaboration. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to determine the impact of the blended approach on science teacher learning, classroom impact and student affective outcomes. The results of the study indicate that the blended in-service arrangement as developed in this study was a promising approach in supporting Russian rural school teachers with the integration of technology.


Voogt, J. (2010). A Blended In-service Arrangement for Supporting Science Teachers in Technology Integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 83-109. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved May 27, 2018 from .



  1. AACte Committee on Innovation and technology. (2008). (eds.). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York/London: Routledge.
  2. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1996). Reform by the book: What is – or might be – the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-14.
  3. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  4. Davis, E.A., & Krajcik, J.S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34, 3, 3-14.
  5. Clandinin, D.J. & Connolly, F.M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. Jackson (ed), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp363-401). New York: Macmillan.
  6. De Vries, B. & Pieters, J.M. (2007). Bridging the gap between research and practice: exploring the role of knowledge communities in educational change. European Educational Research Journal, 6, 4 , 382-392.
  7. Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning. In L. Darling-Hammond, & G. Sykes (eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 236-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  8. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
  9. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving science teaching: the messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37, 379-385.
  10. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
  11. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing tPCk. In AACte Committee on Innovation and technology (eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). New York/London: Routledge.
  12. Knezek, G. A., Christensen, R. W., Miyashita, K. T., & Ropp, M. M. (2000). Instruments for assessing educator progress in technology integration. Denton: University of North texas. Retrieved 18 January 18, 2005 from
  13. Lockhorst, D. A., & Van der Meer, A. W. (1996). Tussen luisterschool en werkplaats [Between listening school and working place]. Groningen: WoltersNoordhoff.
  14. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  15. Maor, D., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry-based computer-assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 401-422.
  16. Moonen, B. H. (2001). Teacher learning in in-service networks on Internet use in secondary education. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede, the Netherlands: University of twente.
  17. Nix, R. K. (2002). Virtual field trips: Using information technology to create an integrated science learning environment. Doctoral dissertation. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of technology.
  18. Putnam, R. P., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 1-15.
  19. Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: thinking as social practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  20. Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: teachers College Press.
  21. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs, Educational Technology, 43(6), 51-54.
  22. Van der Meer, T. (1998). Implementation of education standards in schools. In J. Voogt, & T. Plomp (eds.), Education standards and assessment in the Russian Federation (pp. 101-111). Leuven: ACCo.
  23. Voogt, J. (2003). Consequences of ICt for aims, contents, processes and environments of Learning. In J. Van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 217-236). Dordrecht: kluwer.
  24. Zhao, Y., & Rop, S. (2001). A critical review of the literature on electronic networks as reflective discourse communities for inservice teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 6(2), 81-94.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact