Instructional uses of computers for writing: The effect of state testing programs

Teachers College Record

Volumn 106, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1332-1357

  Russell, Michael ^a,b   Abrams, Lisa ^a,b  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b Boston College ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3142662515     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00381.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
2. Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(1). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/jtla/ journal/v1n1.shtml
3. Daiute, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 41-59.
4. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
5. Etchison, C. (1989). Word processing: A helpful tool for basic writers. Computers and Composition, 6(2), 33-43.
6. Glennan, T. K., & Melmed, A. (1996). Fostering the use of educational technology: Elements of a national strategy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
7. Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: a meta-analysis of studies from 1992-2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1). Retrieved March 1, 2003, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/jtla/journal/v2n1.shtml.
8. Hannafin, M. J., & Dalton, D. W. (1987). The effects of word processing on written composition. The Journal of Educational Research, 80, 338-342.
9. Henry, D., Cooke, S., Buckley, P., Gill, G., Dumagan, J., LaPorte, S., & Pastore, D. (1999). The emerging digital economy II. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
10. Herman, J. L., Brown, R. S., & Baker, E. L. (2000). Student assessment and Student achievement in the California public school system. CSE Technical Report 519. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
11. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.), (1999). High-stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and graduation, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12. Hoffman, J. V., Assaf, L. C., & Paris, S. G. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow? The Reading Teacher, 54(5), 482-494.
13. Kerchner, L. B., & Kistinger, B. J. (1984). Language processing/word processing: Written expression, computers, and learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(4), 329-335.
14. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
15. Market Data Retrieval. (1999). Technology in education 1999 (Report issued by Market Data Retrieval). Shelton, CN: Author.
16. Market Data Retrieval. (2001). Technology in Education 2001 (Report issued by Market Data Retrieval). Shelton, CN: Author.
17. National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
18. Newburger, E. C. (1997). Computer use In the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
19. Orlofsky, G. F., & Olson, L. (2001). The state of the states. Education Week, 20(17), 86-88.
20. Pedulla, J., Abrams, L., Madaus, G., Russell, M., Ramos, M., & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs an teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
21. Powers, D., Fowles, M., Farnum, M., & Ramsey, P. (1994). Will they think less of my handwritten essay if others word process theirs? Effects on essay scores of intermingling handwritten and word-processed essays. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(3), 220-233.
22. President's Information Technology Advisory Committee Panel on Transforming Learning. (2001). Report to the President: Using information technology to transform the way we learn. Retrieved April 19, 2002, from http://www.itrd.gov/pubs/pitac/pitac-tl-9feb01.pdf
23. Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 5(1). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n3.html
24. Russell, M., & Haney, W. (2000). Bridging the gap between testing and technology in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(19). Retrieved March 20, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n19.html.
25. Russell, M., & Plati, T. (2001). Effects of computer versus paper administration of a statemandated writing assessment. Teachers College Record. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID= 10709
26. Russell, M., & Plati, T. (2002). Does it matter with which I write: Comparing performance on paper, computer and portable writing devices. Current Issues in Education, 5 (4). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://cie.ed.asu. edu/volume5/number4/
27. Russell, M. (1999). Testing writing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7(20). Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n20/
28. Russell, M. (2002a). Effects of handwriting and computer-print on composition scores: A follow-up to Powers et al. Chestnut Hill, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/publications.shtml
29. Russell, M. (2002b). The influence of computer-print on rater scores. Chestnut Hill, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/publications.shtml
30. Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
31. Shepard, L. (1990). Inflating test score gains: Is the problem old norms or teaching the test. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15-22.
32. Shore, A., Pedulla, J., & Clarke, M. (2001). The building blocks of state testing programs. National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy Statements, 2(4).
33. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 19, 2002, from http://www.ntia.doc.-gov/ntiahome/dn/nationonline_020502.htm.
34. Vacc, N. N. (1987). Word processor versus handwriting: A comparative study of writing samples produced by mildly mentally handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54(2), 156-165.
35. White House. (2002). Fact sheet: No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved, May 26, 2002, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/print/20020108. html
36. Williamson, M. L., & Pence, P. (1989). Word processing and student writers. In B. K. Briten & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Computer writing environments: Theory, research, and design (pp. 96-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.