Scaling up innovative technology-based mathematics

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 248-286

  Tatar, Deborah ^a,e   Roschelle, Jeremy ^b   Knudsen, Jennifer ^b   Shechtman, Nicole ^b   Kaput, Jim ^c   Hopkins, Bill ^d  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^e State University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 43849087099     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508400801986090     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Becker, H. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1998). Teacher's survey: Combined version 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/ questionnaires/teachers_qs.pdf, accessed: March 22, 2008.
2. Brown, A. (1991). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in evaluating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
3. Campbell, D. T., Shadish, W. R., & Cook, T. D. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
4. Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
5. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (CPRE Research Report No. RR-043). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
6. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 1-24.
8. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London: Routledge.
9. Dede, C., Honan, J., & Peters, J. (2005). Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based. New York: Jossey-Bass.
10. Elmore, R. F. (1996, 1997). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1-25.
11. Elmore, R. F. (1997). The paradox of innovation in education: Cycles of reform and the resilience of teaching. In A. A. Altshuler & R. D. Behn (Eds.), Innovation in American government: Challenges, opportunities, and dilemmas (pp. 246-273). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
12. Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 313-333.
13. Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 557-577.
14. Finzer, W. (2005). Fathom dynamic data software. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
15. Foorman, B. R., Santi, K., & Berger, L. (2007). Scaling assessment-driven instruction using the Internet and handheld computers. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Scale up in practice (pp. 69-89). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
16. Hiebert, J., & Behr, H. (1988). Capturing the major themes. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (Vol. 2, pp. 1-18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Jackiw, R. N. (1991/2001). The geometer's sketchpad [Computer software]. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
19. Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), A handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York: Macmillan.
20. Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old roots. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 77-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Kaput, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2002). Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the computational era. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research on mathematics education (pp. 51-75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Konold, C. (2007). Designing a data tool for learners. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: The 33rd annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 267-292). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Laborde, C., & Laborde J.-M. (2006). Genèse et développement de Cabri-géomètre, environnement de géométrie dynamique. In M. Grand Bastien, J.-M. Labat, A. Derycke, & C. Desmoulins (Eds.), Environnements Informatiques pour l'Apprentissage Humain (pp. 345-374). London: Hermès Science.
24. Laborde, C., & Laborde, J. M. (in press). The development of a dynamical geometry environment Cabri-géomètre. In K. Heid and G. Blum (Eds.), Research on technology in the teaching and learning of mathematics: Syntheses, cases and perspectives. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
25. Lester, F. K., Kloosterman, P. W., Sowder, J. A. T., & Kehle, P. E. (2004, April). Clearing the air about school mathematics achievement: What do NAEP data tell us? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
26. Marzano, R. J. (1998). A theory-based meta-analysis of research on instruction. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
27. McDonald, S.-K., Keesler, V. A., Kauffman, N. J., & Schneider, B. (2006). Scaling-up exemplary interventions. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 15-24.
28. Mostow, J., & Aist, G. (2001). Evaluating tutors that listen: An overview of Project LISTEN. In K. Forbus & P. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education (pp. 169-234). Menlo Park, CA: MIT/AAAI Press.
29. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2000. (No. NCES 2001-571). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
30. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31. Pea, R. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive sciences and mathematics education (pp. 89-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., & Stroup, W. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating student engagement with the mathematics of change. In M. J. Jacobsen & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Learning the sciences of the 21st century: Research, design, and implementing advanced technology learning environments (pp. 47-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Future of Children, 10(2), 76-101.
34. Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., & Kaput, J. (in press). Getting to scale with innovations that deeply restructure how students come to know mathematics. In A. E. Kelley & R. Lesh (Eds.), Foundations for the future: Reconceiving the goals in mathematics education in the 21st century. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36. Schorr, R. Y., Firestone, W., & Monfils, L. A. (2003). State testing and mathematics teaching in New Jersey: The effects of a test without other supports. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 373-405.
37. Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21.
38. Sowder, J. T., Wearne, D., Martin, G., & Strutchens, M. (in press). What grade 8 students know about mathematics: Changes over a decade. In P. Kloosterman & F. Lester (Eds.), NAEP mathematics assessments: Interpretive analyses and materials development. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
39. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. A. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455-488.
40. Stringfield, S., & Datnow, A. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring designs in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 269-276.
41. Suter, L. (2002). Is student achievement immutable? Evidence from international studies on schooling and student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 70, 529-545.