Technology's contribution to teaching and policy: Efficiency, standardization, or transformation?

Review of Research in Education

Volumn 27, Issue , 2003, Pages 159-181

  Means, Barbara ^a   Roschelle, Jeremy ^a   Penuel, William ^a   Sabelli, Nora ^a   Haertel, Geneva ^a  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 5644268124     PISSN: 0091732X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X027001159     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Abrahamson, L. (2000). An overview of teaching and learning research with classroom communication systems. New York: Wiley.
2. Allen, B. (2003). Reflections on teaching and teachers in the LemonLink environment. In R. Pea, W. A. Wulf, S. W. Elliott, & M. A. Darling (Eds.), Planning for two transformations in education and learning technology: Report of a workshop (pp. 91-96). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Yost, G. (1985). The geometry tutor. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1-7). San Francisco: Morgan Kauffman.
4. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.
5. Ansell, S. E., & Park, J. (2003, May 8). Tracking tech trends. Education Week, pp. 43-49.
6. Ba, H., & Anderson, L. (2002). A quantitative investigation of teachers and the JASON Multimedia Science Curriculum: Reported use and impact, Year 2 evaluation report. New York: Center for Children and Technology, Education Development Corporation.
7. Becker, H. J. (1985). How schools use microcomputers: Results from a national survey. In M. Chen & W. Paisley (Eds.), Children and microcomputers: Research on the newest medium, (pp. 87-107). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8. Becker, H. J. (1990, April). Computer use in United States schools: 1989. An initial report of U.S. participation in the I.E.A. Computers in Education Survey, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
9. Becker, H. J., & Sterling, C. W. (1987). Equity in school computer use: National data and neglected considerations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 289-311.
10. Bennett, R. E. (1998). Reinventing assessment: Speculations on the future of large-scale educational assessment. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
11. Brandes, A., & Wilensky, U. (1990). Treasureworld: An environment for the study and exploration of feedback. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
14. Cohen, D. K. (1988). Educational technology and school organization. In R. S. Nickerson & P. P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 231-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (CPRE Research Rep. RR-43). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
16. Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 3-56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
17. Confrey, J., & Makar, K. (in press). Critiquing and improving data use from high stakes tests: Understanding variation and distribution in relation to equity using dynamic statistics software. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18. Crawford, V., & Toyama, Y. (2001). Assessing the technology proficiencies of educators and students: A report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
19. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. The Physics Teacher, 69, 970-977.
20. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Culp, K. M., Hawkins, J., & Honey, M. (1999). Review paper on educational technology research and development. New York: Education Development Center.
22. Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 256-262.
23. Davis, S. (2002, August). Research to industry: Four years of observations in classrooms using a network of handheld devices. Paper presented at the IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, Växjö, Sweden.
24. Dede, C., & Nelson, R. (in press). Technology as Proteus: Digital infrastructures that empower scaling up. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25. Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 197-210.
26. Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411-430.
27. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7(2), 3-47.
28. Eylon, B., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251-301.
29. Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40, 206-207.
30. Foorman, B., Santi, K., Mouzaki, A., & Berger, L. (2003, April). Scaling up assessment-driven intervention using the Internet and handheld computers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
31. Greene, D., Durland, M., & Sloane, K. (2001). Update to February 2000 strategic review of professional development services provided by learning technologies, Chicago Public Schools. Palo Alto, CA: Bay Area Research Group.
32. Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-11.
33. Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043-1055.
34. Hartline, F. (1997). Analysis of 1st semester of Classtalk use at McIntosh Elementary School. Yorktown, VA: Better Education.
35. Herman, J. L., & Gribbons, B. (2001). Lessons learned in using data to support school inquiry and continuous improvement (CSE Tech. Rep. 535). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
36. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Christie, M. A., & Horwitz, P. (1999). Advancing educational theory by enhancing practice in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. Journal of Education, 181, 1-33.
37. Horwitz, P., Neumann, E., & Schwartz, J. (1996). Teaching science at multiple levels: The GenScope Program. Communications of the ACM, 39(8), 100-102.
38. Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In K. Gilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating classroom theory and classroom practice (pp. 51-74). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. (2002). Exploiting classroom connectivity by aggregating student constructions to create new learning opportunities. Paper presented at the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Norwich, England.
40. Kaput, J., & Roschelle, J. (1998). The mathematics of change and variation from a millennial perspective: New content, new context. In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan, & G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the mathematics curriculum. London: Falmer Press.
41. Kemeny, J. G., & Kurtz, T. E. (1968). Dartmouth time sharing, Science, 162, 223-228.
42. King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problem solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 307-317.
43. Lemke, C. (2003, June). Policy study findings from the Maine Laptop Initiative. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Seattle, WA.
44. Levin, H. M., & Meister, G. R. (1985). Educational technology and computers: Promises, promises, always promises (Project Rep. 85-A13). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance.
45. Marbach-Ad, G., & Sokolove, P. G. (2000). Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 854-870.
46. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
47. McDermott, L. C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37, 24-32.
48. Means, B. (2000). Technology in America's schools: Before and after Y2K. In R. Brandt (Ed.), ASCD yearbook 2000 (pp. 185-210). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
49. Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C. C., Remz, A., & Zorfass, J. (1993). Using technology to support education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
50. Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology and education reform: Technical research report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
51. Mitchell, D., & Lee, J. (2000, April). QSP software and school data-driven decision-making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
52. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2002. Washington, DC: Author.
53. Newman, D. (1990). Opportunities for research on the organizational impact of school computers. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 8-13.
54. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1988). Power on! New tools for teaching and learning (OTA Publication SET-379). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
55. Pea, R., & Lazowska, E. (2003). A vision for LENS centers: Learning expeditions in networked systems for 21st century learning. In R. Pea, W. A. Wulf, S. W. Elliott, & M. A. Darling (Eds.), Planning for two transformations in education and learning technology: Report of a workshop (pp. 84-90). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
56. Pea, R., Wulf, W. A., Elliott, S. W., & Darling, M. A. (Eds.). (2003). Planning for two transformations in education and learning technology: Report of a workshop. Washington. DC: National Academy Press.
57. Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
58. Pressler, J., & Scheines, R. (1988). An intelligent natural deduction proof tutor. Computerised Logic Teaching Bulletin, 1.
59. Quellmalz, E. S. (1999). The role of technology in advancing performance standards in science and mathematics learning. In K. Comfort (Ed.), How good is good enough? Setting performance standards for science and mathematics learning. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
60. Roberts, N. (1978). Teaching dynamic feedback systems thinking: An elementary view. Management Science, 24, 836-843.
61. Roschelle, J., & Kaput, J. (1996). Educational software architecture and systemic impact: The promise of component software. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 217-228.
62. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1, 145-168.
63. Sadler, P. M. (1998). Psychometric models of student conceptions in science: Reconciling qualitative and distractor-driven assessment instruments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 265-296.
64. Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology. New York: Teachers College Press.
65. Schofield, J. W., Evans-Rhodes, D., & Huber, B. R. (1989). Artificial intelligence in the classroom: The impact of a computer-based tutor on teachers and students. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research, Cognitive Science Program.
66. Shepard, L. A. (2000, April). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Presidential address presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
67. Silvernail, D. L., & Harris, W. J. (2003). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative: Teacher, student, and school perspectives, mid-year evaluation report. Gorham: Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
68. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
69. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1990). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). London: Falmer Press.
70. Stapleton, J. (in press). Commentary on evaluating educational technology from a policy perspective. In B. Means & G. D. Haertel (Eds.), Using technology evaluation to enhance student learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
71. Stringfield, S., Waymon, J. C., & Yakimowski, M. (in press). "Scaling up" data use in classrooms, schools, and districts. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
72. Stroup, W. M. (1999). Participatory simulations: Network-based design for systems learning in classrooms. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, Stanford, CA.
73. Stroup, W., Kaput, J. J., Ares, N., Wilensky, U., Hegedus, S., Roschelle, J., Mack, A., Davis, S. M., & Hurford, A. (2002). The nature and future of classroom connectivity: The dialectics of mathematics in the social space. Paper presented at the Psychology and Mathematics Education North American Conference, Athens, GA.
74. Suppes, P., & Morningstar, M. (1968). Computer-assisted instruction. Science, 166, 343-350.
75. Truong, T. M., Griswold, W. G., Ratto, M., & Star, L. (2002). The ActiveClass project: Experiments in encouraging classroom participation. San Diego: University of California, San Diego.
76. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics or control and communication. In The animal and the machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
77. Zuboff, S. (1989). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic Books.