The effects of the use of Renzulli Learning on student achievement in reading comprehension, Reading fluency, Social studies, and science: An investigation of technology and learning in grades 3 - 8

International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 29-39

  Field, Gara B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Effects on student achievement; Reading comprehension; Reading fluency; Renzulli learning; Science; Social studies; Technology and learning

Indexed keywords

E-LEARNING; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; LEARNING SYSTEMS;

READING COMPREHENSION; READING FLUENCY; RENZULLI LEARNING; SCIENCE; SOCIAL STUDY; STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT;

STUDENTS;

EID: 77954314711     PISSN: 18688799     EISSN: 18630383     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v4i1.629     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. MacFarlane S, Sim G, Horton M., Assessing usability and fun in educational 92.
2. Bain, A., & Ross, K. (1999). School reenginerering and SAT-I performance: A case Study. International Journal of Education Reform, 9, 148-153.
3. Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458-464.
4. Cradler, J., & Cradler, R. (1999). Just in time: A new model for multimedia training. Evaluation report for 1999. Washington DC: US Office of Education.
5. Cradler, J., McNabb, M., Freeman, M., & Burchett, R. (2002). How does technology influence student learning? Learning & Leading with Technology, 29(8), 46-56.
6. Deno, S. L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1-17). New York: Guilford Press.
7. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256. (doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3)
8. Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. (1996). Internet connections in six classrooms: Conversations across time, space, and culture. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. (1998). The Internet in the classroom: Is it the end of transmission-oriented pedagogy? In D.R. Reinking, L.D. Labbo, M. McKenna, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Literacy for the 21st century: Technological transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 221-231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Gates, W. (1995). The road ahead. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
11. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
12. Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. A. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 41-44.
13. Hasrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. A. (2005). Oral Reading Fluency Norms Data. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://www.readnaturally.com/pdf/oralreadingfluency.pdf
14. Hogarty, K. Y., Lang, T. R., & Kromrey, J. D. (2003). Another look at technology in classrooms: The development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers' perceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 139-162. (doi:10.1177/0013164402239322)
15. Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., Frisbie, D. A., Oberley, K. R., Bray, G. B., Naylor, R. J., et al. (2001). The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills: Complete battery (Form A Levels 9-14). Itaska, IL: Riverside Publishing.
16. Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). "Just plain reading": A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350-371. (doi:10.1598/RRQ. 36.4.2)
17. Jennings, H., & Lucca, L. (2005). Summary of Experimental Study of the Ready to Teach Developmental Electronic Field Trip Reader Project, 1 - 10. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from, http://orcmacro.com
18. Karabinus, R. A. (1983). Nonequivalent group designs: The use of ANCOVA, multiple regression, repeated ANOVA, and effect size. Evaluation Review, 7, 841-850. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from http://erx.sagepub.com. (doi:10.1177/0193841X8300700608)
19. Labbo, L.D. (1996). A semiotic analysis of young children's symbol-making in a classroom computer center. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 356-385. Swanson, H.L., Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of learning disabilities. New York: Guilford.
20. Lenhart, A., Simon, M., & Graziano, M. (2001). The Internet and education: Findings of the Pew Internet and American life project. Retrieved October 21, 2006, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/0d/86/1e.pdf
21. Leu, D. J., Jr., Leu, D. D., & Coiro, J. (2004). Teaching with the Internet: New literacies for new times (4th ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
22. Levin, D., & Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between Internet-savvy students and their schools. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://207.21.232.103.pdfs/PI P_Schools_Internet_Report.pdf
23. Mann, D., & Shafer, E. A. (1997, July). Technology and achievement. American School Board Journal. Retrieved August 21, 2006, from, http://www.asbj.com/achievement/ci/ci10.html
24. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999, December). Teachers' feelings of preparedness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
25. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, April). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools, stats in brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
26. National Report on NetDay's 2005 Speak Up event and survey. (2005). Our voices, our future: Student and teacher views on science, technology & education. Retrieved August 21, 2006, from http://www.netday.org/speakup_2005.htm
27. Neuman, S. (2002, June). The role of school libraries in elementary and secondary education. Presented at the Whitehouse conference on school libraries proceedings. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.imls.gov/news/events/whitehouse_l.shtm#sn
28. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS version 12. New York, NY: Open University Press.
29. Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58, 510-519. (doi:10.1598/RT.58.6.2)
30. Prensky, M. (2000). Digital game-based learning, New York: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved July 10, 2006 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Ch2-Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning.pdf
31. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, Digital immigrants. Retrieved July 10, 2006, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/de fault.asp
32. Reis, S. M., Eckert, R. D. Schreiber, F. J., Jacobs, J., Briggs, C., Gubbins, E.J., et al. (2005). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model reading study (RM05214). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
33. Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1985). The secondary enrichment triad model: A practical plan for excellence without elitism. NASSP Bulletin, 69(482), 31-38. (doi:10.1177/0192636 58506948205)
34. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
35. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc.
36. Renzulli, J.S. & Reis, S.M. (2007). A technology based program that matches enrichment resources with student strengths. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2(3). Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://online-journals.org/ijet/article/viewArticle/126
37. Shaunessy, E. (2007). Attitudes toward information technology of teachers of the gifted: Implications for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 119-135. (doi:10.1177/0016986207299470)
38. Siegle, D., & Foster, T. (2001). Laptop computers and multimedia and presentation Software: Their effects on student achievement in anatomy and physiology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 29-37.
39. Siegle, D. (2003). Music Maestro: Some of the best software begins with a blank screen. Gifted Child Today, 26(2), 35-39.
40. Siegle, D. (2004). Identifying students with gifts and talents in technology. Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 30-33, 64.
41. st century: A report on teachers' use of technology (NCES Publication No. 2000-102). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.