Improving technology literacy: Does it open doors to traditional content?

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 58, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 271-284

  Judson, Eugene ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Achievement; Language arts; Student achievement; Technology literacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952073853     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-009-9135-8     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L. H., & Griesinger, T. (1999). The relation of present and possible academic selves during early adolescence to grade point average and achievement goals. The Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 3-17.
2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
3. Becker, H. J. (2000). Who's wired and who's not: Children's access to and use of computer technology. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 44-75.
4. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
5. Drucker, P. F. (1959). Landmarks of tomorrow. New York: Harper and Row.
6. Huong, L. (2003). The mediational role of language teachers in sociocultural theory. English Teaching Forum, 41(3), 32-36.
7. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2007). National Educational Technology Standards and Performance Indicators for Students. http://www. iste. org/AM/Template. cfm?Section=NETS. Accessed 7 May 2009.
8. Karpov, Y. V., & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky's concept of mediation. American Psychologist, 53(1), 27-36.
9. Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky's psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
10. Leamnson, R. N. (2001). Does technology present a new way of learning? Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 75-79.
11. TM. Portland, OR: Sireci Psychometric Services, Inc. Unpublished report (SPS Reference No. LDC06-004).
12. TM. Portland, OR: Sireci Psychometric Services, Inc. Unpublished report (SPS Reference No. LDC06-005).
13. Peck, C., Cuban, L., & Kirkpatrick, H. (2002). Techno-promoter dreams, student realities. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 472-480.
14. Prensky, M. (2006). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13.
15. Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Communication Research, 17(1), 26-44.
16. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
17. Schacter, J. (1995). The impact of educational technology on student achievement. The Milken Exchange on Educational Technology. http://www. mff. org/publications/publications. taf?page=161. Accessed May 7, 2009.
18. TM. Portland, OR: Sireci Psychometric Services, Inc. Unpublished report (SPS Reference No. LDC06-006).
19. TechLiteracy Assessment frequently asked questions (2006). http://www. learning. com/tla/faq. htm#What-is-TLA. Accessed May 7, 2009.
20. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
21. Warschauer, M. (2006). Literacy and technology: Bridging the divide. In D. Gibbs & K. L. Krause (Eds.), Cyberlines 2. 0: Languages and cultures of the Internet (pp. 163-174). Albert Park, Australia: James Nicholas.
22. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573.
23. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Information Center. ftp://ftp. ets. org/pub/res/technolog. pdf. Accessed May 7 2009.
24. Wenglinsky, H. (2006). Technology and achievement: The bottom line. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 29-32.
25. Wilson, K. M., & Trainin, G. (2007). First-grade students' motivation and achievement for reading, writing, and spelling. Reading Psychology, 28(3), 257-282.