The practicality of implementing connected classroom technology in secondary mathematics and science classrooms

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 459-481

  Shirley, Melissa L ^a   Irving, Karen E ^b   Sanalan, Vehbi A ^c   Pape, Stephen J ^d   Owens, Douglas T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ERZINCAN UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^d UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

audience response system; connected classroom technology; educational innovation; educational technology; mathematics education; practicality index; science education; technology implementation; technology integration

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952899535     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-010-9251-2     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. PL 111-5.-FEB. 17, 2009 123 STAT. 521, Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
2. Ash, K. (2009). Guidance issued for technology funds in stimulus. Education Week, 28(37), 19.
3. Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). Retrieved 17 December 2009 from http://epaa. asu. edu/epaa/v8n51.
4. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment in classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
5. Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453-477.
6. 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.
7. Doyle, W. & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1-12.
8. Durndell, A. & Thomson, K. (1997). Gender and computing: A decade of change. Computers & Education, 28(1), 1-9.
9. Education Week (2005). Technology counts 2005, 24(35).
10. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
11. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
12. Fies, C. & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109.
13. Fox, R. & Henri, J. (2005). Understanding teacher mind sets: IT and change in Hong Kong schools. Educational Technology and Society, 8(2), 161-169.
14. Goodson, I. F. & Mangan, J. M. (1995). Subject cultures and the introduction of classroom computers. British Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 613-628.
15. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K. & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155-192.
16. Hew, K. F. & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223-252.
17. Hopkins, P. D. (1998). Sex/machine: Readings in culture, gender and technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
18. Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.
19. Irving, K. E., Pape, S. J., Owens, D. T., Abrahamson, L., Silver, D. & Sanalan, V. (2010). Longitudinal study of classroom connectivity in promoting mathematics and science achievement: Years 1-3. A paper presented at the 2010 AERA Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.
20. Irving, K. E., Sanalan, V. A. & Shirley, M. L. (2009). Physical science connected classrooms: Case studies. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(3), 247-275.
21. Karagiorgi, Y. (2005). Throwing light into the black box of implementation: ICT in Cyprus elementary schools. Educational Media International, 42(1), 19-32.
22. Kerka, S. (1995). Access to information: To have and have not. Ohio: ERIC Clearing House (ED 382821).
23. Lim, C. P., Teo, Y. H., Wong, P., Khine, M. S., Chai, C. S. & Divaharan, S. (2003). Creating a conducive learning environment for the effective integration of ICT: Classroom management issues. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(4), 405-423.
24. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J. & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). Findings from IEA's Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
25. Neiderhauser, D. S. & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers' instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15-31.
26. O'Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M. & Bebell, D. J. (2004). Identifying teacher, school, district characteristics associated with elementary teachers' use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(48). Retrieved 17 December 2009 from http://epaa. asu. edu/epaa/v12n48.
27. Owens, D. T., Pape, S. L., Irving, K. E., Sanalan, V. A., Boscardin, C. K., Abrahamson, L. (2008). The connected algebra classroom: A randomized control trial. Research Paper. Proceedings of the International Congress on Mathematics Education, July 6-13, 2008, Monterrey, Mexico, 7 pp.
28. Pape, S. J., Irving, K. E., Owens, D. T., Boscardin, C. K., Sanalan, V. A., Abrahamson, L., Kaya, S., et al. (2008). The impact of classroom connectivity in promoting Algebra I achievement: Results of a randomized control trial. Paper presented at the 2008 AERA Annual Meeting, New York, NY.
29. PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world: Executive summary. Paris: OECD.
30. Quality Education Data (QED) Report (2004). 2004-2005 Technology purchasing forecast (10th ed.). New York: Scholastic Company.
31. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R. & Abrahamson, L. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 50-54.
32. Ruthven, K. (2008). Mathematical technologies as a vehicle for intuition and experiment: A foundational theme of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction, and a continuing preoccupation. International Journal for the History of Mathematics Education, 3(2), 91-102.
33. Selwyn, N. (1999). Differences in educational computer use: The influences of subject cultures. The Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 29-48.
34. Shirley, M. L. (2009). A model of formative assessment practice in secondary science classrooms using an audience response system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
35. Siskin, L. S. (1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject culture in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17, 134-160.
36. Snoeyink, R. & Ertmer, P. A. (2001-2002). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85-111.
37. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
38. Sutton, R. E. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 475-503.
39. Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers' conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105-127.
40. Trotter, A. (2007). Getting up to speed. Education Week, 26(30), 10-12.
41. Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11(3/4), 283-289.
42. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S. & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104, 482-515.