Effects of technology immersion on middle school students' learning opportunities and achievement

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 104, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 299-315

  Shapley, Kelly ^a   Sheehan, Daniel ^b   Maloney, Catherine ^b   Caranikas Walker, Fanny ^b  

^a Shapley Research Associates   (United States)

^b Texas Center for Educational Research   (United States)

Author keywords

academic achievement; educational technology; evaluation; middle schools

Indexed keywords

EID: 79961147394     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: 19400675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220671003767615     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129-133.
2. Baker, E. L., Gearhart, M., & Herman, J. L. (1994). Evaluating the Apple classrooms of tomorrow. In E. Baker and H. O'Neil, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 173-198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Baldwin, F. D. (1999). Taking the classroom home. Appalachia, 32(1), 10-15.
4. Barron, A., Hogarty, K., Kromery, J., & Lenkway, P. (1999). An examination of the relationships between student conduct and the number of computers per student in Florida schools.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 98-107.
5. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 8. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa, Monica, CA: RAND.
6. Borman, G. D. (2005). National efforts to bring reform to scale in high-poverty schools: Outcomes and implications. In L. Parker (Ed.), Review of research in education, 29 (pp. 1-28). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
7. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125-230. (Pubitemid 37076540)
8. Bradburn, F. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2007, March). Shared leadership makes an IMPACT in North Carolina. eSchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=45744
9. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2003). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p 〈 .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
11. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Dede, C. (2007). Reinventing the role of information and communications technologies in education. In L. Smolin, K. Lawless, & N. C. Burbules (Eds.), Information and communication technologies: Considerations of current practice for teachers and teacher educators (pp. 11-38). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
13. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72, 433-479. (Pubitemid 36121905)
14. Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort (NCEE 2007-4005). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
15. Education Week. (2007, March 29). Technology counts 2007: A digital decade [A special state-focused supplement].
16. Education Week, 26(30). Retrieved from www.edweek.org/rc
17. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
18. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.
19. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
20. Lowther, D., Ross, S., & Morrison, G. (2001, July). Evaluation of a laptop program: Success and recommendations. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Chicago, IL.
21. Lowther, D., Ross, S., & Morrison, G. (2003). When each one has one: The influence on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. ETR&D, 51(3), 23-44. (Pubitemid 37513990)
22. Maine Educational Policy Research Institute. (2003). The Maine learning technology initiative: Teacher, student, and school perspectives, mid-year evaluation report. Gorham, ME: University of Southern Maine.
23. National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students' motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
24. Neugent, L., & Fox, C. (2007, January). Peer coaches' spark technology integration. eSchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/ news/top-news/index.cfm?i=42086
25. Newmann, F., Bryk, A., &Nagoaka, J. (2001). Authentic and intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
26. Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2006, Results that matter: 21st century skills and high school reform, Retrieved from http://www. 21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option=com content&task= view&id=204&Itemid=114.
27. Penuel, W.R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329-348.
28. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921-958.
29. Pitler, H. (2005). McREL technology initiative: The development of a technology intervention program: Final report (Report No. 2005-09). Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. (ED486685)
30. Rasch, D., & Guiliard, V. (2004). The robustness of parametric statistical methods. Psychology Science, 46, 175-208. (Pubitemid 39259115)
31. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/cs/wes/ view/rs/619
33. Rockman et al. (1998). Powerful tools for schooling: Second year study of the laptop program. San Francisco, CA: Author.
34. Rockman et al. (1999). A more complex picture: Laptop use and impact in the context of changing home and school access. San Francisco, CA: Author.
35. Ronnkvist, A., Dexter, S., & Anderson, R. (2000). Technology support: Its depth, breadth and impact in America's schools. Retrieved from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings.html
36. Russell, M., Bebell, D., Cowan, J., & Corbelli, M. (2002). An AlphaSmart for each student: Does teaching and learning change with full access to word processors? Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
37. Russell, M., Bebell, D., & Higgins, J. (2004). Laptop learning: A comparison of teaching and learning in upper elementary classrooms equipped with shared carts of laptops and permanent 1:1 laptops. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 313-330. (Pubitemid 39374897)
38. Schaumburg, H. (2001, June). Fostering girls' computer literacy through laptop learning: Can mobile computers help to level out the gender difference? Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Chicago, IL.
39. Schmidt, F. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for the training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1, 115-129. (Pubitemid 126672840)
40. Shapley, K. S., Benner, A. D., Heikes, E. J., & Pieper, A. M. (2002). Technology integration in education (TIE) initiative: Statewide survey report, Executive Summary. Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
41. Shapley, K. S., Maloney, C., Caranikas-Walker, F., & Sheehan, D. (2008) Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Third-year (2006-07) traits of higher Technology Immersion schools and teachers. Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
42. Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2008). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Outcomes for the third year (2006-07). Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
43. Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2009). Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4), 5-68. Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org
44. Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Hunts-berger, B., & Maloney, C. (2006). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: First-year results. Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
45. Silvernail, D. L., & Gritter, A. K. (2007). Maine's middle school laptop program: Creating better writers. Gorham, ME: University of Southern Maine, Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
46. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417-453. (Pubitemid 41442067)
47. Smith, M. S., & Broom, M. (2003). The landscape and future of the use of technology in K-12 education. In H. F. O'Neal & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Technology applications in education: A learning view (pp. 3-30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Smolin, L., & Lawless, K. (2007). Technologies in schools: Stimulating a dialogue. In L. Smolin, K. Lawless, & N. C. Burbules (Eds.), Information and communication technologies: Considerations of current practice for teachers and teacher educators (pp. 11-38). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
49. Stevenson, K. R. (1998, November). Evaluation report-year 2: Schoolbook laptop project. Beaufort, SC: Beaufort County School District.
50. Texas Education Agency. (2004). 2003-04 academic excellence indicator system. Austin, TX: Author.
51. Texas Education Agency. (2006). Long-range plan for technology, 2006-2020: A report to the 80th Texas Legislature from the Texas Education Agency. Austin, TX: Author.
52. Vernaz, G., Karam, R., Mariano, L. T., & DeMartini, C. (2006). Evaluating comprehensive school reform models at scale: Focus on implementation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
53. Woodul, C., Vitale, M., & Scott, B. (2000). Usinga cooperative multimedia learning environment to enhance learning and affective self-perceptions of at-risk students in grade 8. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 28, 239-252.
54. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807-840. (Pubitemid 38355121)
55. Zucker, A., & Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science, 323(82), 82-85.
56. Zucker, A., & McGhee, R. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Public Schools. San Francisco, CA: SRI International.