Teachers Choosing Rich Tasks: The Moderating Impact of Technology on Student Learning, Enjoyment, and Preparation

Educational Researcher

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 219-229

  Aubusson, Peter ^a   Burke, Paul ^a   Schuck, Sandy ^a   Kearney, Matthew ^a   Frischknecht, Bart ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

decision making; elementary schools; instructional technologies; learning processes strategies; statistics; survey research

Indexed keywords

EID: 84904352531     PISSN: 0013189X     EISSN: 1935102X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X14537115     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Auger P.,Devinney T. M.,Louviere J. J.,Burke P. F.Do social product features have value to consumers?.International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2008;25:183-191.
2. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). Australian curriculum: Mathematics. Canberra, Australia: Author. Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Rationale.
3. Ben-Akiva M.,Lerman S. R.Discrete choice analysis. 1985). Discrete choice analysis (6th ed.). London: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.London: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press; 1985:.
4. Ben-Akiva M.,Morikawa T.Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions.Transportation Research A. 1990;24 (6): 485-495.
5. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. (2008). Harnessing technology school survey 2007: Analysis and key findings. London: Author. Retrieved July 5, 2013 from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1552/.
6. Burke P. F.Seeking simplicity in complexity: The relative value of ease of use (EOU)-based product differentiation.Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2013;30 (6): 1227-1241.
7. Carson R. T.,Groves T.Incentive and informational properties of preference questions.Environmental and Resource Economics. 2007;37 (1): 181-210.
8. Damon W.,Phelps E.Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education.International Journal of Educational Research. 1989;13 (1): 9-19.
9. Davis F. D.Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.MIS Quarterly. 1989;13 (3): 319-339.
10. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2011). Digital strategy for teachers and school leaders. Canberra, Australia: Author. Retrieved July 5, 2013 from http://deewr.gov.au/ict-innovation-fund-projects.
11. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2013). Beyond the classroom: A new digital education for young Australians in the 21st Century. Canberra, Australia: Author. Retrieved July 5, 2013 from http://deewr.gov.au/digital-education-advisory-group-report.
12. Downton A.,Knight R.,Clarke D.,Lewis G.Mathematics assessment for learning: Rich tasks and work samples. Fitzroy, Australia: Mathematics Teaching and Learning Centre (ACU Melbourne); 2006:.
13. New basics: The why, what, how and when of rich tasks. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland State Education; 2002:.
14. Ertmer P. A.,Ottenbreit-Leftwich A. T.,Sadik O.,Sendurur E.,Sendurur P.Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.Computers & Education. 2012;59 (2): 423-435.
15. Griffiths M.Mathematics suggested by a logo: Both rich and beautiful?.Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications. 2010;29:216-229.
16. Grootenboer P.Crossing divides: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Palmerston North, New Zealand: MERGA; 2009:696-699.
17. Hall I.,Higgins S.Primary school students' perceptions of interactive whiteboards.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2005;21:102-117.
18. Handal B.,Herrington A.Mathematics teachers' beliefs and curriculum reform.Mathematics Education Research Journal. 2003;15 (1): 59-69.
19. Hedberg J.E-learning futures? Speculations for a time yet to come.Studies in Continuing Education. 2006;28 (2): 171-183.
20. Henningsen M.,Stein M. K.Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 1997;28 (5): 524-549.
21. Johnson D. W.,Johnson R. T.Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. 1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1987:.
22. Jonassen D. H.,Peck K.,Wilson B. G.Learning with technology: A constructivist approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1999:.
23. Kennewell S.,Beauchamp G.The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning.Learning, Media and Technology. 2007;32 (3): 227-241.
24. Kennewell S.,Tanner H.,Jones S.,Beauchamp G.Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2008;24 (1): 61-73.
25. Kocakaya S.An educational dilemma: Are educational experiments working?.Educational Research and Reviews. 2011;6 (1): 110-123.
26. Koehler M.,Mishra P.Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York: Routledge; 2008:3-29.
27. Lesh R.,Harel G.Problem solving, modeling, and local conceptual development.Mathematical Thinking and Learning. 2003;5 (2-3): 157-189.
28. Louviere J. J.,Hensher D. A.,Swait J. D.Stated choice methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000:.
29. Louviere J.,Islam T.A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling.Journal of Business Research. 2008;61 (9): 903-911.
30. Louviere J. J.,Woodworth G.Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data.Journal of Marketing Research. 1983;20 (4): 350-367.
31. McFadden D.Frontiers in econometrics. Zarembka P., ed. New York: Academic Press; 1974:105-142.
32. Mueller J.,Wood E.,Willoughby T.,Ross C.,Specht J.Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration.Computers & Education. 2008;51 (4): 1523-1537.
33. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author; 2000:.
34. Newmann F. M.Beyond common sense in educational restructuring: The issues of content and linkage.Educational Researcher. 1993;22 (4): 4-22.
35. Newmann F.,Marks H.,Gamoran A.Authentic pedagogy and student performance.American Journal of Education. 1996;104 (4): 280-312.
36. Mathematics K-6 curriculum document. Sydney, Australia: Author; 2002:.
37. New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2003a). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: An annotated bibliography. Sydney, Australia: Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate. Retrieved July 16, 2013 from http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/secondary/creativearts/assets/music/pdf/qtannotatedbibliography.pdf.
38. New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2003b). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: Discussion paper. Sydney, Australia: Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate. Retrieved July 16, 2013 from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/docs/pdf/qt_EPSColor.pdf.
39. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Inspired by technology, driven by pedagogy: A systemic approach to technology-based school innovations (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved July 10, 2013 from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/inspired-by-technology-driven-by-pedagogy_9789264094437-en.
40. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Trends shaping education 2013 (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved July 10, 2013 from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/trends-shaping-education-2013_trends_edu-2013-en.
41. Radinsky J.,Bouillion L.,Lento E. M.,Gomez L. M.Mutual benefit partnership: A curricular design for authenticity.Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2001;33 (4): 405-430.
42. Rogoff B.Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990:.
43. Schuck S.,Kearney M.Classroom-based use of two educational technologies: A sociocultural perspective.Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 2008;8 (4): 394-406.
44. Shimizu Y.,Kaur B.,Huang R.,Clarke D.Mathematical tasks in classrooms around the world. Shimizu Y.Kaur B.Huang R.Clarke D., ed. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers; 2010:9-14.
45. Smith H. J.,Higgins S.,Wall K.,Miller J.Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2005;21:91-101.
46. Snape P.,Fox-Turnbull W.Perspectives of authenticity: Implementation in technology education.International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2013;23 (1): 51-68.
47. Somekh B.International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. Voogt J.Knezek G., ed. New York: Springer Science+Business Media; 2008:449-460.
48. Street D.,Burgess L. B.The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2007:.
49. Thurstone L. L.A law of comparative judgment.Psychological Review. 1927;34:273-286.
50. Venkatesh V.,Bala H.Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions.Decision Sciences. 2008;39 (2): 273-315.
51. Voogt J.,Knezek G.International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. Voogt J.Knezek G., ed. New York: Springer Science+Business Media; 2008:xxix-xxxix.