A Survey of Mathematics Education Technology Dissertation Scope and Quality: 1968–2009

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 51, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 974-1006

  Ronau, Robert N ^a   Rakes, Christopher R ^b   Bush, Sarah B ^c   Driskell, Shannon O ^d   Niess, Margaret L ^e   Pugalee, David K ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY   (United States)

^c BELLARMINE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON   (United States)

^e OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

Author keywords

dissertations; mathematics education; quality framework; research quality; technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907564447     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: 19351011     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831214531813     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Adams G. B.,White J. D.Dissertation research in public administration and cognate fields: An assessment of methods and quality.Public Administration Review. 1994;54:565-576
2. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2009, June19). Mathematics TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) Framework. Position paper adopted by the Board of Directors. Retrieved from http://amte.net/sites/all/themes/amte/resources/MathTPACKFramework.pdf
3. Auerbach S.“It’s not just going to collect dust on a shelf”: Faculty perceptions of the applied dissertation in the new California State University (CSU) Ed.D. programs leadership education from within a feminist ethos.Journal of Research on Leadership Education. 2011;6:59-82
4. BallD. L. (1988). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED301467.pdf
5. Battista M. T.The mathematical mis-education of America’s youth: Ignoring research and scientific study in education.Phi Delta Kappan. 1999;80:424-433
6. Battista M. T.Learning geometry in a dynamic environment.Teaching Children Mathematics. 2002;8:333-337
7. Britt D. W.A conceptual introduction to modeling: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997:
8. ChowW. Y. (2012). Effective teachers and effective teaching. In AlbroE. (Ed.), Request for applications: Education research grants. CFDA 305A (pp. 18–22). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/funding/pdf/2013_84305A.pdf
9. ColwellR. J. (1969). A critique of research studies in music education. Urbana: University of Illinois. Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED035100
10. Common Core State Standards for Mathematical Practice. (2010). Mathematics Standards for mathematical practice. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice
11. CongdonJ. D.DunhamA. E. (1999). Defining the beginning: The importance of research design. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group, 4, 1–5. Retrieved from http://mtsg.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/14–defining-the-beginning.pdf
12. ConnV. S. (2008). The light under the bushel basket: Unpublished dissertations. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 30, 537–539.
13. Cooper H.,Hedges L. V.,Valentine J. C.The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage.New York, NY: Russell Sage; 2009:
14. Creswell J. W.Qualitative inquiry and research design. 2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2007:
15. Creswell J. W.,Plano Clark V. L.Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2007:
16. Davis B.Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Lamberg T.Wiest L. R., ed. Stateline: University of Nevada, Reno; 2007:19-32.
17. Demana F.,Waits B. K.A computer for all students.Mathematics Teacher. 1992;85:94-95
18. Ellington A. J.A meta-analysis of the effects of calculators on students’ achievement and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2003;34:433-463
19. Ellington A. J.The effects of non-CAS graphing calculators on student achievement and attitude levels in mathematics: A meta-analysis.International Journal of Instructional Media. 2006;106:16-26
20. Hallinger P.A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the Principal Instructional Management Rating scale: A lens on methodological progress in educational leadership.Educational Administration Quarterly. 2011;47:271-306
21. Hembree R.,Dessart D. J.Effects of hand-held calculators in precollege mathematics education: A meta-analysis.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 1986;17:83-99
22. Hill H.,Ball D.The curious—and crucial—case of mathematical knowledge for teaching.Phi Delta Kappan. 2009;91:68-71
23. Hill H. C.,Schilling S. G.,Ball D. L.Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching.Elementary School Journal. 2004;105:11-30
24. Hilmer M. J.,Hilmer C. E.Is it where you go or who you know? On the relationship between students, Ph.D. program quality, dissertation advisor prominence, and early career publishing success.Economics of Education Review. 2011;30:991-996
25. HofferT. B.WelchV.WebberK.WilliamsK.LisekB.HessM.. Guzman-BarronI. (2009). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary Report 2005. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Education, National Endowment for the Humanities, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/doctorates/pdf/sed2005.pdf
26. Karadağ E.Instruments used in doctoral dissertations in educational sciences in Turkey: Quality of research and analytical errors.Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. 2011;11:330-334
27. Lipsey M. W.,Wilson D. B.Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001:
28. Lovitts B. E.The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why.Journal of Higher Education. 2008;79:296-325
29. Mishra P.,Koehler M. J.Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.Teachers College Record. 2006;108:1017-1054
30. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author; 2000:
31. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9822
32. National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates Tabulation Engine. (2010). NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) Tabulation Engine. Retrieved from https://ncses.norc.org/NSFTabEngine/#TABULATION
33. Niess M. L.Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge.Teaching and Teacher Education. 2005;21:509-523
34. Patton M. Q.Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002:
35. Rakes C. R.Research in mathematics educational technology: Study overview.Symposium presented at the meeting of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators; 2012Fort Worth, TX; 2012.
36. Rakes C. R.,Wagener L.,Ronau R. N..Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators; 2010Irvine, CA; 2010.
37. Ronau R. N.,Rakes C. R.Education technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches. Ronau R. N.Rakes C. R.Niess M. L., ed. Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2011:59-102.
38. Ronau R. N.,Rakes C. R.,Bush S.,Driskell S. O.,Pugalee D.Dissertation studies in mathematics education technology: 1968–2009.Symposium presented at the meeting of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators; 2012Fort Worth, TX; 2012.
39. Ronau R. N.,Rakes C. R.,Niess M. L.,Wagner L..Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association; 2010Denver, CO; 2010.
40. Rutkienė A.,Teresevičienė M.Improvement of experiment planning as an important precondition for the quality of education research.Quality of Higher Education. 2010;2010:88-107
41. Schoenfeld A. H.Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press; 1985:
42. Schoenfeld A. H.What doesn’t work: The challenge and failure of the What Works Clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula.Educational Researcher. 2006;35:13-21
43. Schoenfeld A. H.How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis; 2011:
44. Shadish W. R.,Cook T. D.,Campbell D. T.Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 2002:
45. ShakeshaftC. (1982, March). A framework for studying schools as work settings for women leaders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED216441&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED216441
46. Scientific research in education. Shavelson R. J.Towne L., ed. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press; 2002:
47. Shirmer B. R.How effectively are we preparing teacher educators in special education? The case of deaf education.American Annals of the Deaf. 2008;153:411-419
48. Stevens J. P.Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 2012:
49. Stigler J. W.,Hiebert J.Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction.Phi Delta Kappan. 1997;79:14-21
50. Teddlie C.,Tashakkori A.Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009:
51. Thanheiser E.,Ellis A.,Herbel-Eisenmann B.From dissertation to publication in JRME.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2012;43:144-158
52. ThurgoodL.GolladayM. J.HillS. T. (2006). U.S. doctorates in the twentieth century (NSF 06-319). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/pdf/nsf06319.pdf
53. Urbina S.Essentials of psychological testing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; 2004:
54. WaitsB. K.DemanaF. (1998). The role of graphing calculators in mathematics reform. Columbus: Ohio State University. Retrieved from http://www.math.osu.edu/~waits.1/papers/roleofgraphcalc.pdf