Technology‘s role in curriculum and instruction

The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 123-152

  Means, Barbara ^a   Cuban, Larry ^b   Kerr, Stephen T ^c  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949773736     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4135/9781412976572.n7     Document Type: Chapter

References (92)

1. Adelman, N., Donnelly, M. B., Dove, T., Tiffany-Morales, J., Wayne, A., & Zucker, A. (2002, March). Professional development and teachers' uses of technology (Report to the U.S. Department of Education, SRI Project No. P10474). Arlington, VA: SRI International.
2. Ahlberg, M. Kaasinen, A. Kaivola, T. Houtsonen, L. Collaborative knowledge building to promote in-service teacher training in environmental education. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 10 (3) (2001). 227-238.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Anderson, J. R. Corbett, A. T Koedinger, K. R. Pelletier, R. Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4 (2) (1995). 167-207.
5. Baggaley, J. Ng Lee Hoon, M. PANdora's box: Distance learning technologies in Asia. Learning Media and Technology 30 (1) (2005). 5-14.
6. Bakia, M., Mitchell, K., & Yang, E. (2006). State strategies and practices for educational technology. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy, Evaluation, and Program Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.
7. Ball, D. L. Cohen, D. K. Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher 25 (9) (1996). 6-8, 14.
8. Baloian, N., Breuer, H., Hoeksema, K., Hoppe, U., & Milrad, M. (2004, July). Implementing the challenge based learning in classroom scenarios. In S. Sotiriou (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Advanced Technologies in Education, Argostoli, Greece. Retrieved May 20, 2007, from http://www.iacm.forth.gr/educational/Publications/ainos_proc.pdf
9. Bangert-Drowns, R. L. The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research 63 (1) (1993). 69-93.
10. Becker, H. J. (1985). How schools use microcomputers: Results from a national survey. In M. Chen & W. Paisley, (Eds.), Children and microcomputers: Research on the newest medium (pp. 87-107). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11. Becker, H. J. Computer-based integrated learning systems in the elementary and middle grades: A critical review and synthesis of evaluation reports. Journal of Educational Computing Research 8 (1) (1992). 1-41.
12. Becker, H. J. Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives 8 (51) (2000a). Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51/
13. Becker, H. J. (2000b). Internet use by teachers. In The Jossey-Bass reader on technology and learning (pp. 80-111). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1992). Cognition and curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 517-542). New York: Macmillan.
15. Blumenfeld, P. Fishman, B. J. Krajcik, J. Marx, R. W. Soloway, E. Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist 35 (3) (2000). 149-164.
16. Center for Innovative Learning Technologies. (2004). Six years of knowledge networking in learning sciences and technologies. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
17. Chan, C. K. K., Lee, E. Y. C, & van Aalst, J. (2005, May/June). Students assessing their own knowledge advances in a knowledge building environment. Paper presented at CSCL 2005: The Next Ten Years, Taipei, Taiwan.
18. Clark, R. E. Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing the meta-analyses. Educational Communication and Technology Journal 33 (4) (1985). 249-262.
19. Clements, D. H. Enhancement of creativity in computer environments. American Educational Research Journal 28 (1) (1991). 173-187.
20. Coburn, P., Kelman, P., Roberts, N., Snyder, T. F. F., Watt, D. H., & Weiner, C. (1982). Practical guide to computers in education. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher 19 (6) (1990). 2-10.
22. Cognitive Tutor®. What works clearinghouse intervention. (2001). What Works Clearinghouse. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED485382)
23. Cohen, D. K. Raudenbush, S. W. Ball, D. L. Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25 (2) (2003). 119-142.
24. Confrey, J., Lemke, J., Marshall, J., & Sabelli, N. (2002). A final report on a conference on models of implementation research within science and mathematics instruction in urban schools. Austin: University of Texas.
25. Corbett, A. T. (2001). Cognitive computer tutors: Solving the two-sigma problem. User Modeling: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, UM 2001, Sonthofen, Germany, 137-147.
26. Corbett, A. T, Koedinger, K. R., & Hadley, W. H. (2001). Cognitive tutors: From the research classroom to all classrooms. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Technology-enhanced learning: Opportunities for change (pp. 235-263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Crowder, N. A. (1959). Automatic tutoring by means of intrinsic programming. In E. H. Galanter (Ed.), Automatic teaching: The state of the art (pp. 109-116). New York: Wiley.
28. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
29. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30. Cuban, L. Kirkpatrick, H. Peck, C. High access and low use of technology in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal 38 (4) (2001). 813-834.
31. Declos, V. R. Kulewicz, S. J. Improving computer-based problem solving training: The role of teacher as mediator. Computers and Human Behavior 2 (1986). 135-146.
32. Dede, C., & Honan, J. P. (2005). Scaling up success: A synthesis of themes and insights. In C. Dede, J. P. Honan, & L. C. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 227-239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33. Eisner, E. W(1979). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan.
34. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
35. Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
36. Harvey, J. (Ed.). (1995, May). The market for educational software. DRU-1041-CTI. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
37. Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1975). Theories of learning (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
38. Hollan, J. Hutchins, E. Weitzman, L. STEAMER: An interactive inspectable simulation-based training system. AI Magazine 5 (2) (1984, Summer). 15-27.
39. Horowitz, P. (2002, May). Instructivism: Between CAI and microworlds. Presentation at the EU/U.S. education meeting in Sintra, Portugal. Available at http://mac.concord.org/publications
40. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. (1993). Effective use of intelligent software in high school math classrooms. In P. Brna, S. Ohlsson, & H. Pain (Eds.), Proceedings of AIED 93 World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 241-248). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
41. Koedinger, K. R. Anderson, J. R. Hadley, W. H. Mark, M. A. Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 8 (1997). 30-43.
42. Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61-77). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43. Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. L. Baker & H. F. O'Neil, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44. Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, VA: SRI International.
45. Kulik, C.-L. C Kulik, J. A. Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 7 (1991). 75-94.
46. Law, N., & Wong, E. (2003). Developmental trajectory in knowledge building: An investigation. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003 (pp. 57-66). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
47. Leopold, W. (2000, Spring). Scientists in the classroom. Inquiry. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, School of Education and Social Policy. Retrieved September 5, 2005, from http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/inquiry/spring2000/scientists.html
48. Levin, H. M., & Meister, G. R. (1985). Educational technology and computers: Promises, promises, always promises (Project Report No. 85-A13). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance.
49. Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243-264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50. Linn, M. C, & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Mageau, T. ILS: Its new role in schools. Electronic Learning 10 (1) (1990). 22-32.
52. Mawby, R. The importance of research for Logo. American Annals of the Deaf 130 (5) (1985). 470-478.
53. Means, B. (2006). Prospects for transforming schools with technology-supported assessment. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 505-519). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54. Means, B., & Haertel, G. D. (2003). Conclusion: Cross-cutting themes in research designs for technology. In G. D. Haertel & B. Means (Eds.), Evaluating educational technology: Effective research designs for improving learning (pp. 257-269). New York: Teachers College Press.
55. Means, B., Knapp, M. S., & Chelemer, C. (1991). Introduction: rethinking teaching for disadvantaged students. In B. Means, C. Chelemer, & M. S. Knapp (Eds.), Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students: Views from research and practice (pp. 1-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
56. Means, B., & Penuel, W. R. (2005). Scaling up technology-based educational innovations. In C. Dede, J. P. Honan, & L. C. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 176-197). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
57. Morgan, P., & Ritter, S. (2002). An experimental study of the effects of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I on student knowledge and attitude. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://www.carnegielearning.com/web_docs/morgan_ritter_2002.pdf
58. National Research Council. (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
59. Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
60. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
61. Pea, R., & Kurland, M. D. (1984). Logo programming and the development of planning skills. Paper presented at the Conference on Thinking, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.
62. Pea, R., Wulf, W. A., Elliott, S. W., & Darling, M. A. (Eds.). (2003). Planning for two transformations in education and learning technology: Report of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
63. Pellegrino, J. W., Hickey, D., Heath, A., Rewey, K., Vye, N. J., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991). Assessing the outcomes of an innovative instructional program: The 1990-91 implementation of "The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury" (Technology Report No. 91-1). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Learning Technology Center.
64. Penuel, W. R. Implementation and effects of 1:1 computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38 (3) (2006). 329-348.
65. Penuel, W R. Tatar, D. Roschelle, J. The role of research on contexts of teaching practice in informing the design of handheld learning technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research 30 (4) (2004). 331-348.
66. President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. (1997). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, DC: Panel on Educational Technology.
67. Quellmalz, E. (1999). The role of technology in advancing performance standards in science and mathematics learning. In K. Comfort (Ed.), How good is good enough? Setting performance standards for science and mathematics learning. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
68. Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1990). LEGO/Logo: Learning through and about design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.
69. Rockman, S. (1991) To lead or to follow: The role and influence of research and technology. Paper commissioned for the Chief State School Officers' State Technology Leadership Conference, Dallas, TX.
70. Roschelle, J. M. Pea, R. D. Hoadley, C. M. Gordin, D. N. Means, B. M. Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children 10 (2) (2000). 76-101.
71. Roschelle, J. Di Giano, C. ESCOT: Producing educational software from reusable components by coordinating the reciprocal influence of R&D and classroom practice. Interactive Learning Environments 12 (1-2) (2004). 73-107.
72. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
73. Scardamalia, M. Bereiter, C. Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 1 (1) (1991). 37-68.
74. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-115). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75. Scardamalia, M. Bereiter, C. Brett, C. Burtis, P. J. Calhoun, C. Smith Lea, N. Educational applications of a networked communal database. Interactive Learning Environments 2 (1992). 45-71.
76. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A.(1993). (Eds.) Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
77. Shear, L. Penuel, W. R. Putting the "learning" in adventure learning: Design principles for technology-supported classroom inquiry. Journal of Curriculum Supervision 17 (2002). 315-335.
78. Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Technology in Education.
79. Shepard, L. (2000, April). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Presidential address presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
80. Skinner, B. F. Teaching machines. Science 128 (1958). 969-977.
81. Sleeman, D. H., & Brown, J. S. (1982). Intelligent tutoring systems. New York: Academic Press.
82. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1990). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233-267). London: Falmer Press.
83. Software & Information Industry Association. (2001). 2002 education market report: K-12. Washington, DC: Author.
84. Songer, N. B. (2006). Bio KIDS: An animated conversation on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355-369). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
85. Technology counts '99: Building the digital curriculum [Special issue] Education Week 19 (1999, September)Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/toc.htm
86. Technology counts 2002: E-defining education: How virtual schools and on-line learning are redefining education [Special issue] Education Week 21 (2002, May). Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/tc02/article.cfm?slug=35toc.h21
87. Tierney, R. J. (1996). Redefining computer appropriation: A five-year study of ACOT students. In C. Fisher, D. C. Dwyer, & K. Yocam (Eds.), Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Apple Press & Jossey-Bass.
88. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the Internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington, DC: Author.
89. White, B. YThinker Tools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction 10 (1993). 1-100.
90. White, B. Y Frederiksen, J. R. Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction 16 (1998). 90-91.
91. Zorfass, J. M. (1991, April). Promoting successful technology integration through active teaching practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
92. Zurita, G. Nussbaum, M. Salinas, R. Dynamic grouping in collaborative learning supported by wireless handhelds. Educational Technology & Society 8 (3) (2005). 149-161.