Effects of an online instructional application on reading and mathematics standardized test scores

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 349-360

  Martindale, Trey ^a   Pearson, Carolyn ^b   Curda, L K ^c   Pilcher, Janet ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Computer based instruction; High stakes standardized testing; Online instruction; Software evaluation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008829460     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2005.10782442     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. AERA position statement concerning high-stakes testing in pre-K—12 education. (2000, July). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Associa:ion. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from http://www.aera.net/policyandprograms/?id=378.
2. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 79(18). Retrieved February 24, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/vl0nl8/.
3. Babbitt, B. C., & Miller, S. P. (1996). Using hypermedia to improve the mathematics problem-solving skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 391-401.
4. Bolliger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors in determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 31(1), 61-67.
5. Dick W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2004). The systematic design of instruction (slxth ed.) New York: Longman.
6. Fahy, P J. (2000). Achieving quality with online teaching technologies. Paper presentee at Quality Learning 2000 Inaugural International Symposium, Calgary, AB. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445197)
7. Florida Department of Education. (2005). Ensuring highest student performance, and leading the nation in raising student achievement. Retrieved March 9, 2005, from http://www.fldoe.org/kl2/.
8. Freitag E. T., & Sullivan, H. J. (1995). Matching learner preference to amount of instruction: An alternative form of learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 5-14.
9. Golder_berg, E. P., & Cuoco, A. (1996). WThat is dynamic geometry? In R. Lehler dc D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 381-420). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Hannafin, R. D., & Scott, B. N. (1998). Identifying critical learner traits in a dynamic computer-based geometry program. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 3-12.
11. Hannafin, R. D., Sc Sullivan, H. J. (1996). Learner preferences and learner control over amount of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 162-173.
12. Hawkes, M., & Dennis, T. (2003). Supporting and assessing online interactions in higher education. Educational Technology\ 43(4), 52-56.
13. Hawkins, J. (1993). Technology and the organization of schooling. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 30-34.
14. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1999). Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate higher-order thinking. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(1), 3-24.
15. Keller, j. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.
16. Khine, M. S. (1996). The interaction of cognitive styles with varying levels of feedoack in multimedia presentation. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(3), 229-237.
17. Kim, M. K., & Sharp, J. M. (2000). Investigating and measuring preservice elementary mathematics teachers’ decision about lesson planning after experiencing technologically-enhanced methods instruction. Ihe journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(4), 317-338.
18. KuLiavy, R. W., & Wager, W. (1993). Feedback in programmed instruction: Historical context and implications for practice. In J. Dempsey & G. Sales (Eds.). Interactive Instruction and Feedback (pp. 3-20). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
19. Martindale, T., Cates, W. M., & Qian, Y. (2005). Analysis of recognized web- based educational resources. Computers in the Schools, 21(314), 110-117.
20. McCoLskey, W. H., & McMunn, N. (2000, October). Strategies for dealing with high-stakes state tests. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(2), 115-120.
21. McDonald, K. K., & Hannafin, R. D. (2003). Using web-based computer games to meet the demands of todays high-stakes testing: A mixed method inquiry. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 459-472.
22. Naime-Diefenbach, B. (1991). Validation of attention and confidence as independent components of the ARCS motivational model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee.
23. Naime-Diefenbach, B., & Sullivan, C. B. (2001). Measuring the effects of a web- based practice program on the FCAT math results of fifth graders. Paper presented at the Florida Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Marco Island, FL.
24. Nicaise, M., (1997). Computer-supported apprenticeships in math and science. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(4), 443-465.
25. O’Neil, J. (1992). Putting performance assessment to the test. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 14-19.
26. Paoluoci, R. (1998). The effects of cognitive style and knowledge structure on performance using hypermedia-learning system. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(2/3), 123-50.
27. Russel, T. (1997). Teaching teachers: How I teach IS the message. In J. Loughran &T. Russell (Eds.). Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 32-47). London: Falmer.
28. Sanders, W. B. (2001). Creating learning-centered courses for the world wide weh. Boston & London: Allyn and Bacon.
29. Sasser, J. E. (1990-1991). The effect of using computer tutorials as homework assignments on the mathematics achievement of elementary education majors. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 10(2), 95-102.
30. Schank, R. C. (1993). Learning via multimedia computers. Communications of the ACM, 36(1), 54-56.
31. Schifter, D. (1997). Learning mathematics for teaching: Lessons in!from the domain of fractions. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED412122)
32. Snider, R. C. (1992). The machine in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(A), 316-323.
33. Sullivan, C. B., & Naime-Diefenbach, B. (2002, November). Measuring the effects of a web-based practice program on the FCAT math results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Gaines-ville, FL.
34. Wright, V., Barron, A. E., & Kromrey, J. D. (1999). Preparing students for high-stakes testing in Florida: An interactive website. Florida Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 79-94.