Effects of multimedia software on achievement of middle school students in an American history class

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 203-221

  Kingsley, Karla V ^a   Boone, Randall ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

Educational software; Instructional technology; Multimedia instruction; Social studies achievement

Indexed keywords

EID: 85032068847     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2008.10782529     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
2. Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D. Reinking, L. D. Labbo, M. C. McKenna, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 15-43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. (2007). Supported etext: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 153-160.
4. Appleby, J., Brinkley, A., & McPherson, J. M. (2003). The American journey. New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill.
5. Bagui, S. (1998). Reasons for increased learning using multimedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(1), 3-18.
6. Becker, H. J. (1992). Integrated learning systems and their alternatives: Problems and cautions. Educational Technology, 32, 51-57.
7. Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives 5(51). Available at http://epaa.asu.edu
8. Bitter, G. G., & Pierson, M. E. (2005). Using Technology in the Classroom (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
9. Boon, R. T., Burke, M., Fore, C., Spencer, V. (2006). The impact of cognitive organizers and technology-based practices on student success in secondary social studies classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(1), 5-15.
10. Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2005). Designing digital materials for students with disabilities. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 481-492). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
11. Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007). The role of instructional design in assistive technology research and development. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 135-140.
12. Brouwer, N., Muller, G., & Rietdijk, H. (2007). Educational designing with Micro Wo rids. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(4), 439-462.
13. Briinken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 53-61.
14. Bull, G., Knezek, G., Roblyer, M. D., Schrum, L., & Thompson, A. (2005). A proactive approach to a research agenda for educational technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 217-220.
15. Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409-429.
16. Cantu, D. A. (2000). Technology integration in pre-service history teacher education. Journal of the Association for History and Computing, 3(2). Retrieved on May 2, 2007 from http://mcel.pacificu.edu/JAHC/JAHCIII2/K12/cantu.htm
17. Chapin, J. R., & Messick, R. G. (1999). Elementary Social Studies (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
18. Ciborowski, J. (2005). Textbooks and the students who can’t read them. In G. Moss (Ed.), Critical reading in the content areas (pp. 206-216). Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.
19. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. (Eds.). (2003). E-leamingand the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
20. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
21. Cook, J. (2001). Bridging the gap between empirical data on open-ended tutorial interactions and computational models. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(1), 85-99.
22. Crosier, J., Cobb, S., & Wilson, J. (2002). Key lessons for the design and integration of virtual environments in secondary science. Computers & Education, 38, 77-94.
23. Davidson, J. W., Castillo, P., & Stoff, M. B. (2002). The American Nation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24. Dawson, M. (2004). NCREL Quick Key No. 7: A foundation for understanding and evaluating scientifically based research. Educational Technology News, 4(1), 5. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/csri/tools/qkey7/index.html
25. Diem, R. A. (2000). Can it make a difference? Technology and the social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 28(4), 493-501.
26. Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? New York: Teachers College Press.
27. Friedman, A. M., & Hicks, D. (2006). Guest editorial: The state of the field: Technology, social studies, and teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology in Teacher Education, 6, 246-258.
28. Gay, L. R., & Airsaian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29. Gibbs, W., Graves, P., & Bernas, R. (2001). Educational guidelines for multimedia courseware. Journal of Research on Technology and Education, 34(1), 2-18.
30. Greenlee-Moore, M. E., & Smith, L. L. (1996). Interactive computer software: The effects on young children s reading achievement. Reading Psychology, 17(1), 43-64.
31. Hancock, R., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2007). Cross-validating measures of technology integration: A first step toward examining potential relationships between technology integration and student achievement. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(1), 15-21.
32. Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (2001). Adapting instruction for children with disabilities. In L. W. Searfoss & J. E. Readence (Eds.), Helping children learn to read: Creating a classroom literacy environment (4th ed. pp. 330-365). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
33. Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Lovitt, T. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students with learning disabilities. Journal ojLearning Disabilities, 29(4), 402-412.
34. Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Lovitt, T. C. (2002). Adapting challenging textbooks to improve content area learning. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (2nd ed., pp. 755-790). Silver Spring, MD: National Association for School Psychologists.
35. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1998). Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
36. Horney, M., & Anderson-Inman, L. (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 75(2), 127-168.
37. Ignite! Early American History. (2003). [Computer software]. Austin, TX: Ignite! Learning.
38. Ignite! Learning. (2003). Teaching students in the ways they learn best: The Ignitelmethod of instructional design. Retrieved January 22, 2005, from http://www.Ignite!learning.com/methodology, shtml
39. Jones, J. D., Staats, W. D., Bowling, N., Bickel, R. D., Cunningham, M. L., & Cadle, C., (2004-2005). An evaluation of the Merit Reading Software Program in the Calhoun County (WV) Middle/High School. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 177-195.
40. Kingsley, K. V. (2003). Evaluating the viability of the Ignite! Early America History program in middle schools: A pilot study. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nevada Las Vegas.
41. Kirkpatrick, H., & Cuban, L. (1998). Computers make kids smarter—right? Technos Quarterly, 7(2). Retrieved June 20, 2005, from http://www.technos.net/tq_07/2cuban.htm
42. Kulik, J. A. (2002). School mathematics and science programs benefit from instructional technology (InfoBrief). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/infbrief/snf03301/start.htm
43. Labbo, L. (2002). Computers, kids, and comprehension: Instructional practices that make a difference. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley, (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 275-289). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
44. Lockard, J., & Abrams, P. D. (2004). Computers for twenty-first century educators (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
45. Lounsbury, J. (1988). Middle-level social studies: Points to ponder. Social Education, 52(2), 116-118.
46. Margolin, J., & Buchler, B. (2004). Critical Issue: Using scientifically based research to guide educational decisions. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved on January 10, 2005 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/go/go900.htm
47. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
48. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1-18). New York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press.
49. Mills, R. J. (2001). Analyzing instructional software using a computer-tracking system. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 21-30.
50. Molebash, P. E. (2002). Constructivism meets technology integration: The CUFA technology guidelines in an elementary social studies methods course. Theory and Research on Social Education, 30(3), 429-455.
51. Moreno, R. (2006). Learning with high tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions, 15, 63-67.
52. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3), 35-45.
53. National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies. Washington, DC: Author.
54. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
55. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. (2002). Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
56. Poggi, S. (2003). Wake-up call: Facing the challenge to use scientifically based research in schools. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/info/nlp/lpsp03/index.html
57. Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W. (1992). Why questions? A historical perspective on standardized reading comprehension tests. In E. K. Dishner, T. W. Bean, J. E. Readence, & D. W. Moore (Eds.), Reading in the content areas (3rd ed., pp. 390-398). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
58. Roblyer, M. D. (1999). Our multimedia future: Recent research on multimedia’s impact on education. Learning & Leading with Technology, 26(6), 51-54.
59. Shaughnessy, J. M., & Haladyna, T. M. (1985). Research on student attitudes toward social studies. Social Education, 49, 692-695.
60. Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. Stetson, E., & Williams, R. (2005). Learning from social studies textbooks: Why some students succeed and others fail. In G. Moss (Ed.), Critical reading in the content areas (pp. 135-142). Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.
62. Thompson, A. (2007). Scientifically based research: Establishing a research agenda for the technology and teacher education community. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 331-338.
63. Trinkle, D. A., & Merriman, S. A. (2000). The history highway 2000: A guide to Internet resources (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
64. Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2006). Using a computer-adapted, conceptually based history text to increase comprehension and problem-solving skills of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 5-16.
65. U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the Internet, the law and todays students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology.
66. Valdez, G. (2004). Critical issue: Technology leadership: Enhancing positive educational change. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved January 3, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/edu-catrs/leadrshp/le700.htm
67. van Merrienboer, J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning systems: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177.
68. Waxman, H. C., Lin, M., & Michko, G. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the ef-fectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naper-ville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
69. White, C. W (1999). Transforming Social Studies Education: A Critical Perspective. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
70. Williams, D. W, Boone, R., & Kingsley, K. V. (2004). Teacher beliefs about educational software: A Delphi study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 213-230