It won't happen soon: Practical, curricular, and methodological problems in implementing technology-based constructivist approaches in classrooms

Computers As Cognitive Tools: Volume II, No More Walls

Volumn , Issue , 2020, Pages 377-395

  Mandinach, Ellen B ^a   Cline, Hugh E ^b  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85118331899     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (37)

1. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning in education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
2. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Rejoinder: Situative versus cognitive perspectives: Form versus substance. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 18-21.
3. Becker, H. J. (1991). How computers are used in United States schools: Basic data from the 1989 I.E.A. computers in education survey. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 385-406.
4. Berliner, D. C, & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Center for Innovative Learning Technologies. (1998, January). Visualization and modeling workshop. University of California, Berkeley, School of Education, Berkeley, CA.
7. CEO Forum. (1997). Report '97. Available at: www.CEOForum.org.
8. Chipman, S. F. (1993). Gazing once more into the silicon chip: Who's revolutionary now?. In S. R Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 341-367). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Cline, H. F., & Mandinach, E. B. (in press). The corruption of a research design: A case study of a curriculum innovation project. In R. Lesh & E. Kelly (Eds.), Designing research for reform in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Cognitive Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291-315.
11. Cognitive Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology in education. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 807-840). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
12. Cognitive Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., & Engel, R K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center.
14. Corno, L. (1992). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 14-22.
15. Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88-108.
16. David, J. L. (1996). Developing and spreading accomplished teaching: Policy lessons from a unique partnership. In C. Fisher, D. C. Dwyer, & K. Yocum (Eds.), Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms (pp. 237-250). San Francisco: Apple Press.
17. Donmoyer, R. (1997). Introduction: This issue: Refocusing on learning. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 4, 34.
18. Glennan, T. K., & Melmed, A. (1996). Fostering the use of educational technology: Elements of a national strategy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
19. Greeno, J. G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17.
20. Greeno, J. G., and the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5-26.
21. Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.). (1993). Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1994). Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technology-based learning environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
24. National Semiconductor. (1998). Global connections: Making the most of the Internet in the classroom. Unpublished teacher training materials, Sunnyvale, CA.
25. Newman, D. (1990). Opportunities for research on the organizational impact of school computers. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 8-13.
26. Redfield, C. L., & Steuck, K. (1991). The future of intelligent tutoring systems. In H. Burns, J. W. Parlett, & C. L. Redfield (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 265-284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20 (6), 10-18.
28. Salomon, G. (1996). Studying novel learning environments as patterns of change. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 363-377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C, & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
30. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Sheingold, K., Heller, J. I., & Paulukonis, S. T. (1994). Actively seeking evidence: Teacher change through assessment development. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Center for Performance Assessment.
32. Sheingold, K., Heller, J. I., & Storms, B. (1997, March). On the mutual influence of teacher professional development and assessment quality in curricular reform. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
33. Stanford University. (1998). Stanford institute for educational leadership through technology. Stanford, CA.
34. Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173-187.
35. Winne, P. H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 397-410.
36. Yocum, K. (1996). Conversation: An essential element of teacher development. In C. Fisher, D. C. Dwyer, & K. Yocum (Eds.), Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms (pp. 265-279). San Francisco: Apple Press.
37. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. New York: Springer-Verlag.