Technology-Enriched Classrooms

References

• Amidon, E., & Hunter, E. (1966). Improving teaching: The analysis of classroom verbal interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• AppleWorks [Computer software]. (1998). Cupertino, CA: Apple.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, S. W. (1979). Perceived brightness and classroom interactions. Educational Research Quarterly, 4(4), 54–60.
   Google Scholar
• Attewell, P., & Battle, J. (1999). Home computers and school performance. Information Society, 15(1), 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, E. L., Gearhart, M., & Herman, J. L. (1994). Evaluating the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow. In E. L. Barker & H.F. O’Neil (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 172–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Beane, J. A., & Lipka, R. P. (1986). Self concept, self-esteem, and the curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, H. J. (1998). Running to catch a moving train: Schools and information technologies. Theory into Practice, 37(1), 20–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. L. (1998). The equity threat of promising innovations: Pioneering internet-connected schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(1), 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berliner, D. (1991). Educational psychology and pedagogical expertise: New findings and new opportunities for thinking about training. Educational Psychologist, 26, 145–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breakwell, G. M., & Fife-Shaw, C. (1987). Young people’s attitudes toward new technology: Source and structure. In J. H. Lewko (Ed.), How children and adolescents view the world of work (pp. 51–67). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Bruck, M., & Bodwin, R. F. (1962). The relationship between self-concept and the presence and absence of scholastic underachievement. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 181–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brush, T. A. (1997). The effects of group composition on achievement and time on task for students completing ILS activities in cooperative pairs. Computing in Education, 30(1), 2–17.
   Google Scholar
• Burnett, D. G. (1981). Introduction: The humanities and nontraditional studies. Alternative Higher Education: The Journal of Nontraditional Studies, 6(1), 3–6.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, P. K., & Bozeman, W. C. (1981). Computer-assisted instruction and mathematics achievement: Is there a relationship? Educational Technology, 21, 32–39.
   Google Scholar
• California Achievement Test. (1996). Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Cantrell, J. (1993). Technology’s promise for at-risk students. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 22(1), 22–25.
   Google Scholar
• Chadbourne, J. W., Bradley, C. H., & Ivey, A. E. (1981). Toward intentional teaching: A human endeavor. The Humanist Educator, 20, 99–106.
   Google Scholar
• Cheffers, J., Mancini, V., & Martinek, T. (1980). Interaction analysis: An application to nonverbal and verbal activity. Winchester, MA: Book Tech.
   Google Scholar
• Christmann, E. P., Badgett, J., & Lucking, R. (1997). Microcomputer-based computer-assisted instruction within differing subject areas: A statistical deduction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 281–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, R. E. (1985). Confounding in educational computing research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 137–148.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clements, D. H., Nastasi, B. K., & Swaminathan, S. (1993). Young children and computers: Crossroads and directions from research. Young Children, 48(2), 56–64.
   Google Scholar
• Cummings, H. W. (1986). Software Review. In F. E. Dance (Ed.), Communication education (Vol. 35, pp. 200–203). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• DeGraw, B. C. (1990). A study to determine changes in social interaction among students, teachers, and parents influenced by the placement of microcomputers in the homes and school of fourth-grade Fuqua students during 1988-1989. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University.
   Google Scholar
• Diggs, C. S. (1997). Technology: A key to unlocking at-risk students. Learning & Leading with Technology, 25, 38–40.
   Google Scholar
• Dwyer, D. C. (1995). Changing the conversation about teaching, learning, and technology: A report on 10 years of ACOT research. Cupertino, CA: Apple.
   Google Scholar
• Ehman, L. H., Glenn, A. D., Johnson, V., & White, C. S. (1992). Using computer databases in student problem solving: A study of eight social studies teachers’ classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education, 20, 179–206.
   Google Scholar
• Feirsen, R. (1984). Interaction analysis: Applications for special education. NASSP Bulletin, 68(469), 61–65.
   Google Scholar
• Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Freiberg, H. J. (1981). Three decades of the Flanders Interaction Analysis System. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 16(2), 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Funkhouser, C. (1993). The influence of problem-solving software on student attitudes about mathematics. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25, 339–346.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, C. M., Simmons, P. E., & Simpson, R. (1992). The effects of CAI and hands-on activities on elementary students’ attitudes and weather knowledge. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 334–336.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, A., & Brown, K. W. (1993). Beginnings and beyond: Foundations in early childhood education (3rd ed.). Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia [Computer software]. (1997). New York: Scholastic, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Grossen, B., & Carnine, D. (1990). Diagramming a logic strategy: Effects on difficult types and transfer. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 168–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haugland, S. W. (1992). The effect of computer software on preschool children’s developmental gains. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 3(1), 15–30.
   Google Scholar
• Holden, C. (1989). Computers make slow progress in class. Science, 244, 906–909.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoover, H. D., Hieronymus, A. N., Frisbie, D. A., & Dunbar, S. B. (1996). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Form M. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
   Google Scholar
• HyperStudio [Computer software]. (1989—2001). Torrance, CA: Knowledge Adventure, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. (1996). Chicago: Riverside Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Jegede, O. J., & Okebukola, P. A. (1989). Some socio-cultural factors militating against drift towards science and technology in secondary schools. Research in Science and Technological Education, 7, 141–151.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, K., & Sherman, A. (1980). Two approaches to evaluation. Educational Leadership, 37, 553–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, F. S. (1968). Good-bye teacher. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kid Pix [Computer software]. (1990-2001). Novato, CA: The Learning Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kilburn, J. (1978). Better for both—Thoughts on teacher-pupil interaction. Education, 6(2), 9–11.
   Google Scholar
• Kinzie, M. B., Sullivan, H. J., & Berdel, R. L. (1992). Motivational and achievement effects of learner control over content review within CAI. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 101–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krendl, K. A. (1986). Media influence on learning: Examining the role of preconceptions. Educational Communication and Technology, 34, 223–234.
   Google Scholar
• Kristiansen, R. (1991). Consensus on computers in education: Do teachers, parents and pupils share the same expectations and attitudes towards computers? Education and Computing, 7, 199–207.
   Google Scholar
• Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 59–74.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., & Randle, L. (1987). Problem solving, metacognition and composition: The effects of interactive software for first-grade children. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 409–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, Y. (1992). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24, 367–380.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, D., & Shafer, E. A. (1997). Technology and achievement. The American School Board Journal, 184(7), 22–23.
   Google Scholar
• Math Blaster [Computer software]. (1994). Torrance, CA: Knowledge Adventure, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Mevarech, Z. R., Silber, O., & Fine, D. (1991). Learning with computers in small groups: Cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 233–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mevarech, Z. R., Stern, D., & Levita, I. (1987). To cooperate or not to cooperate in CAI: That is the question. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 164–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, N. A. (1992). Toward a common vision: The change process in practice. Educational Technology, 32(11), 58–62.
   Google Scholar
• Milone, M. N., & Salpeter, J. (1996). Technology and equity issues. Technology and Learning, 16(4), 38–41, 44–47.
   Google Scholar
• Ober, R. L. (1970). The reciprocal category system. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 4(1), 34–51.
   Google Scholar
• Office [Computer software]. (1997-2001). Redmond, WA: Microsoft.
   Google Scholar
• Pagliaro, L. A. (1979). Instructional interactions and the mega interactive model of instruction. Educational Technology, 19(11), 35–39.
   Google Scholar
• Parry, J. D., Thorkildsen, R. J., Biery, T. M., & Macfarlane, C. A. (1986). Computer-based instruction (CBI): The transition from research findings to teaching strategies. Educational Research Quarterly, 10(1), 30–39.
   Google Scholar
• Poirot, J., & Robinson, G. (1994, March). Parent involvement and technology with at-risk students. The Computing Teacher, 21(6), 44–45.
   Google Scholar
• Poole, M. S., & Folger, J. P. (1981). Modes of observation and the validation of interaction analysis schemes. Small Group Behavior, 12, 477–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popescu, D. (1978). Pipeline—or pipedream? Geoscope, 11(3), 136–151.
   Google Scholar
• Portfolio Assessment Toolkit [Computer software]. (1997). Cary, IL: Forest Technologies.
   Google Scholar
• Reglin, G. L. (1989). CAI effects on mathematics achievement and academic self-concept seminar. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 18(1), 43–48.
   Google Scholar
• Repman, J. (1993). Collaborative, computer-based learning: Cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9, 149–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riel, M. M., & Harasim, L. (1994). Research perspectives on network learning. Machine-Mediated Learning, 4, 91–113.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, E., Ladewig, B. H., Strickland, M. P., & Boshung, M. D. (1987). Enhancement of self-esteem through the use of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 314–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Morrison, G. R., & Erickson, A. (1989). Helping at-risk children through distance tutoring: Memphis ACOT. Technological Horizons in Education, 16(6), 68–71.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, A. W. (1991). Meta-analysis of achievement effects of microcomputer applications in elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 161–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryba, K., Selby, L., & Nolan, P. (1995). Computers empower students with special needs. Educational Leadership, 53(2), 82–84.
   Google Scholar
• Ryser, G. R. (1990). Effects of computer education on students’ achievement, attitudes, and self-esteem. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas.
   Google Scholar
• Samuels, S. C. (1977). Enhancing self-concept in early childhood. New York: Human Sciences Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schery, T., & O’Connor, L. (1997). Language intervention: Computer training for young children with special needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 271–279.
   Google Scholar
• Schwanke, D. (1981). Classroom interaction research: A survey of recent literature. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 16(2), 8–10.
   Google Scholar
• Sheldon, K. (1996). Early childhood special education. “Can I play too?” Adapting common classroom activities for young children with limited motor abilities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 24(2), 115–120.
   Google Scholar
• Signer, B. R. (1991). CAI and at-risk minority urban high school students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24, 189–203.
   Google Scholar
• Snowman, J. (1995). Computer-based education: More hype than help? Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 8(1), 32–35.
   Google Scholar
• Soar, R. S. (1983). Measures of quality in the classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 18(2), 7–15.
   Google Scholar
• Sugai, G., & Lewis, T. (1989). Teacher/student interaction analysis. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 131–138.
   Google Scholar
• Swan, K., Guerrero, F., Mitrani, M., & Schoener, J. (1990). Honing in on the target: Who among the educationally disadvantaged benefits most from what CBI? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22, 381–403.
   Google Scholar
• Toriskie, J. M. (1999). The effects of Internet usage on student achievement and student attitudes (fourth-grade, social studies). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, D. K., & Vasu, E. S. (1995). Locus of control, self-esteem, achievement motivation, and problem-solving ability: Logowriter and simulations in the fifth-grade classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 98–120.
   Google Scholar
• Waxman, H. C., & Padron, Y. N. (1995). Improving the quality of classroom instruction for students at risk of failure in urban schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 44–65.
   Google Scholar
• Weizenbaum, J. (1987). The voice of a skeptic. The Edutech Report, 3(2-3), 4–5.
   Google Scholar
• Winne, P. H., Woodlands, M. J., & Wong, B. Y. (1982). Comparability of self-concept among learning disabled, normal, and gifted students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 470–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, P. C., Buescher, T. M., & Denison, C. (1979). Alternative opportunity program: Stemming potential delinquency in young adolescents. Behavioral Disorders, 4, 232–238.
   Google Scholar
• Woodward, J., & Gersten, R. (1992). Innovative technology for secondary students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 399–406.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yelland, N. (1995). Logo experiences with young children: Describing performance, problem-solving and social contexts of learning. Early Child Development and Care, 109, 61–74.
   Google Scholar
• Zuczek, D. (1996). Illuminating classroom design. American School & University, 68(11), 40, 42, 44.
   Google Scholar