Learning with versus without technology in elementary and secondary school

Abstract “Evidence-based practices” and “scientifically based research” have become watch-words of legislation and organizations concerned with education, and technology integration across the curriculum has been implicated in this call. As a portion of the validation of a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant program, the present work sought to make a fair test of learning the same curriculum-relevant subject matter with technology versus without technology. Results from elementary and secondary schools indicated that students had significantly greater pretest to posttest gains when the target subject matter was integrated with appropriate technologies than when the same subject matter was not integrated with technologies. The topics selected by teachers from www.thesolutionsite.com/ included a broad range of subject matter in the different grade levels (e.g., cultures, syntax, farm animals, employment, butterflies, family origins).

[1]  Leinda Peterman.  Teacher Models of Technology Integration , 2003 .

[2]  Robert L. Bangert-Drowns,et al.  A Taxonomy of Student Engagement with Educational Software: An Exploration of Literate Thinking with Electronic Text , 2001 .

[3]  Nick Hammond,et al.  The PsyCLE project: Developing a psychology computer-based learning environment , 1996 .

[4]  Kris D. Gutiérrez,et al.  Comment: Culture, Rigor, and Science in Educational Research , 2002 .

[5]  Mitchell J. Nathan,et al.  Considerations of Learning and Learning Research: Revisiting the "Media Effects" Debate , 2001 .

[6]  Y. Lou,et al.  Small Group and Individual Learning with Technology: A Meta-Analysis , 2001 .

[7]  R. Kozma.  Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate , 1994 .

[8]  Models of Professional Development. (Seeds of Innovation) , 2003 .

[9]  P. Abrami.  Understanding and Promoting Complex Learning Using Technology , 2001 .

[10]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Teaching and Learning. , 1998 .

[11]  Mary Anderson,et al.  Computer-Based Technology and Learning: Evolving Uses and Expectations. Revised Edition. , 2000 .

[12]  R. Kozma.  The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding , 2003 .

[13]  D. Berliner.  Comment: Educational Research:The Hardest Science of All , 2002 .

[14]  John McCombs.  Ready, Set, Integrate!. , 2003 .

[15]  Judi Harris,et al.  Teachers' Authentic E-learning , 2002 .

[16]  Kris D. Gutiérrez,et al.  Culture, Rigor, and Science in Educational Research. , 2002 .

[17]  M. Windschitl.  Framing Constructivism in Practice as the Negotiation of Dilemmas: An Analysis of the Conceptual, Pedagogical, Cultural, and Political Challenges Facing Teachers , 2002 .

[18]  Shu Ching Yang,et al.  Multidimensional taxonomy of learners cognitive processing in discourse synthesis with hypermedia , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  Richard J. Shavelson,et al.  Scientific Culture and Educational Research , 2002 .

[20]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent , 2003 .

[21]  R. Clark.  Media will never influence learning , 1994 .

[22]  R. Kozma,et al.  Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena , 1997 .

[23]  Rodger W. Bybee,et al.  Improving Technology Education: Understanding Reform--Assuming Responsibility. , 2003 .