Abstract

This page contains abstracts for the literature used to justify this project.

[|The Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement] > || ===The Study=== || ===Positive Impacts of Use of Computer-based Instruction=== || ===Negative Impacts=== || > || James Kulik's meta-analysis > (1994) || > || Jay Sivin-Kachala's review of research > (1998) || > || Apple's Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT)(1994) > This was a 5-year initiative the purpose of which was to promote use of technology. || > || Dale Mann's West Virginia's Basic Skills/Computer Education Statewide Initiative (BS/CE) > (1999) > > Lewis Solomon's study of cost effectiveness (1999) || > || Harold Wenglinsky's study of impact on Mathematics Achievement (1998) || > || Scardamalia and Berieter's Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment Studies (CSILE) > computer as a social and collaborative tool (1996) || > || MIT Learning and Epistemology Group > Papert, Resnick, Kafai, &Harel applied Learning by Design principles || > [|NCTE Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing] Writing Portfolios: Active vs. Passive by Bonita Wilson "Post-modernism, Palimpsest, and Portfolios: Theoretical Issues in the Representation of Student work." from //College Composition and Communication// by Kathleen Blake Yancey. reprinted in //The English Journal. // "Beyond the Bells and Whistles: Toward a Visual Rhetoric for Teachers' Digital Portfolios." in //English Education// by Troy Hickes. Reprinted in //The English Journal//
 * This article summarizes the findings of 5 studies of education technology. They were selected for their "scope, comprehensive samples, and generalizability to local, state, and national audiences" (Schacter 3). It is important to remember that not all computer-based instruction software, teacher instruction, or level of access are the same and that these do influence the results. The conclusions from the studies are that students with access to computer //**assisted**// instruction or integrated learning systems technology or simulations and high-level thinking software or collaborative technologies, or design and programming technologies perform better on researcher tests, standardized tests and national tests. Instruction is the priority, not the technology.
 * Students scored in the 64th percentile while those without scored at the 50th percentile; greatest gains were in Special Education (22) and Higher Ed and Adult Training (19) and Health Professions Education (18); lowest gains were in Pre-college Science (9), Secondary (10), College (11), Elementary to Adult Education (12)
 * Students learn more in less time
 * Students like their classes more and have a more positive attitude toward their education ||
 * Not all areas showed a positive gain ||
 * Technology-rich environments experienced positive effects in achievement in all major subject areas
 * The finds above apply to students pre-school through higher education for general and special needs students
 * Student attitudes and self-concepts improved "consistently" ||
 * None reported ||
 * Students have more experiences that require higher-level thinking and problem solving
 * Students attitudes improved
 * Teaching practice shifted to more colaborative work and less teacher-centered instruction ||
 * Students performed no better on standardized tests of vocabulary, reading comprehension, math concepts ||
 * Improvement of scores was directly correlated to amount of time spent using computer-based instruction
 * Consistent use, teacher and student attitudes toward technology, and teacher training impacted the results
 * Teachers who saw improvement became more enthusiastic about the technology
 * Boys and girls did not have different results
 * More cost effective than class size reduction from 35-20 students, increased instructional time, and cross-age tutoring. || ||
 * 8th graders who used simulations and higher order thinking software showed gains of up to 15 weeks above grade level according NAEP
 * 8th graders whose teachers were trained on computers showed gains of up to 13 weeks above grade level
 * Higher order uses of computers and professional development positively relate to student achievment and positive school attitudes ||
 * 4th graders only had a 3-5 week above grade level of improvement
 * Drill and practice technologies resulted in negative growth on the NAEP ||
 * Students achieve at a high level in depth of understanding, reflection, and standardized reading, language, and vocabulary skills.
 * Maximizes student reflection and encourages progressive thought, looking at multiple perspectives, and independent thinking || ||
 * Students who designed fraction software for other students using Logo learned fractions better than those taught using conventional methods
 * Students who used Logo learned Logo better than those who received instruction only || ||
 * This article puts forward 11 beliefs about the teaching of writing and discusses the impact on teaching. Many of the beliefs can be well supported using computer technology.
 * 1) Everyone has the capacity to write, writing can be taught, and teachers can help students become better writers.
 * 2) People learn to write by writing
 * 3) Writing is a process.
 * 4) Writing is a tool for thinking.
 * 5) Writing grows out of many different purposes.
 * 6) Conventions of finished and edited texts are important to readers and therefore to writers.
 * 7) Writing and reading are related.
 * 8) Writing has a complex relationship to talk
 * 9) Literate practices are embedded in complicated social relationships
 * 10) Composing occurs in different modalities and technologies
 * 11) Assessment of writing involves complex, informed, human judgment.
 * These points support a technology rich reading-writing-thinking-speaking program
 * The article from the //NCTE Journal// discusses the use of portfolios to develop new ways of thinking and learning. The portfolio becomes a process rather than a showcase. It is evolving and changing to reflect the learning of the owner of the portfolio. Years ago, the portfolio as a dynamic entity was defeated by the enormity of the task of maintenance. Schools thought to hire personnel and build storage room to store the portfolios of their students. Today, the dynamic portfolio can reside on the students' laptops and be stored on remote servers.
 * This article discusses the digital portfolio at the college level; however, it correlates strongly to teaching at the high school level. The digital portfolio can become the "place" where cross-curricular learning can take place.
 * This article contains a warning against assessment of the form rather than the content of the digital work complete by our students.