changing how and what children learn in school with ...web.stanford.edu/~roypea/roypdf...

Changing How and WhatChildren Learn in Schoolwith Computer-BasedTechnologiesJeremy M. Roschelle, Roy D. Pea, Christopher M. Hoadley,Douglas N. Gordin, Barbara M. Means

Abstract

Schools today face ever-increasing demands in their attempts to ensure that studentsare well equipped to enter the workforce and navigate a complex world. Research indi-cates that computer technology can help support learning, and that it is especiallyuseful in developing the higher-order skills of critical thinking, analysis, and scientificinquiry. But the mere presence of computers in the classroom does not ensure theireffective use. Some computer applications have been shown to be more successfulthan others, and many factors influence how well even the most promising applica-tions are implemented.

This article explores the various ways computer technology can be used to improvehow and what children learn in the classroom. Several examples of computer-basedapplications are highlighted to illustrate ways technology can enhance how childrenlearn by supporting four fundamental characteristics of learning: (1) active engage-ment, (2) participation in groups, (3) frequent interaction and feedback, and (4) con-nections to real-world contexts. Additional examples illustrate ways technology canexpand what children learn by helping them to understand core concepts in subjectslike math, science, and literacy. Research indicates, however, that the use of technol-ogy as an effective learning tool is more likely to take place when embedded in abroader education reform movement that includes improvements in teacher training,curriculum, student assessment, and a school’s capacity for change. To help informdecisions about the future role of computers in the classroom, the authors concludethat further research is needed to identify the uses that most effectively support learn-ing and the conditions required for successful implementation.

Ateacher from the late nineteenth century entering a typical class-room today would find most things quite familiar: chalk and talk, aswell as desks and texts, predominate now as they did then. Yet this

nineteenth-century teacher would be shocked by the demands of today’scurricula. For example, just a century ago, little more was expected of high

76

The Future of Children CHILDREN AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY Vol. 10 • No. 2 – Fall/Winter 2000

Jeremy M. Roschelle,Ph.D., is a senior cogni-tive scientist at theCenter for Technology inLearning at SRIInternational, an inde-pendent research orga-nization in MenloPark, CA.

Roy D. Pea, D.Phil.,Oxon., is director of theCenter for Technologyin Learning at SRIInternational, an inde-pendent research organi-zation in Menlo Park,CA; and consulting pro-fessor at the School ofEducation at StanfordUniversity.

Christopher M. Hoadley,Ph.D., is a research andcomputer scientist at theCenter for Technologyin Learning at SRIInternational, an inde-pendent research orga-nization in MenloPark, CA.

Douglas N. Gordin,Ph.D., is a researchstaff member at IBM’sT.J. Watson ResearchCenter, Applied LearningServices Departmentin Yorktown, NY.

Barbara M. Means,Ph.D., is codirectorof the Center forTechnology in Learningat SRI International,an independent researchorganization in MenloPark, CA.

http://www.futureofchildren.org

77

school students than to recite famous texts, recount simple scientific facts,and solve basic arithmetic problems. Only 3.5% of students were expectedto learn algebra before completing high school.1 Today, all high school stu-dents are expected to be able to read and understand unfamiliar text2 andto become competent in the processes of scientific inquiry and mathemat-ics problem solving, including algebra.3 This trend of rising expectations isaccelerating because of the explosion of knowledge now available to thepublic and the growing demands of the workplace.4 More and more stu-dents will have to learn to navigate through large amounts of informationand to master calculus and other complicated subjects to participate fully inan increasingly technological society.5 Thus, although the classroom tools ofblackboards and books that shape how learning takes place have changedlittle over the past century, societal demands on what students learn haveincreased dramatically.

There is consensus among education policy analysts that satisfying thesedemands will require rethinking how educators support learning.6 Debatenow focuses on identifying and implementing the most appropriate andhighest priority reforms in the areas of curricula, teacher training, studentassessment, administration, buildings, and safety. The role that technologycould or should play within this reform movement has yet to be defined.Innovations in media technology, including radio, television, film, andvideo, have had only isolated, marginal effects on how and what childrenlearn in school, despite early champions of their revolutionary educationalpotential.7 (See the article by Wartella and Jennings in this journal issue.)Similarly, although computer technology is a pervasive and powerful forcein society today with many proponents of its educational benefits, it is alsoexpensive and potentially disruptive or misguided in some of its uses and inthe end may have only marginal effects. Nevertheless, several billion dollarsin public and private funds have been dedicated to equipping schools withcomputers and connections to the Internet, and there are promises of evenmore funds dedicated to this purpose in the future.8 (See Appendix A inthis journal issue for more information on sources of funding.) As ever-increasing resources are committed to bringing computers into the class-room, parents, policymakers, and educators need to be able to determinehow technology can be used most effectively to improve student learning.9

This article explores the characteristics of computer technology and itspotential to enhance learning. The first section highlights a number ofcomputer-based technology applications shown to be effective in improvinghow and what children learn. Of course, just because computer technologycan lead to improvements in learning does not mean that it will do so simply



78 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – FALL/WINTER 2000

because technology is infused into the classroom. Studies overwhelminglysuggest that computer-based technology is only one element in what mustbe a coordinated approach to improving curriculum, pedagogy, assessment,teacher development, and other aspects of school structure. Therefore, thesecond section of this article discusses the changes in organizational struc-tures and supports that should be considered when schools are planning astrategy for incorporating technology. This article concludes with a brief dis-cussion of a framework to guide future research efforts.

Effective Use of Technologyas a Learning ToolStudies conducted on the effectiveness oftechnology in the classroom often havemixed results, making it difficult to general-ize about technology’s overall impact inimproving learning.10,11 For example, in oneof the few large-scale studies conductednationwide, some approaches to using edu-cational technology were found to increasefourth- and eighth-grade students’ mathe-matical understanding, whereas othersproved less effective.12 More specifically, com-puter-based applications that encouragedstudents to reason deeply about mathematicsincreased learning, whereas applications thatattempted to make repetitive skill practicemore entertaining for students actuallyseemed to decrease performance. In con-trast, a meta-analysis of more than 500research studies of computer-based instruc-tion found positive effects on studentachievement tests resulted primarily fromcomputer tutoring applications; other uses ofthe computer, such as simulations andenrichment applications, were found to haveonly minimal effects.13 (See Table 1 at theend of this article for a summary of findingsfrom these and several other major studieson the effects of technology use in kinder-garten through 12th-grade classrooms.)

Three key reasons contribute to thesemixed results. First, hardware and softwarevary among schools, and there is evengreater variation in the ways schools usetechnology, so the failure to produce uni-form results is not surprising. Second, suc-cessful use of technology is alwaysaccompanied by concurrent reforms inother areas such as curriculum, assessment,and teacher professional development, sothe gains in learning cannot be attributed touse of technology alone. And third, rigor-ously structured longitudinal studies thatdocument the isolated effects of technology

are expensive and difficult to implement, sofew have been conducted.

Although today’s research can supportonly limited conclusions about the overalleffectiveness of technology expenditures inimproving education, studies conducted todate suggest that certain computer-basedapplications can enhance learning for stu-dents at various achievement levels. The fol-lowing sections highlight several promisingapplications for improving how and whatchildren learn. The “how” and the “what”are separated because not only can technol-ogy help children learn things better, it alsocan help them learn better things. Framedin terms of the growing expectations inmathematics instruction, the “how”addresses the problem of enhancing thelearning of the 70% to 100% of studentsalready expected to learn algebra. The“what” addresses the problem of making itpossible for the vast majority of students togo beyond algebra to learn calculus—a topicthat is unreachable for most students with-out a revitalized curriculum that takes advan-tage of technology.

Based on the research to date, the strong-est evidence showing positive gains in learn-ing tends to focus on applications in scienceand mathematics for upper elementary,middle, and high school students. This evi-dence generally applies to both boys andgirls. Future research may find gains that areequally strong for the lower elementarygrades and across other curriculum areas orthat are gender or age specific. The discus-sion below reflects the limitations of theresearch to date, however, and althoughpromising applications across a variety ofsubjects are considered, applications in theareas of science and mathematics are mostoften highlighted.

Enhancing How Children LearnA major scientific accomplishment of the


79Changing How and What Children Learn in School with Computer-Based Technologies

twentieth century has been the greatadvancements in understanding cogni-tion—that is, the mental processes ofthinking, perceiving, and remembering.14

For example, cognitive research hasshown that learning is most effective whenfour fundamental characteristics are pre-sent: (1) active engagement, (2) participa-tion in groups, (3) frequent interactionand feedback, and (4) connections to real-world contexts. Interestingly, some of thepioneers in learning research also havebeen pioneers in exploring how technolo-gies can improve learning. These connec-tions are not coincidental. As scientistshave understood more about the funda-mental characteristics of learning, theyhave realized that the structure andresources of traditional classrooms oftenprovide quite poor support for learning,whereas technology—when used effec-tively—can enable ways of teaching thatare much better matched to how childrenlearn. The following discussion describesspecific computer-based technologiesthat have been shown to support each ofthe four fundamental characteristics oflearning.

Learning Through Active EngagementLearning research has shown that studentslearn best by actively “constructing” knowl-edge from a combination of experience,interpretation, and structured interactionswith peers and teachers.14,15 When studentsare placed in the relatively passive role ofreceiving information from lectures andtexts (the “transmission” model of learning),they often fail to develop sufficient under-standing to apply what they have learned tosituations outside their texts and class-rooms.16 In addition, children have differentlearning styles. The use of methods beyondlectures and books can help reach childrenwho learn best from a combination of teach-ing approaches.17 Today’s theories of learn-ing differ in some details,18 but educationalreformers appear to agree with the theoreti-cians and experts that to enhance learning,more attention should be given to activelyengaging children in the learning process.Curricular frameworks now expect studentsto take active roles in solving problems, com-municating effectively, analyzing informa-tion, and designing solutions—skills that gofar beyond the mere recitation of correctresponses.19

Although active, constructive learningcan be integrated in classrooms with orwithout computers, the characteristics ofcomputer-based technologies make them aparticularly useful tool for this type of learn-ing. For example, consider science labora-tory experiments. Students certainly canactively engage in experiments without com-puters, yet nearly two decades of researchhas shown that students can make significantgains when computers are incorporatedinto labs under a design called the“Microcomputer-Based Laboratory” (MBL).As illustrated by the description of an MBLin Box 1, students conducting experimentscan use computers to instantaneously graphtheir data, thus reducing the time betweengathering data and beginning to interpret it.

Students no longer have to go home to labo-riously plot points on a graph and thenbring the graphs back to school the follow-ing day. Instead, they instantaneously cansee the results of their experiment. In fairlywidely replicated studies, researchers havenoted significant improvements in students’graph-interpretation skills, understanding ofscientific concepts, and motivation whenusing the software.20 For example, one studyof 125 seventh and eighth graders foundthat use of MBL software resulted in an 81%gain in the students’ ability to interpret anduse graphs.21 In another study of 249 eighthgraders, experience with MBL was found toproduce significant gains in the students’ability to identify some of the reasons whygraphs may be inaccurate.22

Using technology to engage studentsmore actively in learning is not limited toscience and mathematics. For example,computer-based applications such as desk-top publishing and desktop video can beused to involve students more actively inconstructing presentations that reflect theirunderstanding and knowledge of various

The structure and resources of traditionalclassrooms often provide quite poor supportfor learning, whereas technology—whenused effectively—can enable ways of teaching that are much better matched to how children learn.



subjects. Although previous media technolo-gies generally placed children in the role ofpassive observers, these new technologiesmake content construction much moreaccessible to students, and research indicatesthat such uses of technology can have signif-icant positive effects. In one project, inner-city high school students worked as“multimedia designers” to create an elec-tronic school yearbook and displays for alocal children’s museum. The students par-ticipating in the project showed significantgains in task engagement and self-confidencemeasures compared with students enrolledin a more traditional computer class.23

Learning Through Participation in GroupsOne influential line of learning researchfocuses on the social basis for children’slearning, inspired by the seminal research ofthe Russian psychologist Vygotsky.24 Socialcontexts give students the opportunity tosuccessfully carry out more complex skillsthan they could execute alone. Performing atask with others provides an opportunity notonly to imitate what others are doing, butalso to discuss the task and make thinkingvisible. Much learning is about the meaningand correct use of ideas, symbols, and repre-sentations. Through informal social conver-sation and gestures, students and teachers

can provide explicit advice, resolve misun-derstandings, and ensure mistakes are cor-rected. In addition, social needs often drivea child’s reason for learning. Because achild’s social identity is enhanced by partici-pating in a community or by becoming amember of a group,25 involving students ina social intellectual activity can be a powerfulmotivator and can lead to better learningthan relying on individual desk work.

Some critics feel that computer technol-ogy encourages asocial and addictive behav-ior and taps very little of the social basis oflearning. Several computer-based applica-tions, such as tutorials and drill-and-practiceexercises, do engage students individually.However, projects that use computers to facil-itate educational collaboration span nearlythe entire history of the Internet, dating backto the creation of electronic bulletin boardsin the 1970s.26 Some of the most prominentuses of computers today are communicationsoriented, and networking technologies suchas the Internet and digital video permit abroad new range of collaborative activities inschools. Using technology to promote suchcollaborative activities can enhance thedegree to which classrooms are socially activeand productive and can encourage class-room conversations that expand students’understanding of the subject.27

A Microcomputer-Based Laboratory in Creek Biology

Two sixth-grade science classes grab their palmtop computers with chemical sensorsattached, and head out for a field trip to the local creek. For more than five years,teachers at this school have taken their sixth-grade science classes on this field trip.But before the advent of palmtop computers, their students collected water samplesand jotted down observations during the field trip, then returned to the classroomto analyze the pH, oxygenation, and other measures of the health of the creek.These tests took days of dripping indicator solutions into test tubes of creek waterand laborious charting of the outcomes.

Today, with the help of the palmtop computers, students can measure the creekand see the results of their data gathering while still in the field. The computersstore and graph the data immediately, allowing students to see how the graphsunfold in real time, directly related to their observations. The immediacy of theprocess helps students understand what the graph’s time axis means, a challenge formany students who have only recently learned how to plot points. In addition, stu-dents are able to develop their critical thinking skills by analyzing their initial resultsand running follow-up experiments the same day.

Source: For more information, see Web site at http://probesight.concord.org or http://www.concord.org/~sherry/cilt/.

Box 1



One major, long-term effort that exem-plifies many of the promising features ofcollaborative technology is the Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environ-ment (CSILE, pronounced “Cecil”).28 Thegoal of CSILE is to support structured col-laborative knowledge building by havingstudents communicate their ideas and criti-cisms—in the form of questions, statements,and diagrams—to a shared database classi-fied by different types of thinking (see Box2). By classifying the discussion in this way,students become more aware of how to orga-nize their growing knowledge. In addition,CSILE permits students or experts to partic-ipate independent of their physical location.Students can work with other students fromtheir classroom or school or from aroundthe globe to build a common understandingof some topic. As illustrated in Figure 1, stu-dents in K–12 classes who use CSILE for sci-ence, history, and social studies performbetter on standardized tests and createdeeper explanations than students in classeswithout this technology.29 Although all stu-dents show improvement, positive effects areespecially strong for students categorized aslow or middle achievers.30

Many types of learning networks havebeen created for use in classrooms at alllevels. For example, the AT&T LearningCircles project uses computer networkingfor multicultural and multilingual collabora-tive learning by partnering classrooms in dif-ferent countries to produce newsletters orother writing projects.31 The MultimediaForum Kiosk and SpeakEasy projects32 struc-ture students’ collaborative interactions,resulting in more inclusive and gender-equitable participation than ordinarilyoccurs in face-to-face classroom discussions.33

Convince Me and Belvedere systems helpstudents to distinguish between hypothesesand evidence and to produce clearer scien-tific explanations.34 Reports from researchersand teachers suggest that students who par-ticipate in computer-connected learning net-works show increased motivation, a deeperunderstanding of concepts, and an increasedwillingness to tackle difficult questions.31,35

Learning Through Frequent Interactionand FeedbackIn traditional classrooms, students typicallyhave very little time to interact with materi-als, each other, or the teacher.36 Moreover,

students often must wait days or weeks afterhanding in classroom work before receivingfeedback. In contrast, research suggests thatlearning proceeds most rapidly when learn-ers have frequent opportunities to apply theideas they are learning and when feedbackon the success or failure of an idea comesalmost immediately.37

Unlike other media, computer technol-ogy supports this learning principle in atleast three ways. First, computer tools them-selves can encourage rapid interaction andfeedback. For example, using interactivegraphing, a student may explore the behav-ior of a mathematical model very rapidly,getting a quicker feel for the range of varia-tion in the model. If the same student

graphed each parameter setting for themodel by hand, it would take much longerto explore the range of variation. Second,computer tools can engage students forextended periods on their own or in smallgroups; this can create more time for theteacher to give individual feedback to partic-ular children.38 Third, in some situations,computer tools can be used to analyze eachchild’s performance and provide moretimely and targeted feedback than the stu-dent typically receives.39

Research indicates that computer appli-cations such as those described above can beeffective tools to support learning.40 Onestudy compared two methods of e-mail-based coaching. In the first method, tutorsgenerated a custom response for each stu-dent. In the second, tutors sent the studentan appropriate boilerplate response.41

Students’ learning improved significantlyand approximately equally using both meth-ods, but the boilerplate-based coachingallowed four times as many students to haveaccess to a tutor.42 In another version ofcomputer-assisted feedback, a programcalled Diagnoser assesses students’ under-standing of physics concepts in situations

Students who participate in computer-connected learning networks show increasedmotivation, a deeper understanding of concepts, and an increased willingness to tackle difficult questions.



where students typically make mistakes, thenprovides teachers with suggested remedialactivities (see Box 3).43 Data from experi-mental and control classrooms showedscores rising more than 15% when teachersincorporated use of Diagnoser, and theresults were equally strong for low, middle,and high achievers.

The most sophisticated applications ofcomputers in this area have tried to trace stu-dents’ reasoning process step by step, andprovide tutoring whenever students strayfrom correct reasoning. Results fromGeometry Tutor, an application that usesthis approach, showed students—especiallyaverage or lower achievers or students withlow self-confidence in mathematics—couldlearn geometry much faster with suchhelp.44 Also, researchers at Carnegie MellonUniversity found that urban high school stu-dents using another application, PracticalAlgebra Tutor, showed small gains on stan-dardized math tests such as the ScholasticAptitude Test (SAT), but more than dou-bled their achievement in complex problemsolving compared to students not using thistechnology.45

Learning Through Connections to Real-World ContextsOne of the core themes of twentieth-centurylearning research has been students’ fre-quent failure to apply what they learn inschool to problems they encounter in thereal world. A vast literature on this topic sug-gests that, to develop the ability to transferknowledge from the classroom to the realworld, learners must master underlying con-cepts, not simply memorize facts and solu-tion techniques in simplified or artificialcontexts.14 But typical problem-solvingassignments do not afford students theopportunity to learn when to apply particu-lar ideas because it is usually obvious thatthe right ideas to apply are those from theimmediately preceding text.

Computer technology can provide stu-dents with an excellent tool for applyingconcepts in a variety of contexts, therebybreaking the artificial isolation of school sub-ject matter from real-world situations. Forexample, through the communication fea-tures of computer-based technology, stu-dents have access to the latest scientific dataand expeditions, whether from a National

The Computer-Supported Intentional LearningEnvironment (CSILE) Project

Two elementary school classes, one in northern Canada and one in ruralScandinavia, have set arctic elk as the topic for their CSILE project for the nextfew weeks. The CSILE software was designed based on a radical notion: that youngstudents can and should be treated as junior scholars. CSILE is a community data-base that students use to share their findings as they do research alone, in smallgroups, as a whole class, or—as in this case—across classrooms. The students workenthusiastically with their teachers to come up with researchable questions basedon both library research and real-world observations or experiments. As the stu-dents pursue the questions they find most interesting, they put their ideas, ques-tions, and findings into the CSILE software system as notes and share them withtheir peers across the ocean. The notes are classified into types of thinking suchas “My theory for now...” or “What I need to know next is....” Through the prompt-ing of these different categories, their teachers’ guidance, and the critique andquestions of their distant peers, students support and refine their ideas online.The students express their ideas both in text and graphics, and in this case stu-dents use a mix of languages: English, Inuit, and Finnish. Not only does theirunderstanding of elk improve, but they also gain valuable writing and languageskills and a better multicultural understanding.

Source: For more information, see Web site at http://csile.oise.utoronto.ca/.

Box 2



Air and Space Administration’s (NASA) mis-sion to Mars, an ongoing archeological digin Mexico, or a remotely controlled tele-scope in Hawaii. Further, technology canbring unprecedented opportunities for stu-dents to actively participate in the kind ofexperimentation, design, and reflection thatprofessionals routinely do, with access tothe same tools professionals use. Through theInternet, students from around the worldcan work as partners to scientists, business-people, and policymakers who are makingvaluable contributions to society.

One important project that allows stu-dents to actively participate in a real-worldresearch project is the Global Learning andObservations to Benefit the Environment(GLOBE) Program. Begun in 1992 by VicePresident Al Gore as an innovative way toaid the environment and help studentslearn science, the GLOBE Program cur-rently links more than 3,800 schools aroundthe world to scientists.46 Teachers and stu-dents collect local environmental data for

use by scientists, and the scientists providementoring to the teachers and studentsabout how to apply scientific concepts inanalyzing real environmental problems (seeBox 4). Thus, the GLOBE Programdepends on students to help monitor theenvironment while educating them about it.Further, the students are motivated tobecome more engaged in learning becausethey are aiding real scientific research—andtheir data collection has lasting value. In a1998 survey, 62% of teachers using theGLOBE Program reported that they hadstudents analyze, discuss, or interpret thedata. Although no rigorous evaluations ofeffects on learning have been conducted,surveyed GLOBE teachers said they view theprogram as very effective and indicated thatthe greatest student gains occurred in theareas of observational and measurementskills, ability to work in small groups, andtechnology skills.47

Similarly, in the Global Lab Curriculumproject, scientists have crafted techniques

Figure 1

Expecta

tions

for K

nowledge

Gro

wthDepth

of

Expla

nation

Identif

ying

Conceptual

Difficultie

s

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5St

ude

nts'

De

pth

of U

nde

rsta

ndin

g

CSILE Control

Source: Based on data reported in Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Brett, C., et al. Educational applications of a networkedcommunal database. Interactive Learning Environments (1992) 2:45–71.

Gains Achieved by Students Participating in CSILE Projects


that allow students around the world togather and share data about the terrestrial,aquatic, and aerial aspects of their locale.48

They study local soil quality, the electricalconductivity and pH of rain, and ultravioletradiation, airborne particulates, and carbondioxide in the air. Results are pooledthrough telecommunications, and studentsanalyze their data with peers and scientistsfrom around the world. Many other projectsalso connect teachers and students with sci-entists to allow active engagement in real-world experiences. For example, the JasonProject, originated by world-famousexplorer Robert Ballard, invites studentsalong on scientific expeditions with “telep-resence” connections over the Internet.49 Inthese expeditions, students communicatewith scientists who are exploring coral reefsor studying a rain forest. In the KidSat pro-ject, students direct the operation of acamera on a NASA space shuttle.50

Projects also have been developed toconnect students with real-world experi-ences in nonscience subject areas. For exam-ple, the Jasper Project demonstratedsignificant improvements in mathematicalunderstanding when teachers usedvideodiscs of adventure stories that encour-aged students to engage in meaningful

mathematical problem solving.51 Researchersassessed the Jasper Project’s effectiveness in28 middle schools in 9 states. After amonth, students using the technologyscored about the same on standardizedmath tests, but showed significant improve-ment in their ability to solve complex prob-lems, and more positive attitudes towardthe role of mathematics in solving realproblems, compared with students notusing the program.14

Expanding What Children LearnIn addition to supporting how childrenlearn, computer-based technology can alsoimprove what children learn by providingexposure to ideas and experiences thatwould be inaccessible for most children anyother way. For example, because synthesiz-ers can make music, students can experi-ment with composing music even beforethey can play an instrument. Because com-munications technology makes it possible tosee and talk to others in different parts ofthe world, students can learn about archeol-ogy by following the progress of a real dig inthe jungles of Mexico. Through online com-munications, students can reach beyondtheir own community to find teachers andother students who share their academicinterests.


Diagnoser

Students studying buoyancy in their science class log on to their computers andare walked through a series of questions using Diagnoser while they observe ademonstration of buoyancy. Demonstrations like this one are common in sciencecourses. What is unusual here is that, with the help of Diagnoser, the teacher isasking the students to explain the demonstration rather than the other wayaround. The series of questions posed by Diagnoser helps the teacher understandexactly how the students are reasoning about the situation and develop a roadmap for future instruction. This technique, called benchmarking, allows teachersto build on the ideas students already have rather than expect them to abandontheir instincts and experience on faith alone. Afterward, the teacher may workthrough a faulty prediction with students to help them refine their ideas. Withoutthe support of the computer, such benchmarking would require teachers to spendconsiderable time with each student to uncover their particular preconceptionsand would be too time-consuming for most classroom situations. By using theDiagnoser software, however, benchmarking is made more feasible because muchof the process is automated.

Source: For more information, see Web site at http://depts.washington.edu/huntlab/diagnoser/.

Box 3



The Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program

Students participating in the GLOBE Program collect data on airborne particulatecounts and cloud cover using everyday supplies, then enter their data into the com-puter as part of a worldwide scientific effort to monitor the environment throughthe Internet. As students prepare to upload their data, a lively debate on why themeasurements differ leads to a discussion of sources of experimental error. The dis-cussion carries over onto the Web, where a GLOBE scientist gives her input. Afterthe class decides on their best measurement, the results are sent via Internet to theGLOBE Program where scientists await the data for use in their own research. Thestudents are able to do their own scientific analysis by downloading results fromidentical experiments run by students worldwide and by using sophisticated visual-ization and modeling tools. Meanwhile, the students enjoy the satisfaction of know-ing they have contributed to “grown-up” science.

Source: For more information, see Web site at http://www.globe.gov.

Box 4

Reprinted courtesy of the GLOBE Program, a hands-on environmental science and education program that unites students,educators, and scientists in authentic, inquiry-based, protocol-driven science in schools in all 50 states and in 93 countries.


The most interesting research on theways technology can improve what childrenlearn, however, focuses on applications thatcan help students understand core con-cepts in subjects like science, math, and lit-eracy by representing subject matter in lesscomplicated ways. Research has demon-strated that technology can lead to pro-found changes in what children learn. Byusing the computers’ capacity for simula-tion, dynamically linked notations, andinteractivity, ordinary students can achieveextraordinary command of sophisticatedconcepts. Computer-based applications thathave had significant effects on what chil-dren learn in the areas of science, mathe-matics, and the humanities are discussedbelow.

Science: Visualization, Modeling,and SimulationOver the past two decades, researchers havebegun to examine what students actuallylearn in science courses. To their surprise,even high-scoring students at prestigiousuniversities show little ability to provide sci-entific explanations for simple phenomena,such as tossing a ball in the air. This widelyreplicated research shows that although stu-dents may be able to calculate correctlyusing scientific formulas, they often donot understand the concepts behind theformulas.52

Computer-based applications usingvisualization, modeling, and simulationhave been proven to be powerful tools forteaching scientific concepts. The researchliterature abounds with successful applica-tions that have enabled students to masterconcepts usually considered too sophisti-cated for their grade level.53 For example,technology using dynamic diagrams—thatis, pictures that can move in response to arange of input—can help students visual-ize and understand the forces underlyingvarious phenomena. Involving students inmaking sense of computer simulations thatmodel physical phenomena, but defy intu-itive explanations, also has been shown tobe a useful technique. One example of thiswork is ThinkerTools, a simulation pro-gram that allows middle school students tovisualize the concepts of velocity and accel-eration (see Box 5).54 In controlled stud-ies, researchers found that middle schoolstudents who used ThinkerTools devel-oped the ability to give correct scientificexplanations of Newtonian principles sev-eral grade levels before the concept usuallyis taught. Middle school students who par-ticipated in ThinkerTools outperformedhigh school physics students in their abilityto apply the basic principles of Newtonianmechanics to real-world situations: themiddle schoolers averaged 68% correctanswers on a six-item, multiple-choice test,


PHOTO OMITTED


compared with 50% for the high schoolphysics students.55 Researchers concludedthat the use of the ThinkerTools softwareappeared to make science interesting andaccessible to a wider range of studentsthan was possible with more traditionalapproaches.

Other software applications have beenproven successful in helping students masteradvanced concepts underlying a variety ofphenomena. The application Stella enableshigh school students to learn system dynam-ics—the modeling of economic, social, andphysical situations using a set of interactingequations—which is ordinarily an advancedundergraduate course.56 Another softwareapplication uses special versions of Logo, aprogramming language designed especiallyfor children, to help high school studentslearn the concepts that govern bird-flockingand highway traffic patterns, even thoughthe mathematics needed to understandthese concepts is not ordinarily taught untilgraduate-level studies.57 And yet anotherapplication, the Global Exchange curricula,reaches tens of thousands of precollege stu-dents annually with weather map visualiza-tions that enable schoolchildren to reasonlike meteorologists. Research has shown thatstudents using the curricula demonstrateincreases in both their comprehension ofmeteorology and their skill in scientificinquiry.58

Mathematics: Dynamic, LinkedNotations As suggested above, the central challenge ofmathematics education is teaching sophisti-cated concepts to a much broader popula-tion than traditionally has been taught suchmaterial. This challenge is not unique to theUnited States—almost every nation is disap-pointed with the mathematical capabilitiesof their students.59 Not so long ago, simplemerchant mathematics (addition, subtrac-tion, multiplication, and division) sufficedfor almost everyone, but in today’s society,people increasingly are called on to usemathematical skills to reason about uncer-tainty, change, trends in data, and spatialrelations.

While seeking techniques for increasinghow much mathematics students can learn,researchers have found that the move fromtraditional paper-based mathematical nota-tions (such as algebraic symbols) toonscreen notations (including algebraicsymbols, but also graphs, tables, and geo-metric figures) can have a dramatic effect. Incomparison to the use of paper and pencil,which supports only static, isolated nota-tions, use of computers allows for “dynamic,linked notations” with several helpful advan-tages, as described below:60

Students can explore changes rapidly inthe notation by dragging with a mouse, as


ThinkerTools

Students using ThinkerTools view simulated objects on a screen, where they canadjust the settings to better understand the laws of physics. For example, it’s prettyhard to believe that objects in motion stay in motion without the action of anexternal force, when our experiences, such as trying to drag a heavy object, tell usotherwise. It’s even harder to visualize what that force might be and to understandthe difference between, say, a force and a velocity. ThinkerTools, a software appli-cation developed in the 1980s, shows students what they cannot see in the realworld. Simulated objects on the screen move according to the laws of physics (withor without gravity and friction, depending on the settings). The big difference isthat the computer can superimpose arrows representing force, acceleration,and/or velocity, so that for the first time students can actually “see” the equationF = ma. Students can also change these arrows themselves to get a more intuitivesense of forces and motion.

Source: For more information, see Web site at http://thinkertools.berkeley.edu:7019/.

Box 5



opposed to slowly and painstakingly rewrit-ing the changes.

Students can see the effects of changingone notation on another, such as modifyingthe value of a parameter of an equation andseeing how the resulting graph changes itsshape.

Students can easily relate mathematicalsymbols either to data from the real world orto simulations of familiar phenomena,giving the mathematics a greater sense ofmeaning.

Students can receive feedback when theycreate a notation that is incorrect. (Forexample, unlike with paper and pencil, acomputer can beep if a student tries tosketch a nonsensical mathematical functionin a graph, such as one that “loops back” todefine two different y values for the same xvalue.)

Using dynamic, linked notations, theSimCalc Project has shown that computerscan help middle school students in some ofthe most challenging urban settings to learncalculus concepts such as rate, accumula-

tion, limit, and mean value (see Box 6).61

Studies across several different SimCalc fieldsites found that inner-city middle school stu-dents—many of whom ordinarily would beweeded out of mathematics before reachingthis level—were able to surpass the effortsof college students in their understanding offundamental concepts of calculus, based ona SimCalc assessment that stressed concep-tual understanding of calculus, not symboliccomputation. Results of the assessmentshowed that through exposure to SimCalc,inner-city middle school students increasedtheir percentage of correct responses fromonly about 15% to 90% or more in a fewmonths, whereas only 30% to 40% of college-level students answered some of these sameitems correctly. According to researchers,the capacity of computers to enable students

to reason while directly editing dynamicgraphs and related notations is the centralinnovation responsible for this break-through.

Another example of a software applica-tion using screen-based notations isGeometer’s Sketchpad, a tool for exploringgeometric constructions directly onscreen.Such applications are revitalizing the teach-ing of geometry to high school students, andin a few instances, students even have beenable to contribute novel and elegant proofsto the professional mathematical litera-ture.62 Graphing calculators, which arereaching millions of new high school andmiddle school students each year, are lesssophisticated than some of the desktopcomputer-based technologies, but they candisplay algebra, graphs, and tables, andcan show how each of these notations repre-sents the same mathematical object.63

Through the use of such tools, screen-basednotations are enabling an expansion ofmathematical literacy in a growing numberof the nation’s classrooms.

Social Studies, Language, and the ArtsUnlike science and math, breakthroughuses of technology in other subject areashave yet to crystallize into easily identifiedtypes of applications. Nonetheless, innova-tors have shown that similar learning break-throughs in these areas are possible. Forexample, the commercially successfulSimCity game (which is more an interactivesimulation than a traditional video game)has been used to teach students about urbanplanning. Computer-based tools have beendesigned to allow students to choreograph ascene in a Shakespeare play64 or to exploreclassic movies, such as Citizen Kane, frommultiple points of view to increase their abil-ity to consider alternative literary interpreta-tions.65 Through the Perseus Project,students are provided with access to a pio-neering multimedia learning environmentfor exploring hyperlinked documents andcultural artifacts from ancient civilizations.66

Similar software can provide interactivemedia environments for classes in the arts.An emergent theme in many computer-based humanities applications is using tech-nology that allows students to engage in anelement of design, complementing andenhancing the traditional emphasis onappreciation.

Computers can help middle school studentsin some of the most challenging urban settings to learn calculus concepts such asrate, accumulation, limit, and mean value.



Although there are fewer studies on theeffectiveness of technology use in theseother subject areas, one recent study docu-mented the experience of two sixth-gradeclasses participating in a social studies pro-ject on the Spanish colonization of LatinAmerica. The study found that the studentswho used computers to create a multimedia

presentation on what they had learnedscored significantly higher on a posttest,compared with members of the other sixth-grade class that completed a textbook-basedunit on the same topic.67 Another studyexamined the effectiveness of using interac-tive storybooks to develop basic languageskills and found that first graders using the

SimCalc

A group of students is busily learning the basics of calculus. These aren’t collegefreshmen, however, but rather middle school students working with the SimCalcsoftware. Today the students are graphing rates of change. Using a SimCalc anima-tion of a clown walking along a road and software that relates graphs of the motionto the animation itself, the students explore the difference between constant veloc-ity and constant acceleration. Initially, students are confused by how a velocity graphfor the clown can be represented by a flat line. Soon, however, they begin to explorethe differences between a graph of position and a graph of velocity in the onlinesimulation.

Source: For more information, see Web site at http://www.simcalc.umassd.edu.

Box 6

Reprinted courtesy of Kaput, J. SimCalc MathWorlds. Computer software. Dartmouth, MA: University of Massachusetts,1996. Supported by the National Science Foundation, Award no. REC-9353507 and REC-9619102. Available athttp://www.simcalc.umassd.edu.


technology-based system demonstrated sig-nificantly greater gains compared with thosereceiving only traditional instruction.68

In one innovative project, elementaryand middle school children alternatebetween playing musical instruments,singing, and programming music on thecomputer using Tuneblocks, a musical ver-sion of the Logo programming language.69

Compelling case studies show how using thissoftware enables ordinary children to learnabstract musical concepts like phrase, figure,and meter—concepts normally taught incollege music theory classes. In anotherexample, a tool called Hypergami enablesart students to plan complicated mathemati-cal sculptures in paper.70 Experiences withHypergami have produced significant gainsin boys’ and girls’ performance on the spa-tial reasoning sections of the SAT.71

The Challenges ofImplementationThe preceding overview provides only aglimpse of the many computer-based appli-cations that can enhance learning. Butsimply installing computers and Internetaccess in schools will not be sufficient toreplicate these examples for large numbersof learners. Models of successful technologyuse combine the introduction of computer

tools with new instructional approaches andnew organizational structures. Because theAmerican educational system is somewhatlike an interlocking jigsaw puzzle,72 efforts tochange one piece of the puzzle—such asusing technology to support a different kindof content and instructional approach—aremore likely to be successful if the surround-ing pieces of teacher development, curricu-lum, assessment, and the school’s capacityfor reform are changed as well. Each ofthese organizational change factors is exam-ined briefly below.

Teacher SupportEffective use of computers in the classroomrequires increased opportunities for teach-ers to learn how to use the technology.Studies show that a teacher’s ability to helpstudents depends on a mastery of the struc-ture of the knowledge in the domain to betaught.73 Teaching with technology is no dif-ferent in this regard. Numerous literaturesurveys link student technology achievementto teachers’ opportunities to develop theirown computer skills.74 Yet teachers com-monly are required to devote almost all oftheir time to solo preparation and perfor-mance, with little time available for trainingin the use of technology.75

Technology itself, however, is proving tobe a powerful tool in helping teachers


PHOTO OMITTED


bridge the gap in training on effective use ofcomputers.14 By networking with mentorsand other teachers electronically, teacherscan overcome the isolation of the classroom,share insights and resources, support oneanother’s efforts, and engage in collabora-tive projects with similarly motivated teach-ers. Teachers also gain valuable experienceby using computers for their own needs.

Teachers who succeed in using technol-ogy often make substantial changes in theirteaching style and in the curriculum theyuse. However, making such changes is diffi-cult without appropriate support and com-mitment from school administration.

Curriculum ModernizationThe type of curriculum a school adopts hasa significant impact in determining theextent to which computer-based technolo-gies can be integrated effectively into theclassroom. On the one hand, many parentsand educators believe that students shouldmaster basic skills before they are exposed tochallenging content, and computer technol-ogy can be used to support a curriculumwith this emphasis through drill-and-practiceapplications. On the other hand, manylearning researchers argue that the mosteffective way of promoting learning is toembed basic skills instruction within morecomplex tasks. They advocate adopting acurriculum that teaches the higher-orderskills of reasoning, comprehension, anddesign in tandem with the basic skills of com-putation, word decoding, and languagemechanics.76 Because computer technologyhas been most effective when used to supportthe learning of these more complex skills andconcepts, computer-based technology can beintegrated most effectively into a curriculumthat embraces this tandem approach.

National associations and research insti-tutions have called for challenging contentto prepare students for the twenty-first cen-tury.77 To date, some progress has beenmade in setting more challenging goals innational standards and state curriculumframework documents, especially in the areasof science and mathematics. The NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics K–12standards often are cited as an example of asensible and widely implemented set ofgoals,78 and many experiments with technol-ogy are now oriented toward helping meet

these standards. Progress also has beenmade in setting more challenging goals forscience learning,3 but less progress has beenmade in updating goals in other subjectareas. Strategies for effective, broad-scaleadoption of particular technologies aredependent on progress in adopting morechallenging national and statewide goals bycommunity stakeholders, including teachers,parents, school boards, and administrators.

Student Assessment andEvaluationOne of the biggest barriers to introducingeffective technology applications in class-rooms is the heavy focus on student perfor-mance on district- or state-mandatedassessments and the mismatch between thecontent of those assessments and the kindsof higher-order learning supported mosteffectively by technology.79 This mismatchleads to less time available for higher-order

instruction and less appreciation of theimpact technology can have on learning.Time spent preparing students to do well onnumerical calculation tests, vocabulary, orEnglish mechanics cannot be spent onlearning about acceleration, the mathemat-ics of change, or the structure ofShakespeare’s plays. Moreover, it will be dif-ficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate thecontribution of technologies in developingstudents’ abilities to reason and understandconcepts in depth without new kinds ofassessments. As noted earlier, comparedwith peers who learned algebra throughconventional methods, urban high schoolstudents using a computer-based algebratutor system performed much better on teststhat stressed their ability to think creativelyabout a complex problem over a longer timeperiod, but showed only a small advantageon standardized tests that do not adequatelymeasure such higher-order thinkingskills.45,80 Although it is challenging to


One of the biggest barriers to introducingeffective technology applications in classrooms is the mismatch between the content of assessments and the kinds ofhigher-order learning supported most effectively by technology.


develop ways to measure student under-standing of complex concepts and higher-order thinking skills, current research onthe effectiveness of selected computer-basedapplications may provide strategies thatcould be considered for adoption in futureeducational assessment frameworks.81

Capacity for ChangeSystematic studies of schools that haveimplemented educational reforms provideuseful information about the organizationaldynamics of significant change and the rolecomputer technology can play in thisprocess. In a series of cross-sectional casestudies conducted in 1995, several key fac-tors associated with effective use of technol-ogy in schools were identified:82

Technology access and technical support;

Instructional vision and a rationale linkingthe vision to technology use;

Critical mass of teachers in technologyactivities;

High degree of collaboration amongteachers;

Strong leaders; and

Support for teacher time for planning, col-laboration, and reporting technology use.

These findings were echoed morerecently in a 1998 survey of more than 4,000teachers, who identified these key factorsaffecting school computer use: (1) locationand number of computers available to aclass, (2) teacher computer expertise, (3)teacher philosophy and objectives, and (4)school culture (see the article by Becker inthis journal issue).

Specifically, this survey found thatInternet use is more common in schoolswhere teachers talk to their colleagues andhave the opportunity to visit each other’s

classrooms.83 In fact, such teacher-to-teacherinteraction was more strongly associated withInternet use than was participation in train-ing on how to use the Internet. These studiessuggest that the relationship between tech-nology use and education reform is recipro-cal: although technology use helps supportschool change, school change efforts alsohelp support effective use of technology.84

Conclusions and PolicyImplicationsUsing technology to improve education isnot a simple matter. There are many kinds oftechnology and many ways that anattempted use can fail. From a policy per-spective, it would be desirable to have clearand broadly generalizable measures of effec-tiveness before committing to continualinvestments in technology. Such data mighttake the form “for every x% of a schoolbudget reallocated to technology, studentlearning will improve by y%.” Unfortunately,the existing research falls short of providingsuch clear measures of effectiveness. Even so,many policymakers, parents, and educatorsare rapidly moving ahead to introduce com-puters into the classroom. The challenge isto ensure this technology is used effectivelyto enhance how and what children learn.

To help inform future decisions aboutimproving how and what students learn, fur-ther explorations of effective use of technol-ogy are needed. The continuum ofexplorations for educational improvementstretches from basic research on learningwith technology to applied research lookingat the classroom practicalities of improvingteaching when technology is a component.These explorations, whether carried out byschools, individual teachers, universityresearchers, or others, should be executedwith a reflective research component so thatthe knowledge gained can add to the ratio-nal basis used for making effective decisions.Four factors can be used to guide thesefuture explorations:

Cognitive learning. Much more is cur-rently known about how children learn thanwas known a century ago. Technology appli-cations selected for future research shouldengage the cognitive characteristics of learn-ing as a constructive, collaborative, interac-tive, contextualized process.


To help inform future decisions aboutimproving how and what students learn, further explorations of effective use of technology are needed.


Curricular reforms. Given the societal pres-sure for individuals to know more than everbefore, it is particularly important to exploretechnology adopted in tandem with curricu-lar reforms that make complex subjectmatter accessible to a higher percentage ofchildren.

Coordinated interventions. Successful imple-mentation of technology requires a contextof coordinated interventions to improve cur-ricula, assessment, teacher development,and all the other pieces of the educationjigsaw puzzle. Explorations of technologyimplementations should focus on schoolsthat are striving to have all these pieces ofthe puzzle in place.

Capacity for change. Today’s schools are notall equally prepared to accept technologyand use it to improve student learning. For

improvements that include technology totake hold, schools need to develop theircapacity for change with appropriateresources and processes that enable all theinvolved parties to manage the challengingtransition. Thus, effective uses of technologyshould be explored in schools that are wellprepared for change.

To maximize the effectiveness of com-puter technology as a tool to enhancelearning in the classroom, education policy-makers must incorporate technology selec-tively into educational reform as part of anoverall program for improvement and con-tinue to study its progress and results toimprove efforts over time. Using the fourfactors outlined here, research can helptarget initial applications of technology thatare most likely to improve learning withinoverall programs of experimental reform.


1. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The condition of education 1996. Supplemental table 29-6. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1996. Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsold/ce96/c9629d06.html.

2. Resnick, D.P., and Resnick, L.B. The nature of literacy: A historical exploration. HarvardEducational Review (1977) 457:370–85; Wolf, D.P. Becoming literate. Academic Connections: The College Board (1988) 1:4.

3. National Research Council. National science education standards. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press, 1996.

4. For example, see the report from the President’s Information Technology AdvisoryCommittee. Information technology research: Investing in our future. Arlington, VA: NationalCoordination Office for Computing, Information, and Communication, February 1999.Available online at http://www.ccic.gov/ac/report/.

5. Kaput, J., and Roschelle, J. The mathematics of change and variation from a millennial perspective: New content, new context. In Rethinking the mathematics curriculum. C. Hoyles, C. Morgan, and G. Woodhouse, eds. London: Falmer Press, 1998.

6. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Technology and the new professionalteacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Washington, DC: NCATE, 1997. Available onlineat http://www.ncate.org/accred/projects/tech/tech-21.htm; U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics. Advanced telecommunications in U.S. public elementaryand secondary schools, Fall 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, February1997. Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/97944.html; U.S. Department ofEducation, National Center for Education Statistics. Internet access in public schools, issue brief.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, February 1998. Available online athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98031.html; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, April 1995; President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel ofEducational Technology. Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K–12 educationin the United States. Washington, DC: PCAST, Executive Office of the President of the UnitedStates, March 1997. Available online athttp://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k-12ed.html.

7. Cuban, L. Teachers and machines: The classroom uses of technology since 1920. New York: TeachersCollege Press, 1986; see also Tyack, D., and Cuban, L. Tinkering toward utopia: A century ofpublic school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.

8. White House Publications Service. From digital divide to digital opportunity: A strong record of working to close the digital divide. February 2, 2000. Available online athttp://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/digitaldivide/index.html.


9. See note no. 6, President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology.

10. Sivin-Kachala, J., and Bialo, E.R. 1999 research report on the effectiveness of technology in schools. 6th ed. Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association, 1999.

11. Schacter, J. The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current researchhas to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology, 1999.

12. Wenglinsky, H. Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achieve-ment in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1998.

13. Kulik, J.A. Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994.

14. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R., eds. How people learn: Brain, mind, experienceand school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.

15. Greeno, J., Collins, A., and Resnick, L.B. Cognition and learning. In Handbook of educationalpsychology. D.C. Berliner and R.C. Calfee, eds. New York: Macmillan Library Reference, 1996.

16. This phenomenon is often referred to as the “transfer problem.” See Bransford, J.D., andSchwartz, D.L. Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with interesting implications. In Reviewof research in education, 24. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association,1999.

17. Gardner, H. Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books, 1993.

18. Learning has been conceptualized by various education theoreticians primarily as problemsolving. See, for example, Newell, A., and Simon, H.A. Human problem solving. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972; as inquiry, see, for example, Dewey, J. The child and the curriculum. In The philosophy of John Dewey, Vol. II: The lived experience. J.J. McDermott, ed. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1902, pp. 467–83; as sense-making see, for example, Piaget, J.Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton, 1962; as intellectual socializingsee, for example, Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1978; and as design see, for example, Perkins, D.N. Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986.

19. Bruer, J. Schools for thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.

20. Svec, M.T. Effect of microcomputer-based laboratory on students’ graphing interpretationskills and conceptual understanding of motion. Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University,Bloomington, IN, Department of Education, June 1994; Thornton, R.K., and Sokoloff, D.R.Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. AmericanJournal of Physics (1990) 58:858–66.

21. Mokros, J.R., and Tinker, R.F. The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s abilityto interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching (1987) 24:369–83.

22. Nachmias, R., and Linn, M.C. Evaluations of science laboratory data: The role of computer-presented information. Journal of Research in Science Teaching (1987) 24:491–506. Students participating in MBLs showed significant gains in their ability to discern errors in graphsbecause of the graph scale and experimental variation, no gains in ability to discern errorsbecause of probe setup and calibration, and declines in their ability to discern errors becauseof probe sensitivity.

23. Liu, M., and Rutledge, K. The effect of a “learner as multimedia designer” environment on at-risk high school students’ motivation and learning of design knowledge. Journal ofEducational Computing Research (1997) 16:145–77; Liu, M. A study of engaging high-school students as multimedia designers in a cognitive apprenticeship-style learning environment.Computers in Human Behavior (August 1998) 14:387–415. See note no. 10, Sivin-Kachala andBialo, pp. 69–70, for a summary of these studies.

24. See note no. 18, Vygotsky. See also Newman, D., Griffin, P., and Cole, M. The construction zone:Working for cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989; Rogoff, B.Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1990.

25. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York:Cambridge University Press, 1991.

26. Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., et al. Learning networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.

27. Goldman, S.R., Petrosino, A.J., Sherwood, R.D., et al. Anchoring science in multimedia learning environments. In International perspectives on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments. S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, and H. Mandl, eds. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996. For a systematic analysis of distributed multimedia



learning environments, see Pea, R.D., and Gomez, L. Distributed multimedia learning environments: Why and how? Interactive Learning Environments (1992) 2:73–109.

28. CSILE was started by Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter at the Ontario Institute forStudies of Education. This technology, originally developed in a research setting, is now partof a national Canadian initiative called Telelearning Centres of Excellence, which will commercialize and disseminate the technology. See Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean,R.S., et al. Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of EducationalComputing Research (1989) 5:51–68; Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C. Computer support forknowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences (1994) 3:265–83.

29. Gains have also been found for students participating in CSILE projects at the university level.See, for example, Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C. Technologies for knowledge-building discourse. Communications of the ACM (1993) 36:37–41; Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C.Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In CSCL: Theory and practice of anemerging paradigm. T. Koschmann, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.

30. Bryson, M., and Scardamalia, M. Teaching writing to students at risk for academic failure. InTeaching advanced skills to at-risk students: Views from research and practice. B. Means, C. Chelemer,and M.S. Knapp, eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991, pp. 141–67.

31. Riel, M. Learning circles: A functional analysis of educational telecomputing. InteractiveLearning Environments (1992) 2:15–30.

32. Hoadley, C.M., Hsi, S., and Berman, B.P. The Multimedia Forum Kiosk and SpeakEasy. InProceedings of ACM Multimedia ’95. New York: ACM Press, 1995.

33. Hsi, S., and Hoadley, C.M. Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronicdiscourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology (1997) 6:23–36.

34. Schank, P., Ranney, M., Hoadley, C.M., et al. A reasoner’s workbench for improving scientific thinking: Assessing Convince Me. In Proceedings of the 1994 International Symposium onMathematics/Science Education and Technology. G.H. Marks, ed. Charlottesville, VA: AACE, 1994;see also Suthers, D., Toth, E.E., and Weiner, A. An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer SupportedCollaborative Learning 1997. Toronto, Ontario: CSCL, December 10–14, 1997.

35. Weir, S. Electronic communities of learners: Fact or fiction. TERC Working Paper 3-92. Cambridge,MA: TERC Communications, January 1992.

36. Pimm D. Speaking mathematically—communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge,1987.

37. Anderson, J.R. The architecture of cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.

38. Schofield, J.W. Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

39. Anderson, J.R., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K., et al. Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences (1995) 4:167–207.

40. See note no. 10, Sivin-Kachala and Bialo, pp. 31–33.

41. Clark, H.C. Cyber-coaching in computer as learning partner. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York, April 8–12, 1996.

42. Studies indicate, however, that the success of feedback programs is linked to telling studentswhy their answers are wrong, not just what answers are wrong. See note no. 10, Sivin-Kachalaand Bialo, pp. 31–33.

43. Hunt, E., and Minstrell, J. A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In Classroom lessons:Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. K. McGilly, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1994, pp. 51–74.

44. Wertheimer, R. The geometry proof tutor: An “intelligent” computer-based tutor in the classroom. Mathematics Teacher (1990) 83:308–17.

45. Koedinger, K.R., Anderson, J.R., Hadley, W.H., et al. Intelligent tutoring goes to school in thebig city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (1997) 8:30–43.

46. Gore, A. Earth in the balance: Ecology and the human spirit. New York: Plume, 1992.

47. NOAA National Geophysical Data Center. GLOBE year 3 evaluation. 1999. Available online athttp://www.globe.gov/sda-bin/wt/ghp/y3eval+L(en).

48. For more information, see the Global Lab Curriculum Web site at http://globallab.terc.edu/.

49. For more information, see the Jason Project Web site at http://www.jasonproject.org/.

50. For more information, see the KidSat Web site at http://kidsat.JPL.NASA.GOV/.



51. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In Handbook of educationalpsychology. D.C. Berliner and R.C. Calfee, eds. New York: Macmillan Library Reference, 1996;see also Barron, B.J., Schwartz, D.L., Vye, N.J., et al. Doing with understanding: Lessons fromresearch on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of Learning Sciences (1998)7:271–311.

52. Smith, J.P., diSessa, A.A., and Roschelle, J. Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences (1993) 3:115–63.

53. Gordin, D., and Pea, R.D. Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology.The Journal of the Learning Sciences (1995) 4:249–79.

54. White, B.Y. ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education.Cognition and Instruction (1993) 10:1–100. Interactive Physics is a commercial product thatworks along similar lines; it is used by professional physicists as both a teaching tool and tosimulate real-world physics problems.

55. White, B.Y., and Fredriksen, J.R. Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction (1998) 16:63, 90–91.

56. Doerr, H.M. Stella ten years later: A review of the literature. International Journal of Computersfor Mathematical Learning (1996) 1:201–24.

57. Resnick, M. Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds.Complex Adaptive Systems series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.

58. Pea, R.D., Gomez, L.M., Edelson, D.C., et al. Science education as a driver of cyberspace technology development. In Internet links for science education. K.C. Cohen, ed. New York:Plenum Press, 1997, pp. 189–220; see also Songer, N.B. Exploring learning opportunities incoordinated network-enhanced classrooms: A case of kids as global scientists. Journal of theLearning Sciences (1996) 5:297–327.

59. Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., Valverde, G.A., et al. Many visions, many aims: A cross-nationalinvestigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Vol. 1, Third International Mathematicsand Science Study. Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.

60. Kaput, J. Technology and mathematics education. In A handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. D. Grouws, ed. New York: MacMillan, 1992, pp. 515–56.

61. Roschelle, J., and Kaput, J. SimCalc MathWorlds for the mathematics of change.Communications of the ACM (1996) 39:97–99.

62. Jackiw, N. The geometer’s sketchpad. Computer software. Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum Press,1988–2000. This software, available in various versions, aids in the teaching and study ofgeometry. For more information, see Web site at http://www.keypress.com.

63. The Heller Reports. The state of Virginia purchases graphing calculators for all algebra students. The Heller Report on Educational Technology Markets (January 1998).

64. Friedlander, L. The Shakespeare project: Experiments in multimedia education. InHypermedia and literary studies. G. Landow and P. Delany, eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1991, pp. 257–71.

65. Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., et al. Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structureddomains. In Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. T.M. Duffy and D.H.Jonassen, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992, pp. 57–75.

66. Crane, G. Building a digital library: The Perseus Project as a case study in the humanities. InDigital libraries 1996: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international conference on digital libraries. E.A. Foxand G. Marchionini, eds. New York: ACM, 1996, pp. 3–10. Available online athttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu.

67. Ferretti, R.P., and Okolo, C.M. Designing multimedia projects in the social studies: Effects onstudents’ content knowledge and attitudes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association. Chicago, March 1997. See note no. 10, Sivin-Kachala and Bialo, p. 18, for a summary.

68. Schultz, L.H. Pilot validation study of the Scholastic Beginning Literacy System (WiggleWorks) 1994–95 midyear report. Unpublished paper. February 1995. See note no. 10, Sivin-Kachala and Bialo, p. 8, for a summary.

69. Bamberger, J. The mind behind the ear: How children develop musical intelligence. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1991.



70. Eisenberg, M., and Nishioka, A. Orihedra: Mathematical sculptures in paper. InternationalJournal of Computers for Mathematical Learning (1997) 1:225–61.

71. McClurg, P., Lee, J., Shavalier, M., and Jacobsen, K. Exploring children’s spatial visual thinking in an HyperGami environment. In VisionQuest: Journeys toward visual literacy. Selectedreadings from the 28th Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association. ERIC no.ED408976. Washington, DC: Educational Resources Information Center, January 1997.

72. David, J. Realizing the promise of technology. In Technology and education reform. B. Means, ed.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 169–80.

73. Shulman, L.S. Knowledge and teaching foundations of the new reform. Harvard EducationReview (1987) 57:1–22; see also Stodolsky, S. The subject matters: Classroom activity in math andsocial studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

74. See note no. 6, President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology; see also noteno. 14, Bransford, Brown, and Cocking.

75. Corcoran, T.B. Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policymakers.Washington, DC: National Governors Association, 1995.

76. Resnick, L.B. Instruction and the cultivation of thinking. In Handbook of educational ideas andpractice. J. Entwistle, ed. London: Routledge, 1990, pp. 694–707.

77. Learning First Alliance. Learning First Alliance goals. 1999. Available online athttp://www.learningfirst.org/. The Learning First Alliance member organizations include theAmerican Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Association of SchoolAdministrators, American Federation of Teachers, Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development, Council of Chief State School Officers, Education Commission ofthe States, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association ofSecondary School Principals, National Association of State Boards of Education, NationalEducation Association, National Parent Teacher Association, and National School BoardsAssociation.

78. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and evaluation standards for schoolmathematics. Washington, DC: NCTM, 1989.

79. Means, B. Models and prospects for bringing technology-supported educational reform toscale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation. San Diego, April 1998.

80. Koedinger, K.R., and Sueker, E.L.F. PAT goes to college: Evaluating a cognitive tutor for developmental mathematics. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the LearningSciences. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education,1996, pp. 180–87.

81. Center for Innovative Learning Technologies. Technology supports for improved assessments.Manuscript commissioned by the National Education Association. In press.

82. Means, B., and Olson, K. Technology’s role in education reform: Findings from a national study ofinnovating schools. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 1995.

83. Becker, H.J. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 survey. Available online athttp://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/html/tlc_home.html.

84. Means, B. Introduction: Using technology to advance educational goals. In Technology and education reform. B. Means, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 1–21.

(Table 1 follows on pp. 98-101.)




Study Participants Design and Methods Findings

Baker, E.L., Gearhart, M., and First through Series of evaluation studies over a ■ Apple Computers ofHerman, J.L. Evaluating the twelfth graders three-year period. Students and Tomorrow (ACOT) hadApple classrooms of tomorrow. teachers were given Apple com- a positive impact onTechnology assessment in puters in the classroom and at student attitudes.education and training. home. Comparison groups in ■ Overall,ACOT studentsHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence neighboring areas were chosen. did not perform betterErlbaum Associates, 1994. Study conducted in five school on standardized tests.

sites located in California, Ohio,Minnesota, and Tennessee.

Bangert-Drowns, R.L. The Elementary school Meta-analysis based on ■ Small effect on improvementword processor as an age through 32 comparative studies of writing skills.instructional tool: A meta- college age measuring posttreatment ■ Studies that focused onanalysis of word processing performance criteria such as word processing in thein writing instruction. Review quality of writing, number context of remedial writingof Educational Research of words, attitude toward yielded a larger effect.(1993) 63:63–93. writing, adherence to writing

conventions, and frequencyof revision.

Clements, D.H. Enhancement 73 third graders— Pretest, posttest design over ■ Children who worked withof creativity in computer (mean age 8 years, a 25-week period. Children Logo had increased figuralenvironments. American 8 months) matched on creativity and (nonverbal) creativity.Educational Research Journal achievement were assigned ■ Both Logo and non-(1991) 28:173–87. to (1) Logo software, (2) noncomputer activities

computer creativity training, increased children’sor (3) control. Study took place verbal creativity.in New York.

Elliott,A., and Hall, N. The 54 prekindergarten Children were placed into ■ Students in both groups thatimpact of self-regulatory students who were three groups. Two used used computer-basedteaching strategies on “at-risk” identified as at risk computer-based math activities scored significantlypreschoolers’ mathematical of early learning activities and the third higher on the Testlearning in a computer difficulties participated in noncomputer- of Early Mathematicalmediated environment. based math activities (and Ability—TEMA 2.Journal of Computing used computers for otherin Childhood Education areas). Study took place(1997) 8:187–98. in Australia.

Fletcher, J.D., Hawley, D.E., and Third and fifth Students at grade level ■ At both grade levels, studentsPiele, P.K. Costs, effects, graders received either computer- receiving CAI scored higherand utility of microcomputer- assisted instruction (CAI) or on a test of basic mathassisted instruction in the traditional math instruction skills than those who received classroom. Paper presented for 71 days. traditional instruction only.at the 7th InternationalConference on Technologyand Education. Brussels,Belgium, 1999.

Fletcher-Flinn, C.M., and Students from Meta-analysis of 120 studies ■ No significant differences inGravatt, B. The efficacy of kindergarten conducted between 1987 and study results for any of thecomputer assisted instruction through higher 1992. Looked at a range of factors.(CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal education factors including educational ■ Gains in proficiency linkedof Educational Computing level,course content,publication with only one factor: theResearch (1995) 12:219–42. year, duration of study, same quality of CAI materials.

or different teacher for thecontrol group, and type of CAI.

Table 1

Major Studies on the Effectiveness of Computers as Learning Tools




Foster, K., Erickson, G., Foster, D., Prekindergarten Pretest, posttest design. ■ In two different studies andet al. Computer-administered and kindergarten Children randomly assigned to five different measures ofinstruction in phonological children; 25 in first experimental group or control phonological awareness, theawareness: Evaluation of the study; 70 in second group. Experimental group computer-based approachDaisy Quest program. study received 16 to 20 sessions with was found to be moreUnpublished paper. DaisyQuest—a computerized effective than regular

program designed to instruction.increase phonologicalawareness.

Gardner, C.M., Simmons, P.E., Third graders Comparative study of three ■ Children who had hands-onand Simpson, R.D. The effects of groups in Georgia. First with software outperformedCAI and hands-on activities on group received hands-on those who had hands-onelementary students’ attitudes meteorology activities without software.and weather knowledge. combined with software; ■ Both groups scored higherSchool Science and second group received than those who hadMathematics (1992) 92: hands-on activities without traditional instruction.334–36. software; and third group

received traditionalclassroom instruction.

Kulik, J.A. Meta-analytic studies Students from Meta-analysis of more than 500 ■ Students who usedof findings on computer-based kindergarten individual studies of computer- computer-based instructioninstruction. In Technology through higher based instruction. scored higher onassessment in education education achievement tests, learnedand training. Hillsdale, NJ: in less time, and wereLawrence Erlbaum more likely to developAssociates, 1994. positive attitudes.

Kulik, C., and Kulik, J.A. Students from Meta-analysis of 254 controlled- ■ Computer-based instructionEffectiveness of computer- kindergarten evaluation studies. had a “moderate butbased instruction: An updated through higher significant” effect onanalysis. Computers in education achievement.Human Behavior (1991)7:75–94.

Lazarowitz, R., and Huppert, J. High school students Pretest, posttest design ■ Experimental group achievedScience process skills of 10th over four weeks in five biology higher mean score on thegrade biology students in a classes in Israel. The experimental posttest.computer-assisted learning group received classroom ■ No significant differencessetting. Journal of Research on laboratory instruction that between the groups byComputing in Education (1993) included use of a software gender.25:366–82. program.The control group

received classroominstruction only.

Mann, D., Shakesshaft, C., Representative Study of students who used ■ The more studentsBecker, J., et al. West Virginia’s sample of 950 fifth- Basic Skills/Computer Education participated in the program,Basic Skills/Computer grade students from program in West Virginia. the more their test scores Education program: An 18 elementary Several variables were analyzed, improved.analysis of achievement. schools including intensity of use, prior ■ Consistent access, positiveSanta Monica, CA: Milken achievement sociodemography, attitudes toward theFamily Foundation, 1999. teacher training, and teacher equipment, and teacher

and student attitudes. training in the technology ledto the greatest achievementgains.

Table 1 (continued)





Mayfield-Stewart, C., Morre, P., At-risk, inner-city Children exposed to a ■ Study group showed superiorSharp, D., et al. Evaluation of kindergartners multimedia environment gains in auditory skills andmultimedia instruction on (Multimedia Environments that language skills, were ablelearning and transfer. Paper Organize and Support Text) for to tell stories better, andpresented at the Annual language development for showed better use of tense.Conference of the American three months were comparedEducation Research. with children in a conventionalNew Orleans, 1994. kindergarten classroom.

Nastasi, B.K., Clements, D.H., 12 fourth graders Pretest, posttest design over ■ Logo activities resulted inand Battista, M.T. Social- and 28 sixth 22 weeks. Pairs of students higher achievement incognitive interactions, graders were randomly assigned to metacognitive processing.motivation, and cognitive either Logo activities or CAI ■ Research suggests that Logogrowth in Logo programming problem-solving programs may foster cognitive growthand CAI problem-solving to investigate whether through opportunities forenvironments. Journal of children exhibited differing resolving cognitive conflictEducational Psychology amounts of behaviors and may enhance(1990) 82:150–58. indicative of cooperative effectance motivation.

interaction, conflict resolution,effectance motivation, andself-evaluation.

Nastasi, B.K., and Clements, 48 third graders Pretest, posttest design. ■ Results suggest thatD.H. Effectance motivation, working in pairs Participants randomly assigned evaluation of success wasperceived scholastic to either Logo or curriculum- internally determined in thecompetence, and higher-order based instruction in writing to Logo environment, thoughthinking in two cooperative examine whether qualitatively students still sought externalcomputer environments. distinct computer environments approval.Journal of Educational engender social experiences ■ Logo enhanced effectancePsychology (1994) 10:249–75. that enhance motivation motivation and higher-order

for learning. thinking.

Raghavan, K., Sartoris, M.L., 110 sixth graders Eight-week curriculum to teach ■ Computer-based programand Glaser, R. The impact of (50 boys and 60 girls) students in Pennsylvania increased students’ reasoningmodel-centered instruction concepts of area and volume skills.on student learning: The area using a computer-based ■ The sixth-grade studentsand volume units. Journal of program in addition to traditional scored better overall thanComputers in Mathematics instruction.At the end of the the eighth-grade students,and Science Teaching (1997) course, students were tested and especially on more complex16:363–404. their scores compared with problems.

eighth graders who had receivedtraditional instruction only.

Ryan,A.W. Meta-analysis of Elementary school- Meta-analysis of comparative ■ Amount of technology-achievement effects of children (grades studies.Variables analyzed related teacher trainingmicrocomputer applications K–6); each study included characteristics of significantly related toin elementary schools. with a sample size students, teachers, physical achievement of students.Educational Administration of at least 40 settings, and instructionalQuarterly (1991) 27:161–84. formats.

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Fifth and sixth Students worked with a ■ Independent thinking,McLean, R., et al. Computer- graders collaborative computer student reflection,supported intentional learning application, Computer and progressive thoughtenvironments. Journal of Supported Intentional Learning were maximized by CSILE.Educational Computing Environment (CSILE), daily forResearch (1989) 5:51–68. almost eight months.

Table 1 (continued)





Schultz, L.H. Pilot validation First graders Three-month study in two sub- ■ Study group demonstratedstudy of the Scholastic urban systems (California and an increase in basicBeginning Literacy System Massachussetts) and one urban language skills.(Wiggle Works) 1994–95 mid- system (Massachussetts), in whichyear report. Unpublished the study group used interactivepaper. February 1995. storybooks in addition to

traditional instruction to supportreading, writing, speaking,and listening; control group receivedtraditional instruction only.

Stone,T.T. III. The academic 114 second graders Students the same age, same ■ Children who used CAIimpact of classroom computer socioeconomic status, and using since kindergarten achievedusage upon middle-class the same curriculum were a significant improvementprimary grade level elementary compared across two schools in vocabulary, reading,school children. Ph.D. disser- in the same district. One spelling, and math problem-tation, 1996.Abstract in group used computer-assisted solving achievement.Dissertation Abstracts instruction (CAI), one did not.International: 57/06-A.

Wenglinsky,H.Does it compute? Fourth and eighth National assessment of the ■ Students who used theThe relationship between graders effects of simulation and higher- software showed gains ineducational technology and order thinking technologies on math level.student achievement in math achievement.Data ■ Students whose teachersmathematics.Princeton,NJ: analyzed controlling for received training showedEducational Testing Service, socioeconomic status,class size, gains in math scores.1998. and teacher characteristics.

Table 1 (continued)


The information provided in this table was compiled by Eva Bosch, program assistant, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. It is included here as a starting point forfurther reading, but is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the literature.

changing how and what children learn in school with ...web.stanford.edu/~roypea/roypdf...

Documents