K. Swan, A. Kratcoski, M. van’t Hooft, D. Campbell, and D. Miller
[1] J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, & R.R. Cocking, How peoplelearn: Brain, mind, experience and school (Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1999). [2] B.K. Martens, T.A. Bradley, & T.L. Eckert, Effects of reinforcement history and instructions on the persistence of student engagement, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30 (3), 1997, 569–572. doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-569 [3] R.L. Bangert-Drowns & C. Pyke, A taxonomy of studentengagement with educational software: An exploration ofliterate thinking with electronic text, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24 (3), 2001, 213–234. doi:10.2190/0CKM-FKTR-0CPF-JLGR [4] P. Pintrich & E.V. De Groot, Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 1990, 33–40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 [5] D.I. Cordova & M.R. Lepper, Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (4), 1996, 715–730. [6] R. Jacques, J. Preece, & T. Carey, Engagement as a design concept for multimedia, Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24 (1), 1995, 49–59. [7] B.F. Skinner & M.J. Belmont, Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year, Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 1993, 571–581. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571 [8] T.W. Malone & M.R. Lepper, Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning, in R.E. Snow & M.J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction, Volume 3: Conative and affective process analyses (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1987), 223–253. [9] N. Shin, C. Norris, & E. Soloway, Findings from early research on one-to-one handheld use in K-12 education, in M. van’t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing: Invisible technology, visible impact (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2007), 19–39. [10] P. Vahey & V. Crawford, Palm Education Pioneer program: Final evaluation report (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2002). [11] C.C. Bonwell & J.A. Eison, Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (Washington, DC: George Washington University, 1991). [12] U. Hedestig & V. Kaptelinin, Recontextualizing of teaching and learning in video-conference based environments: An empirical study, Proc. 2002 CSCL Conf., 2002. Available online at http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/217.html [13] A. Trueman, InterWrite Schoolpads take technology to anew level, THE Journal, 32 (1), 2004. Available online athttp://thejournal.com/articles/16879 [14] R.H. Hall, H.L. Collier, M.L. Thomas, & M.G. Hilgers, A student response system for increasing engagement, motivation, and learning in high enrollment lectures, Proc. Eleventh Americas Conf. on Information Systems, Omaha, NE, 2005, 1–7. [15] G.E. Kennedy & Q.I. Cutts, The association between students’ use of an electronic voting system and learning outcomes, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (4), 2005, 260–268. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00133.x [16] J. Roschelle, A.L. Abrahamson, & W.R. Penuel, CATAALYST: Towards scientific studies of the strategic integration of learning theory and classroom network technology to improve teaching and learning (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2003). [17] W.R. Penuel, V. Crawford, C.K. Boscardin, K. Masyn et al., Teaching with student response system technology (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2005). [18] W.R. Penuel, E. Lynn, & L. Berger, Classroom assessment with handheld computers, in M. van’t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing: Invisible technology, visible impact (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2007), 103–125. [19] P.C. Schlechty, Shaking up the schoolhouse (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001). [20] P.C. Schlechty, Working on the work: An action plan for teachers, principals, and superintendents (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2002).
Important Links:
Go Back
