2 authors: Gina Biancarosa University of Oregon 49
Yüklə 0,95 Mb.
|
|
International Journal of the Book 7 (www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1411.html).
Bridget Dalton and C. Patrick Proctor, “Reading as Thinking: Integrating Strategy Instruction in a Universally Designed Digital Literacy Environment,” in Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies, edited by Danielle S. McNamara (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 2007), pp. 423–42; Bridget Dalton and Nicole Strangman, “Improving Struggling Readers’ Comprehension through Scaffolded Hypertexts and Other Computer-Based Literacy Programs,” in International Handbook of Literacy and Technology, vol. 2, edited by McKenna and others, pp. 75–92; Daniel S. McNamara and others, “Evaluating Self-Explanations in iSTART: Comparing Word-Based and LSA Algorithms,” in Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis, edited by Thomas Landauer and others (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 2007), pp. 227–41; Danielle S. McNamara and others, “iSTART: Interactive Strategy Training for Active Reading and Thinking,” Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36 (2004): 222–33; Danielle S. McNamara and others, “Improving Adolescent Students’ Reading Comprehension with iSTART,” Journal of Educational Computing Research 34 (2006): 147–71; David Rose and Bridget Dalton, “Using Technology to Individualize Reading Instruction,” in Improving Comprehension Instruction: Rethinking Research, Theory, and Classroom Practice, edited by Cathy C. Block, Linda B. Gambrell, and Michael Pressley (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002), pp. 257–74. Ibid. Nicole Strangman, Tracey Hall, and Anne Meyer, Background Knowledge with UDL, report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education (Wakefield, Mass.: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, 2004). David Reinking and Lih-Juan ChanLin, “Graphic Aids in Electronic Texts,” Reading Research and Instruction 33 (1994): 207–32. WGBH Teachers’ Domain: Digital Media for Classroom and Professional Development (www.teachersdomain.org); National Geographic Education Beta (education.nationalgeographic.com). Timothy A. Hays, “Spatial Abilities and the Effects of Computer Animation on Short-Term and Long-Term Comprehension,” Journal of Educational Computing Research 14 (1996): 139–55; Charles A. MacArthur and Jacqueline B. Haynes, “Student Assistant for Learning from Text (SALT): A Hypermedia Reading Aid,” Journal of Learning Disabilities 28, no. 3 (1995): 50–59. Steven L. Thorne, Julie M. Sykes, and Ana Oskoz, “Web 2.0, Synthetic Immersive Environments, and Mobile Resources for Language Education,” Sykes 25 (2008): 528; Chief Officers of State Libraries Association, “COSLA’s Role in Providing E-Book Access,” Report from 2011 Conference (www.cosla.org/ documents/COSLA_Ebook_Report_3.pdf). Ibid. Lou McGill and others, “Creating an Information-Rich Learning Environment to Enhance Design Student Learning: Challenges and Approaches,” British Journal of Educational Technology 36 (2005): 629–42. June Mark, Janet Cornebise, and Ellen Wahl, Community Technology Centers: Impact on Individuals and Their Communities (Education Development Center, 1997); Lisa J. Servon, Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community, and Public Policy (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2002). Ibid. For further review of the problem and how Universal Design for Learning offers a solution, see website for CAST (www.cast.org/udl/faq/index.html). Ibid. For example, see Susan R. Goldman and others, “A Technology for Assessing Multiple Source Comprehension: An Essential Skill of the 21st Century,” in Technology-Based Assessments for 21st Century Skills: Theoretical and Practical Implications from Modern Research, edited by Michael C. Mayrath and others (Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing, 2012). Bert Green, “A Comment on Early Student Blunders on Computer-Based Adaptive Tests,” Applied Psychological Measurement 35, no. 2 (2011): 165–74. Donald Powers, “Test Anxiety and Test Performance: Comparing Paper-Based and Computer-Adaptive Versions of the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) General Test,” Journal of Educational Computing Research 24, no. 3 (2001): 249–73. Bonnie J. F. Meyer and Leonard W. Poon, “Age Differences in Efficiency of Reading Comprehension from Printed versus Computer-Displayed Text,” Educational Gerontology 23 (1997): 789–807. Jennifer Higgins and others, “Examining the Effect of Computer-Based Passage Presentation on Reading Test Performance,” Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 3, no. 4 (2005); Do-Hong Kim and Huynh Huynh, “Computer-Based and Paper-and-Pencil Administration Mode Effects on a Statewide End-of-Course English Test,” Educational and Psychological Measurement 68 (2008): 554–70; Mary Pommerich, “Developing Computerized Versions of Paper-and-Pencil Tests: Mode Effects for Passage- Based Tests,” Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 2, no. 6 (2004). Nancy Horkay and others, “Does It Matter if I Take My Writing Test on Computer? An Empirical Study of Mode Effects in NAEP,” Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 5, no. 2 (2006). William R. Penuel and Louise Yarnall, “Designing Handheld Software to Support Classroom Assessment: An Analysis of Conditions for Teacher Adoption,” Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 3, no. 5 (2005). Based on a search of literacy reports using “technology” and “computer” as keywords on the What Works Clearinghouse website (ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc). What Works Clearinghouse, Read 180: WWC Intervention Report (Washington: Institute of Education Sciences, 2009); What Works Clearinghouse, SuccessMaker: WWC Intervention Report (Washington: Institute of Education Sciences, 2009). Larissa Campuzano and others, Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from Two Student Cohorts (NCEE 2009-4041, 2009). Ibid. Kathryn Drummond and others, Impact of the Thinking Reader® Software Program on Grade 6 Reading Vocabulary, Comprehension, Strategies, and Motivation (NCEE 2010-4035, 2011). Project Tomorrow, “Unleashing the Future: Educators Speak Up about the Use of Emerging Technologies for Learning,” Speak Up 2009 National Findings: Teachers, Aspiring Teachers, and Administrators (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 2010). Ibid. Lucinda Gray and others, Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040, 2009); Larry Cuban, Heather Kirkpatrick, and Craig Peck, “High Access and Low Use of Technology in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox,” American Educational Research Journal 38 (2001): 813–34. Gray and others, Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools (see note 62). Penuel and Yarnall, “Designing Handheld Software to Support Classroom Assessment” (see note 54). Gray and others, Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools (see note 62). Karen Swan and others, “Situated Professional Development and Technology Integration: The CATIE Mentoring Program,” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 10, no. 2 (2002): 169–90; Teresa Franklin and others, “Mentoring Overcomes Barriers to Technology Integration,” Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 18, no. 1 (2001): 26–31. Karen Grove and others, “Mentoring toward Technology Use: Cooperating Teacher Practice in Supporting Student Teachers,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 37, no. 1 (2004): 85–109. Gina Biancarosa and others, “Assessing the Value-Added Effects of Literacy Collaborative Professional Development on Student Learning,” Elementary School Journal 111, no. 1 (2010): 7–34; Laurie Elish- Piper and Susan K. Allier, “Examining the Relationship between Literacy Coaching and Student Reading Gains in Grades K-3,” Elementary School Journal 112, no. 1 (2010): 83–106; Lindsay Clare Matsumura and others, “Investigating the Effectiveness of a Comprehensive Literacy Coaching Program in Schools with High Teacher Mobility,” Elementary School Journal 111, no. 1 (2010): 35–62; Misty Sailors and Larry R. Price, “Professional Development That Supports the Teaching of Cognitive Reading Strategy Instruction,” Elementary School Journal 110, no. 3 (2010): 301–22. Project Tomorrow, “Creating Our Future: Students Speak Up about Their Vision for 21st-Century Learning,” Speak Up 2009 National Findings: K-12 Student and Parents (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 2010). State Educational Technology Directors Association, “High-Speed Broadband Access for All Kids: Breaking through the Barriers,” Class of 2020 Action Plan for Education (Author, 2008). Ibid. Tom Rolfes and Tammy Stephens, 21st Century Networks for 21st-Century Schools: Making the Case for Broadband (Consortium for School Networks, 2009). Gartner Consulting, Closing the Gap: Turning SIS/LMS Data into Action (Author, 2011). Ibid. U.S. Department of Education, “General Information: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA),” Family Compliance Policy Office (www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html [Amended 2009]). See CAST website for review and resources for the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (aim.cast.org/learn/policy/federal). Consortium for School Networking website (www.cosn.org); State Educational Technology Directors Association website (www.setda.org). 160 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN View publication stats Yüklə 0,95 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|