You are here:

Teacher-led technology-rich environment: Educational Effects
PROCEEDINGS

, Time To Know and University of Haifa, United States

Global Learn, in Melbourne, Australia ISBN 978-1-880094-85-3 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Full Text

Abstract

Time To Know is an environment designed to increase learning and academic engagement as well as enhance teachers’ knowledge of constructivist teaching methods in mathematics and Language Arts. Rockman et al, an independent research, evaluation, and consulting firm, developed an extensive evaluation study to assess the overall effect of the Time To Know technology-based Mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) environment on teaching and learning processes and academic outcomes. The subjects were 59 4th grade students, who learned in Time To Know one-to-one laptop learning environment in Dallas and 68 4th grade students in traditional settings. Findings indicated that learning in Time To Know environment significantly enhanced students Mathematics and ELA achievements and contributed to development of Mathematics reasoning skills. Overall, the study showed that intertwining digital content that is aligned with state content standards, constructivist-oriented learning, and teacher-led platform, enables a significant empowerment of teaching and learning processes.

Citation

Rosen, Y. (2011). Teacher-led technology-rich environment: Educational Effects. In S. Barton, J. Hedberg & K. Suzuki (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2011--Global Conference on Learning and Technology (pp. 1878-1885). Melbourne, Australia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 30, 2022 from .

© 2011 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bebell, D. (2007). 1 to 1 computing: Year one results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative
  2. Blachowicz, C., Bates, A., Berne, J, Bridgman, T., Chaney, J., & Perney, J (2009). Technology and atrisk young readers and their classrooms, Reading Psychology, 30(5), 387-411.
  3. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
  4. Cuban, L. (2003). Why is it so hard to get good schools? New York: Teachers College.
  5. Cuban, L. (2006). 1:1 laptops transforming classrooms: Yeah, sure. New York: Teachers College Record.
  6. Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle
  7. Edmonds, K., & Li, Q. (2005). Teaching at-risk students with technology: Teachers’ beliefs,
  8. Goetze, S., & Walker, B.J. (2004). At-risk readers can construct complex meanings: Technology can help. The Reading Teacher, 57(8), 778-780.
  9. Greaves, T., & Hayes, J. (2006). America’s Digital Schools 2008: A five-year forecast. Shelton, CT: Market Data Retrieval.
  10. Gulek, J., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2), 1–39.
  11. Jaillet, A. (2004). What is happening with portable computers in schools? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 115–128.
  12. Jonassen, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
  13. Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In
  14. Lei, J. & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-one computing: What does it brings to school? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122.
  15. Lajoie, S.P. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  16. O’Dwyer, L., Russell, M., Bebell, D., & Seeley, K. (2008). Examining the relationship between
  17. Prawat, R.S. & Folden, R.E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37–48.
  18. Rosen, Y. (2009). Effects of animation learning environment on knowledge transfer and learning motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(4), 439-455.
  19. Rosen, Y, & Rimor, R. (2009). Using collaborative database to enhance students’ knowledge construction. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 187-195.
  20. Rosen, Y. & Salomon, G. (2007). The differential learning achievements of constructivist technologyintensive learning environments as compared with traditional ones: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(1), 1–14.
  21. Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational Technology, 42(2), 71-75.
  22. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D.N. (2005). Do technologies make us smarter? Intellectual amplification with, of, and through technology. In D.D. Preiss & R. Sternberg (Eds.). Intelligence and technology (pp. 71–86). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
  23. Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Huntsberger, B., & Maloney, C. (2009).
  24. Silvernail, D., & Gritter, A. (2005). Maine’s middle school laptop program: Creating better writers. Gorham, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute.
  25. Stiff, L.V., & Curcio, F.R. (Eds.) (1999). Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12: 1999
  26. Walters, J., Dede, C., & Richards, J. (2010). Pedagogical fit: An analysis of the design of Time To Know. New York: Time To Know.
  27. Weiss, D. & Bordelon, B. (2010). The instructional design of Time To Know's teaching environment.
  28. Yackel, E., & Hanna, G. (2003). Reasoning and proof. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 227–236). Reston,

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides

Also Read

Related Collections