Advertisement

TechTrends

, Volume 50, Issue 5, pp 37–45 | Cite as

Student Test Scores Improved in an English Literature Course through the Use of Supportive Devices

  • Robert M. Maninger
Successful Technology Integration:

Keywords

Technology Integration Passing Rate Reading Test TechTrends Volume Remote Device 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Borich, G. D. (2000). Effective teaching methods (44th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1984). Teacher behavior and student achievement. Occasional paper no. 73. East Lansing, MI: East Lansing Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  3. Charles, D. F. (1991). Implementing a program using zoological treasure hunt to enhance word attack skills of low performing first grade students. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova University. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 338 584)Google Scholar
  4. Christie, K. (2001). Oh, no! not Texas again! Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 5–6.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, K. D. (2000). Urban middle school teachers’ use of instructional technology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 178–196.Google Scholar
  6. Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L., Taylor, R., Bottage, B., & Daley, D. (1997). The computer doesn’t embarrass me. Educational Leadership, 55(3), 30–33.Google Scholar
  7. Kajder, S. B. (2003). The tech-savvy English classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.Google Scholar
  8. Maslin, J. E., & Nelson, M. E. (2002). Peering into the future: Students using technology to create literacy products. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 628–639.Google Scholar
  9. Merkley, D. J., Schmidt, D. A., & Allen, G. (2001). Addressing the English language arts technology standard in a secondary reading methodology course. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(3), 220–231.Google Scholar
  10. National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from http://www.ncte.org/edpolicy/qualityGoogle Scholar
  11. Norris, C., Soloway, E., & Sullivan, T. (2002). Examining 25 years of technology in U.S. education. Communications of the ACM, 45(8), 15–18.Google Scholar
  12. Potter, L., & Small, J. (1998). Utilizing computers for reading improvement in a junior high: A case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(4), 383–387.Google Scholar
  13. Riley, R. W., Holleman, F. S., & Roberts, L. G. (2000). The national educational technology plan: Putting a world-class education at the fingertips of all children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  14. Shiah, R. L., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. (1995). Computer-assited instruction and students with learning disabilities: Does research support the rhetoric? Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 9, 161–192.Google Scholar
  15. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2001. Retrieved April 25, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.htmlGoogle Scholar
  16. Wepner, S. B., & Tao, L. (2002). From master teacher to master novice: Shifting responsibilities in technology-infused classrooms. Reading Teacher, 55(7), 642–652.Google Scholar
  17. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Maninger
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationTexas Christian University

Personalised recommendations