This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Adamides, M. H., & Nicolaou, K. (2004, July). Is technology “welcomed” in mathematics courses in the 21st century? Paper presented at the XIth symposium programme of the International Organization for Science and Technology Education. Lublin, Poland.
American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1998). Information literacy standards for student learning. Washington, DC: American Library Assoication.
American Educational Research Association. (2003). Resolution on the essential elements of scientifically-based research. Retrieved December 1, 2003, from www.aera.net/meeting/council/resolution03.htm
Anderson, R. E. (2003). Introduction. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policy and practices in education (pp. 3–13). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Arnove, R. F., & Torres, C. A. (Eds.). (2003). Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and the local (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Barab, S. (2004, June). Ensuring rigor in the learning sciences: A call to arms. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Santa Monica, CA.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Bennett, D., McMillan Culp, K., Honey, M., Tally, B., & Spielvogel, B. (2001). It all depends: Strategies for designing technologies for change in education. In W. F. Heinecke & L. Blasi (Eds.), Methods of evaluating educational technology (pp. 105–124). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.
Berliner, D. C., & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.). (1996). Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.
Bhola, H. S. (2003). Introduction: The social and contextual contexts of educational evaluation. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation: Part one: Perspectives (pp. 389–396). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brains, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Brown, A. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4–12.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989a). Debating the situation: A rejoinder to Palinscar and Wineburg. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 10–12.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989b). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Butler, D. (2000). Case study 4: The training implications of the ICT resolution in secondary mathematics. In C. Wright (Ed.), Issues in education & technology (pp. 115–127). London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Center for Children and Technology. (2002). The evaluation toolkit: A work-in-progress. New York: Education Development Center, Center for Children and Technology.
Cline, H. F., & Mandinach, E. B. (2000). The corruption of a research design: A case study of a curriculum innovation project. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 169–189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2002). Bringing evidence-driven progress to education: A recommended strategy for the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved December 11, 2002, from www.excelgov.org
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 807–840). New York: Macmillan.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2–11.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. A. (1999). Research and the purposes of education. In E. Lagemann & L. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 17–41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In E. Lageman & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 289–298). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
Commission on Technology and Adult Learning. (2001). A vision of e-learning for America’s workforce. Alexandria, VA/Washington, DC: American Society for Training and Development and the National Governors Association.
Committee on Information Technology Literacy. (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cook, T. D. (2002). Randomized experiments in educational policy research: A critical examination of the reasons the educational evaluation community has offered for not doing them. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 175–199.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Cronbach, L. J. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers College Record, 64, 672–683.
Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 443–507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30(2), 116–127.
Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
Cronbach, L. J., Ambron, S. R., Dornbusch, S. M., Hess, R. D., Hornik, R. C., Phillips, D. C., Walker, D. F., & Weiner, S. S. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Crossley, M. (2001). Reconceptualizing comparative and international education. In K. Watson (Ed.), Doing comparative education research: Issues and problems (pp. 43–68). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Dede, C. (1998). The scaling-up process for technology-based educational innovations. In C. Dede (Ed.), Learning with technology. 1998 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 199–215). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Dede, C. (2003). Foreword. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. ix–xii). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology and Education.
Delaware Department of Education. (2002). Science curriculum framework. Retrieved November 13, 2002, from www.doe.state.de.us/standards/science.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., Means, B., Murphy, R., Penuel, W., Javitz, H., Emery, D., & Sussex, W. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort (NCEE 2007–4005). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
Education Week. (2004, May 6). Global links: Lessons from the world: Technology counts 2004. Education Week, 23(35).
Ercikan, K., Domene, J. F., Law, D., & Lacroix, S. (2004, April). Identifying the source of DIF using think-aloud protocols: Comparing thought processes of examinees taking tests in English versus in French. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
Fensham, P. J. (2004, July). Beyond knowledge: Other scientific questions as outcomes for school science education. Paper presented at the XIth symposium programme of the International Organization for Science and Technology Education, Lublin, Poland.
Gaskell, J., Mehta, J., & Ogawa, M. (2004, July). Globalisation and localization: Competing tendencies or inevitable companions. Paper presented at the eleventh symposium programme of the International Organization for Science and Technology Education, Lublin, Poland.
Gersick, A., Pasnik, S., Brunner, C., Honey, M., & Parris, J. (2004). Skills for the twenty-first century: Supporting digital literacy in the classroom: Pre-final report. New York: EDC Center for Children and Technology.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Heinecke, W. F., & Blasi, L. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of evaluating educational technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Honey, M. (2001, July 25). Benefits of educational technology. Testimony and statement before the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, United States Senate.
Honey, M. (2002). New approaches to assessing students’ technology-based work. In N. Dickard (Ed.), Great expectations: Leveraging America’s investment in educational technology (pp. 24–28). Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.
Information Technology Association of America. (2000). Bridging the gap: Information technology skills for a new millennium. Arlington, VA: Author.
Information Technology Association of America. (2001). When can you start? Building better information technology skills and careers. Arlington, VA: Author.
International ICT Literacy Panel. (2002). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene, OR: Author.
Jacob, E., & White, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Theme issue on scientific research in education. Educational Researcher, 31(8).
Janiuk, R. M., & Samonek-Micuk, E. (Eds.). (2004). International Organization for Science and Technology Education: XIth symposium proceedings. Lublin, Poland: Marie-Curie Sklodowska University Press.
Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook for research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.
Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook for research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Kankaanranta, M., & Linnakylä, P. (2003). National policies and practices on ICT in education: Finland. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policy and practices in education (pp. 213–231). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Kellaghan, T., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.). (2003). International handbook of educational evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Kelly, A. E. (Ed.). (2003). Theme issue: The role of design in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3–4.
Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 4–12.
Kozma, R. B. (2003a). ICT and educational change: A global phenomenon. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 1–18). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology and Education.
Kozma, R. B. (2003b). Study procedures and first look at the data. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 19–41). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology and Education.
Kozma, R. B. (2003c). Summary and implications for ICT-based educational change. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 217–239). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology and Education.
Kozma, R. B. (Ed.). (2003d). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Kozma, R. B., & McGhee, R. (2003). ICT and innovative classroom practices. Kozma, R. B. (2003a). ICT and educational change: A global phenomenon. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 43–88). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology and Education.
Lagemann, E. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.
Law, N., & Plomp, T. (2003). Curriculum and staff development for ICT in education. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policy and practices in education (pp. 15–30). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Lennon, M., Kirsch, I., Von Davier, M., Wagner, M., & Yamamoto, K. (2003). Feasibility study for the PISA ICT literacy assessment. Princeton, NJ: Australian Council for Educational Research, Educational Testing Service, and the National Institute for Policy Research of Japan.
Lesgold, A. (2000). What are the tools for? Revolutionary change does not follow the usual norms. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls: Volume II (pp. 399–408). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lewis, A. E., & Mandinach, E. B. (2009). Informal learning on the Internet. To appear inT. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Long, L., Rivas, L., Light, D., & Mandinach, E. B. (2008). The evolution of a homegrown data warehouse: TUSDStats. In E. B. Mandinach & M. Honey (Eds.), Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning (pp. 209–232). New York: Teachers College Press.
Love, A. J. (2003, January 17–18). Implementation analysis for feedback on program progress and results. San Francisco, CA: Evaluators’ Institute.
Mandinach, E. B. (2008). Creating an evaluation framework for data-driven instructional decision making (final report to the National Science Foundation). New York and Alexandria, VA: EDC Center for Children and Technology and the CNA Corporation.
Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1994). Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technology-based learning environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (2000). It won’t happen soon: Practical, curricular, and methodological problems in implementing technology-based constructivist approaches in classrooms. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computer as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. II, pp. 377–395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mandinach, E. B., Rivas, L., Light, D., & Heinze, C. (2006, April). The impact of data-driven decision making tools on educational practice: A systems analysis of six school districts. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Martin, M. O., Rust, K., & Adams, R. J. (1999). Technical standards for IEA studies. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Martin, W., Mandinach, E., Kanaya, T., & McMillan Culp, K. (2004). Intel international interim report. New York: EDC Center for Children and Technology.
Mattsson, G., & Svensson, M. (2004, July). The identity of the school subject technology: How teachers in primary school and university students in teacher training perceive school subject technology. Paper presented at the XIth symposium programme of the International Organization for Science and Technology Education, Lublin, Poland.
McCandliss, B. D., Kalchman, M., & Bryant, P. (2003). Design experiments and laboratory approaches to learning: Steps toward collaborative exchange. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 14–16.
McMillan Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 313–341.
Mosteller, F., & Boruch, R. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.
Mui, Y. H., Kan, E., & Chun, T. Y. (2003). National policies and practices on ICT in education: Singapore. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policy and practices in education (pp. 495–508). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Muller, A. (2003). National policies and practices on ICT in education: South Africa. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policy and practices in education (pp. 541–555). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Mullis, I., Martin, M., Smith, T., Garden, A., Gregory, K., Gonzalez, E., Chrostowski, S., & O’Connor, K. (2003). TIMSS assessment frameworks and specifications 2003. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Murphy, R. T. (1988). Evaluation of Al Manaahil: An original Arabic children’s television series in reading (RR88–45). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 395007)
National Educational Technology Plan. (2004). Retrieved July 6, 2004, from www.nationaledtechplan.org
NCES. (2004). TIMSS USA: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from nces.ed.gov/timss/
Nelson, C. A., Post, J., & Bickel, W. (2003). Evaluating the institutionalization of technology in schools and classrooms. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation: Part two: Practice (pp. 843–870). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
New Jersey Department of Education. (2002). New Jersey core curriculum content standards for mathematics. Retrieved November 12, 2002, from www.state.nj.us/njded/cccs/02s4_math.htm
Newman, D. (1990). Opportunities for research on the organizational impact of school computers. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 8–13.
Newman, D., & Cole, M. (2004). Can scientific research from the laboratory be of any help to teachers? Theory into Practice, 43(4), 260–267.
Ogena, E. B., & Brawner, F. G. (2003). National policies and practices on ICT in education: Philippines. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policy and practices in education (pp. 445–463). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). Measuring student knowledge and skills: The PISA 2000 assessment of reading, mathematics, and scientific literacy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2001). Schooling for tomorrow: Learning to change: ICT in schools. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002a). Manual for the PISA 2000 database. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002b). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Literacy skills for the world tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004a). An OECD survey of upper secondary schools: A technical report. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004b). Completing the foundation for lifelong learning: An OECD survey of upper secondary schools. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004c). The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from www.pisa.oecd.org/.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2003). Learning for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Pearson, G., & Young, A. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pelgrum, W., & Anderson, R. (Eds.). (2001). ICT and the emerging paradigm for lifelong learning (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: International Association for the Advancement of Educational Achievement.
Plomp, T., Anderson, R. E., Law, N., & Quale, A. (Eds.). (2003a). Cross-national information and communication technology policy and practices in education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Plomp, T., Howie, S., & McGaw, B. (2003b). International studies of educational achievement. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation: Part two: Practice (pp. 951–978). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Popham, W. J. (2003). Are your state’s tests instructionally sensitive?: High-quality assessments share three attributes. In Harvard Education Letter (Eds.), Spotlight on high-stakes testing (pp. 17–22). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Popham, W. J. (2005, April/May). F for assessment. Edutopia, 38–41.
President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Educational Technology. (1997). Report to the president on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, DC: President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Educational Technology.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Preston, R. (2001). Contextual and methodological influences on trends in comparative and international educational research. In K. Watson (Ed.), Doing comparative education research: Issues and problems (pp. 69–84). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Quale, A. (2003). Trends in instructional ICT infrastructure. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policy and practices in education (pp. 31–42). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Reynolds, D. (1999). Creating a new methodology for comparative educational research: The contribution of the International School Effectiveness Research Project. In R. Alexander, R. Broadfoot, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Learning from comparing: New directions in comparative educational research: Volume One: Contexts, classrooms, and outcomes (pp. 135–148). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach (5th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Russell, M. (2001). Framing technology program evaluations. In W. F. Heinecke & L. Blasi (Eds.), Methods of evaluating educational technology (pp. 149–162). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Russell, M., & Plati, T. (2000). Mode of administration effects on MCAS composition performance for grades four, eight, and ten (Report prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Education). Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 222–241.
Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2003). Cross-national curriculum evaluation. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation: Part two: Practice (pp. 979–996). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1999). Looking toward the 21st century: Challenges of educational theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 4–14.
Schweisfurth, M. (2001). Gleaning meaning from case studies in international comparison: Teachers’ experiences of reform in Russian and South Africa. In K. Watson (Ed.), Doing comparative education research: Issues and problems (pp. (211–223). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. E. Stake (Ed.), Curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Scriven, M. (2003). Evaluation theory and metatheory. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation: Part one: Perspectives (pp. 15–30). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educations, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education: Design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28.
Shimizu, K., Watanabe, R., Shimizu, Y., Miyake, M., Yamade, K., Horiguti, H., Saito, M., Yoshioka, R., Sakayauti, M., Saruta, Y., Ogura, Y., & Numano, T. (2003). National policies and practices on ICT in education: Japan. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policy and practices in education (pp. 335–355). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Shulman, L. S. (1970). Reconstruction of educational research. Review of Educational Research, 40(3), 371–396.
Singapore Ministry of Education. (2008). Mission and vision statement. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from www.moe.gov.sg/corporate/mission_statement.htm.
Sjoberg, S. (2004, July). Science and technology in the new millennium: Friend or foe? Paper presented at the XIth symposium programme of the International Organization for Science and Technology Education, Lublin, Poland.
State Education Technology Directors Association. (2003). SETDA national leadership institute toolkit. Retrieved April 11, 2003, from www.setda.org/nli2002/CD/TLA/index.htm.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2002). The CIPP model of evaluation. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation: Part one: Perspectives (pp. 31–62). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Uchida, D., Cetron, M., & McKenzie, F. (1996). Preparing students for the 21st century. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology (NCES 2000–102). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Institute for Education Sciences National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, W. J. (2003). ICT and the curriculum. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 81–124). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology and Education.
Vrasidas, C. (2001). Making the familiar strange-and interesting-again: Interpretivism and symbolic interactionism in educational technology research. In W. F. Heinecke & L. Blasi (Eds.), Methods of evaluating educational technology (pp. 85–103). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Watson, K. (Ed.). (2001a). Doing comparative education research: Issues and problems. Oxford: Symposium Books.
Watson, K. (2001b). Introduction: Rethinking the role of comparative education. In K. Watson (Ed.), Doing comparative education research: Issues and problems (pp. 9–20). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2004). Retrieved July 6, 2004, from www.w-w-c.org
Whitehurst, G. J. (2003a, April). The Institute for Education Sciences: New wine and new bottles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Whitehurst, G. J. (2003b, August). Psychology and evidence-based education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Whitehurst, G. J. (2007, April). Big challenges for education research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
World Bank Group. (2003). Lifelong learning in the global knowledge economy: Challenges for developing countries. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Yin, R. K. (1995). New methods for evaluating programs in NSF’s Division of Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination. In J. A. Frechtling (Ed.), Footprints: Strategies for non-traditional program evaluation (pp. 25–36). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Yong, G. K. (2005, November). Singapore’s Ministry of Education. Speech given at the meeting of the International Conference on Computers in Education, Singapore.
Zehr, M. A. (2004, May 6). Africa. Global links: Lessons from the world: Technology counts 2004. Education Week, 23(35), 56–59.
Zhao, Y., Byers, J., Pugh, K., & Sheldon, S. (2001). What’s worth looking for?: Issues in educational technology research. In W. F. Heinecke & L. Blasi (Eds.), Methods of evaluating educational technology (pp. 269–296). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mandinach, E.B. (2009). Context Is Everything: An International Perspective of, and Its Challenges to, Research and the Evaluation of Educational Technology. In: Gibbs, D., Zajda, J. (eds) Comparative Information Technology. Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9426-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9426-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9425-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9426-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)