ED 430 537

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

IR 019 566

Schacter, JohnThe Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement:What the Most Current Research Has To Say.Milken Exchange on Education Technology, Santa Monica, CA.1999-00-0013p.Milken Exchange on Education Technology, Milken FamilyFoundation, 1250 Fourth St., Fourth Floor, Santa Monica, CA90401-1353; Tel: 310-998-2825; Fax: 310-998-2899; Web site:www.milkenexchange.orgInformation Analyses (070) Reports Evaluative (142)

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.*Academic Achievement; *Computer Assisted Instruction;*Educational Research; *Educational Technology; ElementarySecondary Education; *Instructional Effectiveness;Literature Reviews; Meta Analysis; Partnerships inEducation; Use StudiesApple Classrooms of Tomorrow; *Impact Evaluation; LearningEnvironments; *Technology Utilization; West Virginia

This document analyzes the following five large-scalestudies of education technology: (1) "Meta-Analytic Studies of Findings onComputer-Based Instruction" (J.A. Kulik) employed a statistical techniquecalled meta-analysis to aggregate the results of over 500 individual studiesto draw a single conclusion; (2) "Report on the Effectiveness of Technologyin Schools, 1990-1997" (J. Sivin-Kachala) reviewed hundreds of individualstudies whereby the authors shed light on consistent patterns that emergedacross studies; (3) "Evaluating the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow" (E.L.Baker, M. Gearhart, & J.L. Herman) reviewed a partnership between Apple andfive schools across the nation; (4) "West Virginia's Basic Skills/ComputerEducation Program: An Analysis of Student Achievement" (D. Mann, et al.)

reported the results of West Virginia's 10-year statewide educationtechnology initiative; and (5) "Does It Compute? The Relationship betweenEducational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics" (H.

Wenglinsky) assessed a national sample of fourth- and eighth-grade studentsusing newer simulation and higher order thinking technologies. An evaluationof two smaller-scale studies that point to the promise that newertechnologies currently afford is also included: "Computer Support forKnowledge-Building Communities" (M. Scardamalia & C. Bereiter) and "SoftwareDesign as a Learning Environment" (I. Harel & S. Papert) . Conclusions aresummarized related to impact and effectiveness. (AEF)

********************************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

********************************************************************************

Thz 'mpzci ofEductthi Techno'oo S1 udt-n1 Athliz-vtmtntWhat the Most Current Research Ras to Say

/

BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice at Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

O This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

O Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

o Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

by John Schacter

2

A.

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

C. Lemke

TO THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

,/

_

/, \ \ , --

, !"r 1

/

//?

3\

i ! i ! , \

/ ;

1 ,I. j

'The aut/ hor would like\tO thank Toro Boysen, Cheryl Fagnano, and Michael Reese, ,..-,.

,} \7 ,

,-

r---, for their valbable suggestions and contributions received1 \

I1 _/1

----- --.._ ; \ ,--;-_on \early IterationS of this briefing.__ ,

(

1 --:';;----

V,) 0

I

2

The impact of Education Technologyon Student Achievement:

What the Most Current Research Has to Say

Legislators, governors and other policymakers each year make difficult choices among attractiveeducational improvement options. Whether they invest in class size reduction, teacher training,early childhood education, or textbooks and tests turns on their estimate of the effectiveness ofthese approaches.

The purpose of this briefing is to outline what we know about the impact of education technologyon learning and to identify resources for further study.

Research on the impact of technology on learning is in its infancy though we are beginning to seesolid work emerge. In this report we look at some large scale state and national studies as wellas some innovative smaller studies that provide visions for new uses of technology in learningand instruction.

Research on Education Technology's Impact

Below we analyze the 5 largest scale studies of education technology to date. These studies wereselected for their scope, comprehensive samples, and generalizability to local, state, and nationalaudiences. We also include an evaluation of two smaller scale studies that point to the promise thatnewer technologies currently afford.

The first study we analyze employed a statistical technique called meta-analysis to aggregate theresults of over 500 individual studies to draw a single conclusion. The second reviewed hundredsof individual studies whereby the authors shed light on consistent patterns that emerged across stud-ies. The third reviewed a partnership between Apple and five schools across the nation. The fourthstudy reported the results of West Virginia's 10 year statewide education technology initiative. Thefifth assessed a national sample of fourth- and eighth-grade students using newer simulation andhigher order thinking technologies. The sixth and seventh reviewed two smaller scale studies thatshow the promise of newer emerging technologies on student learning.

The intent of this document is to briefly summarize the positive and negative impact ofvarious technology studies on student achievement. More in depth information about several of thestudies reviewed within this briefing can be found by accessing this report at the Milken ExchangeWeb site (www.milkenexchange.orq).

43

_...--- :_;---==-- --------,'-----..7-'->,!:/<,-------2------

''-._-,,'s-...---1-'-'---%-'--

,,,-___ -,-,--_--:.--=

/---------

\\ >-------._----------------,-_-_,,

1 . Ku I i k-l-s-Mita---A-rib- -I ysTSTStady------------- --------------__\.__----------____.,-. ------ ----- - -,-- , , , \ --N,,,,--- -----,----..---, -------- -2-4 -----t ---------- -- / / )

-------;_.---___, Ts ,....

James Kulik (1994) usectr.:dr=research techniclue-talleckmetazandlysitosdggf6gmatethe-fifiClincis from;-,'-' / .., .,---.2 I / ',----,?,----e-,-..(t>__----, \__----- \,.. -.- -..., \ ......,

more than 500 incliviClual-fesearcWstuclies'f computer=basediiinction':-Computer-bbse_d'instruc=;\, . .,

tion individualizes the edueationalzProcesstOcciiii'l'inoddte the-neeqs, .interests,\pr&livities, \'/ Nxi( > V )-'7.-\/ . / ,,, - , ---,/ .:,..., -p. \ ./.,..:, .,current knowledge and-letirning/tyles of the student/:-CompLiterbasedinstiiktiorr-software \consists -,\-, ,

:', '''.?`--) /--- )-± ' \:' )--- ,,,,,,,; , N

of tutorial/drill and/practice"-and more/recently-Integrated Learning Systems. KOlik drew several',,,\,.1k, ./ ,,, / ".

conclusion from-'his 1994/work:''t-,/ ' 5''- ' - \ \-.__,/ \,-- / '-',--.,--' -,-/'

/4PositiveFindings /7

1 \\-

/ / / / ,-, ''-.. -\ `---\,

/ \ / ° / )9, ./"--

fp Oh average; stti dents who used computer-based instruction scored af-the_64th)p\ercentile on \r N/ / \ --, \/ /tests or ,:ichtevement comparJdoto st/dents in the co/ntrottonditions without cOmputers who

i / scorecat the'50th)p4e/rcentile /--., I

Students learn more ib-less time when they receive tomputer-ba'sed i \nS'truction./ \/ 1 ----- -,, , .._ i,

1

\:L.,ii,iL,,,J

Stu/dents like their classes more and evelop-more,positi6 attitudes whenItheir_classes,inclu-cle)--.'-:--- __.-- ----- U---/5 \

computer-based instruction/. / --Tr:/ / 1

,

I

1

)

Nt\gaIive Findings

Computers did not

\ Bangert-Drojwns,

Meta-Analysis

\ /

\.J. Kulik, & . Kulik (1985)\Ni

Burns,& Bozeman (1981)Ni

Cohen & Dacanay (1991)

rhave poistive effects in every area in which they were studied.

\\\ Hartley (1978)

Fletcher (1990)

\C Kulik &J. Kulik (1986).;CNKulk-J Kulik, & Shwalb (1986)

J. Kulik, C. Kulik, &

Bangert-Drowns (1985)\Niemiec &\Wedbert (1985)

hInstructional Level

Roblyer (1988)\NN

Schmidt, Weinstei

-

SecOndary

Elementap,/ & Secondary S\chool

Health Professions Education

Elementary & Secondary Math\L

Higher EduccitiOn_& Adult Training

Adult Education

Elementary

Elementary

Elebentary toi Mult Education

Niemiec, & Walberg (1985) Special Edudition

Willett, Yamashita, & Anderson--(1983)-Pre-College Science

u e Gainof Studies overrControlAnalyzed Group

51

44

38)

3-37 16

28r 19

-----

30- 15

44

48

82

18

11

Note: Table excerpted from Kulik, James A. 119941. Mei-a:Analytic StUdies of Findings on Compuier-Based Instruction.,

/m-

4 5

2. Sivin-Kachala's Review of the Research

Jay Sivin-Kachala (1998) reviewed 219 research studies from 1990 to 1997 to assess the effectof technology on learning and achievement across all learning domains and all ages of learners.From his analysis of these individual studies he reported the following consistent patterns:

Positive Findings

o Students in technology rich environments experienced positive effects on achievement in allmajor subject areas.

o Students in technology rich environments showed increased achievement in preschool throughhigher education for both regular and special needs children.

o Students' attitudes toward learning and their own selkoncept improved consistently whencomputers were used for instruction.

Inconclusive Findings

o The level of effectiveness of educational technology is influenced by the specific studentpopulation, the software design, the educator's role, and the level of student access to the technology.

3. The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT)

In their evaluation of the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, Baker, Gearhart, and Herman (1994)assessed the impact of interactive technologies on teaching and learning in five school sites acrossthe nation (e.g., California, Tennessee, Minnesota, and Ohio). The goals of ACOT were to encour-age instructional innovation, and to emphasize to teachers the potential of computers to supportstudent initiative, long-term projects, access to multiple resources, and cooperative learning. Overthe course of the five year initiative, comparisons were made of a) ACOT students' basic skillsperformance to nationally reported norms, b) ACOT students' progress and achievement over time,and c) ACOT teachers' teaching practices.

Positive Findings

o The ACOT experience appeared to result in new learning experiences requiring higher levelreasoning and problem solving, although the authors claim this finding was not conclusive.

o ACOT did have a positive impact on student attitudes and did have an impact on changingteacher teaching practices toward more cooperative group work and less teacherstand-up lecturing.

513

-----_

-------------1-'\\\ 7------ --,----------",-,,,,...--- -----1::::"----,-- ____----- ---,,

----=-,-------,'---___.-.-- _-,. -.....--;'-':------7----- -4 ----"-'-- --------- -'-''....--- ' ---- \-------PZ:: :It,..,..: .......\,....,,,

-- -___-- --,,---Negative Findings , 7___--- ______.-----.:-_-----.------/-_---,,,v. -------_____ .____. .

....) .-----_--------,,

On standardized tests'-'including yocabulary, -readihg comprehension--,Nfnathematits-oncits'is -'---''''----O,.-:%='--- ,i/ ---- N,,--7 ,,' )

- -,..., .-"----.Y-',--.I__ 4 r-s. c-L- \,1----',--' ss `*--,:--z, '---, ------....,,, ----,

and work-study AdOT-studentr' per-tarn:led no' better-ithan-/compariron-',groups or nationally- ,-V---...\'',---,-.,' -1 -(' - \ / ,-- /z,-'_ .-i .k, i 17,1.----,-, \ 4--.,_ . ,--,,:-/l. !reported normr whO did-norhave.aCcess to:-coniauters oF-to theiteaching. and learhingTh)efOrms ) -..,,_

\--, \ t----,-J--,\..,,' --?,,i - --, ,.7_,

implemented/in ACOTIchools-.' / /--->-\- -si_../ -\, ..--.,- f'-',..\ -\,, ------,___\ -Le N ---'--,

_-- // ---,-. --'-'-- '---

--, \ -/K

/4/ // ./ -'-'-'7-',/ /./ / - / --), --\---J// 4. West/Virginia';s Basic_,S1a1-1/Computer Educaticin---ic,/ / (Bsia) SIatewidel"nitiative --'\Th'i

t/ i i ---.-------4.. ._(

/ / \ / ,/'d- 7 / j/ \ -.-'

/1 / \ / i <, \"Dale Mann's (1999) study,of the slate of West Virginia's Basic/ Skills/Cornputer Education (BS/CE)/ / N t d ,/ program a/nalyzed,,a representative-isample of 950 fiftth-graclie,,s u en r achie-/effient ,frorn Iscn---- ,-Ji/4\,,,

I elementar/y schools aaross the state-A-hese fifth-grade students had I/:)een participating in the Wert ,--,/ -.'.----, ( ,

/Virginia/BS/CE progr/am since-1991-92. Data was-also collected from ?,p0--teachers to sliow tfie _j_";-":"---'*=-\\----

\ influen6e that West Virginia's Integrated-Learning Sys* technology ha-d4-student achievement:- 0 \\The Integrated Learning System tech'nology focused its'Lteaclling-on-spelling,,jvoca/bOlar,y,z,readina\and/imathematics./Several variables' were collected and analyZed i.e., inilenitivity 6f-BhIsic Skills/I

/. \s' 0 e-

CO(rnputer Education (BS/CE), (student prior achievem lei nt and sociodernography, teacher training,n 1 .I , .W.teach\erNond student attitudes toward BS/CE. The findings for West Virginia s statewide initiative

/were

as Rillow/s: -/fi

/Positive Findings

1 (O The more students particiriated in BS/CE;---the_mlore their test scores rose on the Stanford-9.

I 1 '`-----/.1:r-'--------- \Consistent student access/to the technology, positive attitudestowardslhe technology (by bothteachers and students), land teachetraining lin the technology led to the greate'stjstucent \I .5 I\t \achievement gains. All ,students' test stores rose on the Stanford 9 because of BS/CE with

1-,lower achieving student scores rising the most!

Half of the teachers in the sample thought thartechnology had helped a/I-Oi7With West Virginia's\\ instruhtional goals-a-n-d---objectives. These teachers also reported-that tliey became more

enthuSiastic about BS/dE as tiMe-spassed.\ .--) ----,----O Although the relative disadvantage of girls is a regularity Of--th-e-tethnol-Ogjilit-errat-u-{le, girls and

. 1 .boys4d not differ in achievement, access, or use of computers in the Wesi-Virginia study. f

\-\ ----.;-'-/'West Virginia Basic Skil s/Computet-Eckicationprogram cornpared the-cost of BS/CE and its achievement gains to the cost of other reforim

-t-----, /programs \cid\their achievement gains. Solmon demonstrated that:\ \1

_ ,J-------.3'

O BS/CE was rnore.cost effective in improving student aciiiiiiern-e-nr tlidii--(1) class i-Z--e reduction

from 35 to 20 students,,(2) increasing instructional time, and (3) cross age tutoring programs.t

\Lewis Solmon's (1999) costlbenefit analysis of the

6

7

/El

5. Harold Wenglinsky's National Study ofTechnology's Impact on Mathematics Achievement

Harold Wenglinsky (1998) assessed the effects of simulation and higher order thinking technologieson a national sample of 6,227 fourth graders and 7,146 eighth graders mathematics achievementon the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Wenglinsky controlled for socioeconomicstatus, class size, and teacher characteristics. Thus, all relationships between technology andeducational outcomes reported represent the value added by technology for comparable groups ofstudents with comparable teachers in comparable class sizes. Wenglinsky found:

Positive Findings

o Eighth-grade students who used simulation and higher order thinking software showed gainsin math scores of up to 15 weeks above grade level as measured by NAEP.

o Eighth-grade students whose teachers received professional development on computersshowed gains in math scores of up to 13 weeks above grade level.

o Higher order uses of computers and professional development were positively related tostudents' academic achievement in mathematics for both fourth- and eighth-grade students.

COMPUTER USE

mainly for math/learning games

Grade Mabh

Teacher technologyTRAINING

Higher mathACHIEVEMENT

More positive schoolCLIMATE

COMPUTER USE

mainly forsimulations and

applications

@rade Math

Teacher technologyTRAINING

Higher mathACHIEVEMENT

More positive schoolCLIMATE

SOURCE: Educational Testing Service, "Does it compute?" an analysis of 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress.".0

7 aBESTCOPYAVAILABLE

Negative Findings

~- -----::::----._ --------- \

,,,,__-_-----±::::?_---/ \---,,,,_-__,-------___

---- ----------._ 110-,_,--___ -----....,----------

,.,:r../.-- .---,/ )<- ,-- // 4 t._--- ) ,=;:-, \ --- :-.- f- ',,, ---,.

O Fourth-grade student's whb used-lechnOlOdy toplayiearnihg-ameslOnd-clevelop\higlier,order>.; \ -.,-,, \---,,-----,,.. --/L _...,----. -

thinking perforrned-Only.346-5 weeks aliead_of tucteri-ts-W-1-.iodianOt-,1trse"lechnorogy'N., `,--,.1 --,-;-::

/ ,..--7 i 1-2-:( \ d" ''.--- J--' \`--,' \ 1--'5 /o

/ ,,..' , --.:5 //" >cBoth fourth= and .eiglith:gracle studept/who,uled dr'ilkdrid-13?a-Ckejteshnologies,pe?forme'a-worse/oh NAEPII-idn -Studerifsho/did not use' drill and Practice teseMOlogy..------, -'-' \ \/ ,,, N ,:, , ,

''' ,/

,/ /,/ \/ ./

------\\---\:----si-

\\6. S/eardarnalia & Bereiter's/Cornputer;Supported Intentional \\

,1 / \\ Learning Environment (CSILE) Studi8-/ / / } \ \

\/\i collaborative enterprise/. Marlene?Scardamalia and Carl,Bereiter s (199,6)-Computer Supported ( // /

/ (S /,'--i / \'

I c,c-k

i,. /))----, V

\ Lasq

( Recent advances in networked technologies are makin/g working on a computer a social ana \\ 11 \,- .-

/ / .,,, i1 A Intentional Learning/Environmenti(C-SILE);-the_most widely studied collaboititiricomputer_oPplica-U- \

I ,

// \tion in schools today, had entire clas'srooms of chila-refirconceive-,--respond-to4an-d iefFamez,What is(\ /I ( /\/ r-,3--- ,said' and written Over time on icomPuters. CSILE students ask questions, searCh, for other students',"

/ 1 ,''

11

answers to their fquestions, comment on and review other students' work, andlhen restructure \Ind._I \.)

fo/rmulate answers to their original/inquiries. Eight years of research on CSILE has demonstratecHhat:Il /

\ // ,..,^

1

1

\

A \4\

CSILE students,surpass student's in control classroqms on measures of depth of understanding,/reflection, and ars-o-on stanCla4zed reading, language, and vocabulary tests.

o CSILE maximizes student reflectiOn and-encourages progressive thought _ taking-multiple--perspectives, and independent thinikng.

1

1 .0

0.0 1--Expectations for

Knowledge Growth

CC

0

".1

Eitpth-'6f --Identifying Conceptual \

Expections,

Source: Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C.: CSILE-Learning Gains\ (1996)

,F :0

8

7. The Learning and Epistemology Group at MIT

Seymour Papert, Mitchel Resnick, Yasmin Kafai, and Idit Harel have employed learning by designprinciples to educational technology by having students become creators and designers of educa-tional software. These researchers use the computer as the machine to be acted upon and studentsas the actors. Thus, children learn through design activities by programming computers to createapplications that other children use and learn from.

Research by Idit Harel (1988; 1991) introduced Logo programming to design software to teachfractions to younger students. Students had to structure their computer program, maintain connec-tions beiween content and functionality, and design the user interface and activities. In addition,students needed to consider different ideas about how to teach fractions to younger students.Harel's research demonstrated that:

o Students who designed fraction software for other students using Logo learned fractions betterthan students taught fractions using conventional methods.

o Students who used Logo to design software learned Logo better than students who receivedLogo programming instruction only.

Conclusion on Impact and Effectiveness

These studies show that in over 700 empirical research studies, in the study of the entire state ofWest Virginia, in a national sample of fourth- and eighth-grade students, and in an analysis of newereducational technologies that students with access to

(a) computer assisted instruction, or

(b) integrated learning systems technology, or

(c) simulations and software that teaches higher order thinking, or

(d) collaborative networked technologies, or

(e) design and programming technologies,

show positive gains in achievement on researcher constructed tests, standardized tests, andnational tests.

1 09

\ /---:,_ -!-- '-- -!5!-: :-..!/ \ :-, ---L,--, - '..\-.

-----__:-"-_---- 0e,---,:-:,,'-------..- ---1-- '-'"",N----

There is, however, evidencein-some" of these Studies thbt learning teChnOlogY\is less,effectiye ,,,2Or- -------- -", - -,

----,,,, , ----ineffective when the learrimg'oblecti)ie'S-Cir unclear di-id-the fo6;s-of-the'lechrialogy-use is diffuse- ., ,._

/ , ,-.- - -- l )1 (- \/%I\ \ ::z.., N---.-----7, ) ,, ---;- .,,-

"One of the enduring difficulties abdut technolOgy arid,'educatiOn," (aCcording to -br? tvlarthaiStone , i \, / ,

Wiske, co-directOr of the -.Educational Technology:, Center, at-the',-Harvard`, Graduate --SChool---of '-,c-,

Education7"is that d'Icit-of-peo"-ple,think/about the,technologi first and iheeaucatin laste'r.." \\.,, ,-.. i- 1, ,.,,---, \ -- -_ ) \,

./ / ,To asirst edUcators and policymakers in butting----educatiOn first, the Milken ExChange' s:e-ryesas ,a clegi-inghouse Of research /and information on Iebrning technology. To facilitate' policydelopiinent and planning, /the' Exchange has develoaed its Seyen1,- Dimensions', Of Learning

Technology. By paying attention to'the learner, the learning environment, professional cOmpetencsy,/ system capacitommunity connections,/technology capacityi: and accoUntability, technology will/ / \-, , t ,,

i / ---- ,,,,

4 1? kept in ,tervicelo-learning. , 1 ,., ,t),

\ j ,.'" i \; ," , \ ',_ ---- 11 "'

/ i 1

'

// 11 /1 ----'-' ( /

.. 1/ , \ 11

For more information' on the Milken/Exchange visit 'OOr Web site at w'Ww.riiilkenexcha'n'ge.orq. ,----/,'-,4--./ ,-- ; ,._ .

/ / \For a /more detailed account Of this artiCle-see-John( Schacter's publication--.Mbe& JechnolOgy i 1--/ ,

/ ; Improve Student Learning and/Achievement? How, When, and Under What oridiiion-S?" i\r, vol/

1 / uMe 20, 1999 of the Journal Of Educationat,Computing Research./

! 1, ,/

;1/ .. //

\ ,

\/ -,

i11\

\ / / ---/

\ I,

1I ! SN I ,,, ,

i !\1

'',I

)1

\

\

\\ ,

!!!`,

A

, 1

10

i

!!!.

,

References

Baker, E.L., Gearhart, M., & Herman, J.L. (1994). Evaluating the apple classrooms of tomorrow.In E.L. Baker, and H.F. O'Neil, Jr. (Eds.). Technology assessment in education and training.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Harel, I. (Ed.). (1990). Constructionist learning: A 5th anniversary collection of papers reflect-ing research reports, projects in progress, and essays by the Epistemology and Learning Group.Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning environment. In I. Harel andS.Papert (Eds.). Constructionism, 41-84. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Kulik, J.A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E.L. Baker,and H.F. O'Neil, Jr. (Eds.). Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., & Kottkamp, R. (1999). West Virginia's Basic Skills/Computer Education Program: An Analysis of Student Achievement. Santa Monica, CA: MilkenFamily Foundation.

Sivin-Kachala, J. (1998). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, 1990-1997.Software Publisher's Association.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities.In T. Koschmann, (Ed.). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology andstudent achievement in mathematics. Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center.

11

,

, .' ,(--:-.-4 -7 `s, / V,A_ l's)1 /'_',-- , C-1-\--)

.." ,.' >7,- --'1,, '-1,.; -1 '' -`6- \-i) ----,1. /\,A_'/ / .----, l','? ""-,

//' ')- f:, `' -'--\ `")-_,

,,/ ,i \ .-2 \ -,,_, ._:-._:- - / \ _ -,. \ _,.--,,--,/, / x,,,. / /,,,, =.-. ,, ____ ) \

--,- ,___-- ./ --,....) \ ./;',,i b-t --, -,, , , ----,,s- ---I----,c_// I, , 7 , - --K___., ,,,,,,

/ 1,, , _-_-_---7:-.-.. 7 ,f,,---

p k/ /' / ,, , _,/' , c i)._--__

-\ \ -\,-\:.,,_ \/ / \ / --.,,,) ''N. o' \\ (, ., / z f:,/ / r ''()

'-,, , '\ \, 's _ ----- ' I .0/ j ,r / '--`. t ( _--2-' \ 'i.,--/- P '3/ /

I / // '-,. / ''.)`1 ,c," / i

0 f//' ) \1 / / Milken EXchange on Educafion Technology----,, 2

/ /\ Family Foundation 1., -._____,_-_,.-r -s

) ---_,

/ / \ / 120 Fourili-Street,IFourp Floor(

/ i ).' \

! / / /1 Santa Monica, California 90401

.-":-,' \ ,...'"

\\\

i / \

,

i '\il /

\-\N // I- /

I/ www.milkenexchange.org

tek 310-998-2800fax 310-998-2899

i

I

\

\

t1\

\\'i /

/ --,j 6 i .,.. 1

--)\1 40\1\ / /

/ To order additional copies contact:/.', ) ,

----------__ / http://web.mff.orig/pubform.taf / '

/ \/-

__------._ i /

, i,

,, -)--

-----.. .?I If

I

I \ / /\1N L

N--,.)

0199-k-The-Milken Family Foundation

\\)

I

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (9/97)