Defining Technology for Learning: Cognitive and Physical

Middle Grades Review
Volume 4
Issue 1 Technology for Learning in the Middle Grades:
Article 2
April 2018
Defining Technology for Learning: Cognitive and Physical
Tools of Inquiry
Connor K. Warner
University of Missouri-Kansas City, warnerck@umkc.edu
Clare V. Bell
University of Missouri-Kansas City, bellcv@umkc.edu
Arthur Louis Odom
University of Missouri-Kansas City, alodom@umkc.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview
Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Elementary Education Commons, Science
and Mathematics Education Commons, and the Secondary Education Commons
This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Education and Social Services at ScholarWorks @ UVM. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Middle Grades Review by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks @ UVM. For more information, please contact donna.omalley@uvm.edu.
Recommended Citation
Warner, Connor K.; Bell, Clare V.; and Odom, Arthur Louis (2018) "Defining Technology for Learning: Cognitive and Physical Tools
of Inquiry," Middle Grades Review: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 2.
Available at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol4/iss1/2
brought to you by CORE
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
provided by ScholarWorks @ UVM

Defining Technology for Learning: Cognitive and Physical Tools of Inquiry
Connor K. Warner, University of Missouri-Kansas City
Clare V. Bell, University of Missouri-Kansas City
Arthur Louis Odom, University of Missouri-Kansas City
Abstract
This essay explores definitions of technology and educational technology. The authors argue the following
points: 1. Educational stakeholders, and the public at large, use the term technology as though it has a
universally agreed upon definition. It does not, and how technology is defined matters. 2. For technology
in schools to support student learning, it must to be defined in a way that describes technology as a tool
for problem-solving. 3. Integration of technology, particularly when paired with teacher-centered
practices, has the potential of reinforcing and heightening the negative consequences of a conception of
learning that positions students as recipients of knowledge instead constructors of knowledge. This
article concludes with a call for leaders in the field of educational technology to provide guidance by
adopting a definition that encapsulates the third point above.
Introduction
Referencing a ubiquitous morass of
communications technology, science fiction
writer Ray Bradbury’s (1953) protagonist in The
Murderer declared himself…
…the vanguard of the small public which is
tired of noise and being taken advantage of
and pushed around and yelled at, every
moment music, every moment in touch with
some voice somewhere, do this, do that,
quick, quick, now here, now there. You'll see.
The revolt begins. My name will go down in
history! ... It'll take time, of course. It was all
so enchanting at first. The very idea of these
things, the practical uses, was wonderful.
They were almost toys, to be played with,
but the people got too involved, went too far,
and got wrapped up in a pattern of social
behavior and couldn't get out, couldn't
admit they were in, even. (p. 4)
Though the technologies referenced by the
speaker, Albert Brock, are fanciful versions of
the analog devices of the 1950s, wrist radios that
functioned like today’s cell phones and
broadcasting transmitters that were
predecessors to current GPS trackers, the
sentiment he expresses is all too modern. He
could almost be testifying in a Forbes article on
the impact of social media like Facebook and
Twitter on mental health (e.g., Walton, 2017),
rather than crying out to a fictional psychiatrist
in a short story published more than half a
century ago.
Concurrent threads of allure and anxiety have
always defined humans’ relationships with
technology. The realm of education is no
exception. As districts across the United States
race to adopt new technological enterprises—
both hardware and software, experiment with
flipped classrooms, and implement one-to-one
device initiatives, we add our voices to those
urging caution and deliberation when bringing
technology into the middle grades to ensure that
such integration does not supersede promotion
of student voice, developmentally appropriate
instruction, and integrative curriculum. We
argue the following points:
1. Educational stakeholders, and the public
at large, use the term technology as
though it has a universally agreed upon
definition. It does not, and how we
define technology matters.
2. For technology in schools to support
student learning, it must to be defined in
a way that describes technology as a tool
for problem-solving.
3. Integration of technology, particularly
when paired with teacher-centered
practices, has the potential of
reinforcing and heightening the negative
consequences of a conception of
learning that positions students as
recipients of knowledge instead
1
Warner et al.: Defining Technology for Learning
Published by ScholarWorks @ UVM, 2018

constructors of knowledge.
We conclude the article with a call for leaders in
the field of educational technology to provide
guidance by adopting a definition that
encapsulates the third point above.
Defining Technology
To define technology, we first looked to the
International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE) for guidance. We found
several documents that referenced technology
but only one provided a clear definition (Kolb,
2015; Schrum, 2010; Smith & Throne, 2007).
Within the context of an essay about the best
research articles from the Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, Lynne Schrum,
former president of ISTE and editor of the
Journal of Research of Technology in
Education, operationally defined technology as
“computer-based technologies and includes
personal computers, LCD projectors, and Palm
Pilots” (Schrum, 2010, p. 60). Palm Pilots
slipped into oblivion with the advent of the
smartphone, and the last Palm device was
actually produced by Hewlett Packer in 2011
(R.I.P. Palm, n.d.). Liquid crystal display (LCD)
projectors are in still in use, but must compete
with newer projection methods such as digital
light processing (DLP), liquid crystal on silicone
(LCOS), and laser raster projectors (Hoffman,
2017). Defining technology based upon
particular physical objects guarantees that the
definition will become obsolete as technologies
advance. For example, in 1912, discourse
around educational technology was concerned
with “instruction by means of motion picture
machines, stereopticon lanterns, talking
machines, and player pianos, etc.,” and in the
ways photography could aid education (Ives,
1912, p. 24). Clearly, listing individual
technologies will not be a useful way to establish
a definition.
Because ISTE, the learned society for technology
education, has failed to provide an authoritative
definition of technology, we moved on to
consider the views of technology put forth by the
professional associations for teaching the core
curricular areas of English language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies. The
definition offered by the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2015) is
somewhat broader than that implied by the ISTE
documents, indicating that technology is made
up of “digital and physical tools” (p. 1).
Similarly, the National Council of Teachers of
English (NCTE, 2013) argues that students
should “use technology as a tool for
communication, research, and the creation of
new works” (para. 3). Though the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA, 2011) does
not explicitly define technology, it does argue
that science instruction can include “a wide
range of technologies [to] serve as tools to
engage students with real-world problem
solving, conceptual development, and critical
thinking” (para. 5). While referencing specific
types of digital tools such as online data, mobile
devices, and social networking platforms, the
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS,
2013) implies a more nuanced construction of
technology by indicating that technology
instruction should help “students make sense of
all the information, new environments, and ways
of being” (para. 1) that characterize
technological proliferation.
Defining Technology for Middle School
Though the above implied and explicit
definitions of technology from the four
professional associations are certainly more
useful than the list of individual technologies
provided by ISTE, we argue middle school
philosophy is best served by a definition of
technology as both cognitive and physical tools
for solving problems. We believe that
technology can only become integral to the
middle school curriculum if it centers upon the
study and development of tools and processes to
solve practical problems. This definition of
technology would inherently involve relevant,
challenging, integrative, and exploratory
curriculum, lend itself to developmentally
responsive instruction, and could certainly
promote positive relationships for learning and
student voice (Jackson & Davis, 2000; National
Middle School Association, 2010).
In developing such a construction of technology,
we drew upon the fourth definition for
technology listed in the Oxford English
Dictionary (OED), which includes three
components:
4. a. The branch of knowledge dealing with
the mechanical arts and applied sciences; the
study of this…. b. The application of such
knowledge for practical purposes, esp. in
industry, manufacturing, etc.; the sphere of
activity concerned with this; the mechanical
arts and applied sciences collectively…. c. The
2
Middle Grades Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 1 [2018], Art. 2
https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol4/iss1/2

product of such application; technological
knowledge or know-how; a technological
process, method, or technique. Also:
machinery, equipment, etc., developed from
the practical application of scientific and
technical knowledge; an example of this.
(Technology, 2018)
Distilling these definitions down, we define
technology as a tool, both physical and cognitive,
to help solve problems.
We argue that technology in education includes
cognitive tools and intellectual procedures such
as calculus or the scientific method, as well as
physical objects such as books, televisions,
computers, and communications networks such
as the Internet. Calculus serves as a particularly
apt example of what we mean when we call for a
recognition of cognitive tools as technologies.
Scientists of the 17th century were attempting to
solve complex problems of motion and
acceleration. Existing mathematical tools were
insufficient to solve these particular problems,
so a new tool “had to be created […] the
Calculus, a general symbolic and systematic
method of analytic operations, to be performed
by strictly formal rules, independent of
geometric meaning” (Rosenthal, 1951, p. 84).
This tool, the Calculus, as it was referred to by
17th-century practitioners, was not a physical
object, but was nevertheless a technology
developed to solve particular problems.
However, within the popular discourse, the term
technology clearly focuses on digital computing
tools, whether in the form of portable devices
like smartphones and tablets or hardwired PCs
and video gaming systems. Ideological battles
about young people’s use of technology
frequently center on the possible effects of
screen time (e.g. Frankel, 2017; Gomez, 2017),
and tend to define technology as computers,
software, computer peripherals and projectors,
and the Internet, which are the most commonly
encountered digital technologies in schools
(Jones, 2017).
If we define technology as computers, software,
computer peripherals and projectors, and the
Internet, then the primary strengths of
technology are data access, data organization,
and data presentation. That these are a
computer’s strengths are self-evident in the
fundamental components that make up a
computer—input, output, micro-processor,
memory, permanent storage. However, critical
thinking, creativity, and purpose must be
supplied by the user of the computer. As such,
we would argue that technology as popularly
defined has the potential to undermine middle
school students’ learning, while technology as we
have defined it above has the potential to
promote middle school students’ learning.
Educational Technology: History
Repeating Itself
Failure to define technology in education is not a
new problem, but a persistent one (Saettler,
1969). While many consider technology to be a
modern addition to the educational enterprise, it
has in fact been part of schooling for centuries.
The notion that technology has only recently
become part of education may be due to a
narrow conceptualization of the word technology
in the popular consciousness, a
conceptualization that tends to focus on digital
computing and telecommunications, and
emphasizes physical devices rather than
cognitive tools. The earliest recorded usage of
the term technology in English, however, dates
back to 1612 in the writings of Isaac Casaubon,
who used it to refer to academic discussion or
debate focused upon the arts. It is not until well
into the 18th century that the term technology
starts to refer to applied scientific knowledge in
the form of tangible objects (Technology, 2018).
Throughout the past few centuries, educational
philosophers and reformers, who were possibly
ahead of prevailing educational practices of the
time, included cognitive tools in discussions of
education. A few centuries ago, John Locke
(1632-1704), Johann Pestalozzi (1746-1827),
Frederick (1782-1852), and Johann Herbart
(1776-1841) were writing about education in
cognitive and pedagogical terms, and recognized
the instructional needs of individual students as
being varied. Later, Edward Thorndike (1874-
1949) was a proponent of teaching empirical-
inductive reasoning, and John Dewey (1859-
1952) contributed to educational technology
through his conception of instruction in terms of
the scientific method.
If we define education as the process of learning,
and technology as tools for problem solving,
education technology, by extension, is composed
of tools that facilitate the process of learning. To
test definitions of educational technology, then,
we must determine if technology, as defined in
particular ways, does indeed facilitate the
process of learning; that is, does technology as
3

we define it, and/or as it has popularly been
defined lead to gains in student achievement?
Technology and Student Achievement
While there is little doubt about the value of
technology to organize, analyze, locate, and
present information, whether technology usage
has a positive effect on students learning
remains unclear (Odom, Marszalek, Stoddard, &
Wrobel, 2011). If technology is narrowly defined
as digital computing devices, then empirical
scholarship indicates that, at best integration of
technology has no impact on student
achievement, and, at worst, it has a negative
correlation with student academic achievement.
Studies Showing Neutral Effect on
Achievement
The studies summarized in this section found no
demonstrable impact of technology integration
on student academic achievement. For example,
Slykhuis and Park (2006) investigated the
connection between high school students’
achievement and involvement with the online
Microcomputer Based Laboratory (MBL) physics
curriculum. They found correlations between
precursor content knowledge and math ability
with physics achievement, but found that online
exposure to MBL produced no significant
increase in physics achievement.
Similarly, Pihlap (2017) studied ninth-grade
students’ use of computers while learning
quadratic functions. Study subjects included 10
classrooms of students, five in which computers
were used alongside traditional methods and
five with no computer usage. Pihlap (2017)
found that students who used computers had
higher motivation for learning but that no
significant differences in learning outcomes
existed between the two groups.
This might indicate that integration of
technological devices could increase student
enjoyment of learning. However, Lu, Li,
Stevens, and Ye’s (2016) research results
contradict this claim using the 2012 PISA
database to analyze 15-year-old students’
evaluations of computer use for academic
learning. The majority of participants disagreed
with the idea that computers made learning
more fun.
Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, and Caranikas-
Walker (2011) studied the effect of a one-to-one
laptop initiative by comparing 21 middle schools
that adopted the initiative with 21 control
schools that did not. The authors found that the
initiative had a positive correlation with
students’ technology proficiency and the
frequency of classroom technology-based
activities. That is, technology use led to
increased technology use and increased skill at
using technology. They found no statistically
significant effect on student academic
achievement.
Studies Showing Negative Effect on
Student Achievement
Taken as a whole, the studies summarized in the
previous section suggest that technology
integration does not correlate with changes in
student achievement. However, a worst case
scenario exists in which technology use actually
decreases student achievement. For example,
Cifuentes and Hsieh (2004) found that when
computers were used simply as a medium for
traditional academic practices such as taking
notes or completing worksheets, student
academic achievement decreased in comparison
to completing such tasks without computers.
Likewise, Papanastasiou, Zembylas, and
Vrasidas (2003) found in an examination of data
from the Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS) that student
computer usage in a variety of countries,
including the US, was negatively associated with
math and science achievement. They also found
that frequent student use of spreadsheets and
educational software was associated with lower
science literacy scores. According to Zhao, Lei,
Yan, Lai, and Tan (2005), frequency of student
computer usage was negatively associated with
grade point average. In addition, the authors
argued that extended computer usage was
harmful to student achievement, and found that
much of the time spent on computers was not
linked to activities that would improve
achievement.
We advance that these negative effects are likely
a result of technology use with emphasis on
locating correct answers, given that one of the
primary strengths of technology, as discussed
previously, is data access. This is a sort of
pedagogical version of the phenomenon that has
come to be called Maslow’s Hammer (Maslow,
1966), in which, to an individual with a hammer,
every problem begins to look like a nail.
Computers are exceptionally useful for locating
information. Therefore, having students locate
4

information with computers is a tantalizingly
easy pedagogical choice. If someone has access
to Internet-connected computers, then the
solution to every problem may begin to look like
a Google search. However, if the learning
activity ends with the location of a declarative
answer, then likely little or no meaningful
learning has occurred. According to Mayer
(2002), for meaningful learning to occur,
students must “build the knowledge and
cognitive processes necessary for problem
solving” (Mayer, 2002, p. 227). They cannot
simply look up, or look up and memorize, facts.
Studies Showing Possible Positive Effects
Though our review of literature did find some
studies indicating positive impacts of technology
on middle school students’ learning, analysis of
these studies indicate that the impact of
computer use on middle school student
achievement is dependent on how the computer
is used, and not whether a computer is used
(Pihlap, 2017). For example, in mathematics
classes where connective technologies
(networked calculators) were used for uptake of
students’ work as objects of whole class
discussion, students’ analyses and expressions of
mathematical thinking positioned the students
as active participants in the construction of
knowledge that featured exploration of the
mathematical reasoning behind a variety of
solution paths (Bell, 2013; Bell & Pape, 2012).
As Gee (2003) noted, “Technologies have
effects—and different ones—only as they are
situated within specific contexts. So we always
have to ask how the technology was used and in
what context it was being used” (p. 12).
Dynamic computer instruction where students
are actively engaged in learning can have a
significant positive effect on student
achievement according to Turk and Akyuz
(2016). They found that computer instruction
had a significant effect on students' achievement
in geometry compared to traditional instruction.
Similarly, integrative white boards reported to
be better than lecture at teaching mathematics
(Chen, 2013). Additionally, Kposowa and Valdez
(2013) found that there was a significant
association between generic laptop use and
achievement on standardized tests. The more
laptops were used, the greater the
achievement. What remains unclear is whether
actively engaged students without a technology
would perform as well as actively engaged
students with a technology.
Ercan, Bilen, and Ural (2016) compared web
based teaching materials designed for a
computer environment to textbook instruction
among grade five students. They reported that
the computer group out-performed the textbook
group on achievement and attitudes measures.
Because the control comparison in this study
was the use of a textbook, it remains unclear as
to whether or not other non-web based teaching
materials would have produced similar results in
comparison to web based teaching materials.
Kocakaya and Gonen (2014) examined
computer-assisted Roundhouse Diagrams
compared to the Context-Based Learning
Approach (non-computer assisted) on the topics
of force and motion among grade nine
students. The results indicated students who
received instruction with computer-assisted
Roundhouse Diagrams out-performed Context-
Based Learning Approach students. Non-
computer assisted Roundhouse diagrams were
not used as a control, so we do not know
whether the computer was the variable that led
to increased performance, or if Roundhouse
diagrams are simply a superior pedagogical tool
compared to Context-Based Learning
Approaches.
Controlling the range of possibilities on
experiments with human subjects can be much
more limited than investigation in natural
sciences. Without controls it can be very
difficult to determine the effect of experimental
treatment. Each of the research reports above
indicated that computer instruction was found
to have a positive association with middle school
student achievement. But without well
controlled comparative experimental designs, it
remains difficult to draw conclusions about the
value of computers in middle school classrooms.
In their analysis of computers in science classes,
Odom and Bell (2012) determined that
computer usage could lead to positive effects
when used for very specific purposes—“modeling
abstract concepts, for demonstrating lab
procedures, and for a combination of data
collection and lab setup” (p. 78). They
concluded their article by offering six
recommendations for the use of computers
which would allow them to enhance, rather than
hinder, the learning process:
1. Use computers as tools for learning, not
as the source of learning.
2. Engage small groups of students in both
lab activities and computer activities.
5

3. Let carefully written research questions
guide information and data collection
during lab activities and when using
computers.
4. Use computers to organize and present
data and findings and avoid use solely
for PowerPoint presentations.
5. Avoid activities that emphasize
traditional classroom practices, such as
copying notes or looking up answers to
lower-level questions.
6. Deemphasize drill and practice and
word processing. (Odom & Bell, 2012, p.
78)
Pedagogical Implications of a Broader
Definition of Technology
We argue that technology can add significantly
to the quality of students’ learning experiences if
technology is defined broadly as cognitive and
physical tools for solving problems. Conversely,
adhering to a narrow definition of technology as
just digital computing devices is likely to result
in negative learning experiences. Adopting a
broader definition leads directly to adopting a
pedagogical approach compatible with this
definition—inquiry learning.
Inquiry learning, as so much else in education,
has its roots in the writings of Dewey (1910),
who worried that education, particularly science
education, focused too heavily on rote
memorization of facts, which were, in and of
themselves, meaningless. He advocated a
student-centered pedagogy in which learners
actively engaged in the development of
knowledge via application of the scientific
method (a technology by our definition), and
teachers worked to facilitate that process. By
engaging in inquiry learning, students develop
procedural knowledge (knowing how), in the
process of which they also construct declarative
knowledge (knowing that). Epistemologically,
inquiry learning locates the source of knowledge
within the experience of the learner, rather than
within an outside source of expertise, such as a
teacher or a search-engine.
The benefits of inquiry learning have been well
documented and include increased critical
thinking and problem-solving skills as well as
deeper conceptual understanding across
academic disciplines. For example, Lawson,
Abraham, and Renner (1989) found that student
development of procedural knowledge through
inquiry learning also led to improvement in
formal reasoning abilities, including
questioning, analyzing data, and drawing
conclusions. This is in contrast to the rote
learning that so often accompanies teacher-
centered recitation or lecture classes, in which
students are tested upon their ability to recall
information presented to them by their teachers.
Ausubel (1968) found that information learned
in rote fashion is rarely meaningful, as students
tend to be unable to locate this new information
within their existing frames of disciplinary
knowledge.
Unfortunately, teacher-centered instructional
approaches remain commonplace at all levels of
education, and when technology is used simply
as an extension of traditional pedagogical
practices, student learning actually suffers.
Odom et al. (2011) found negative associations
between both teacher-centered instruction and
computer usage and student science
achievement. The authors argued that
“individual work and acquisition of declarative
knowledge with a computer provides little
opportunity to make use of procedural
knowledge to develop conceptual
understanding” (p. 18). We argue that defining
technology simply as material devices, and
disregarding the cognitive tools that make such
devices meaningful, inexorably leads to usage of
computers in ways that do not encourage the
development of conceptual understanding.
A Call for Action
Given the points made above regarding the
serious implications of broad versus narrow
definitions of technology, we argue that leaders
in the field of education need to step forward
and provide direction by clearly establishing a
broader definition of technology that includes
both cognitive and physical tools for solving
problems. We believe that this broader view is
particularly important for middle level education
where educators are being asked to make the
curriculum relevant and applicable to students’
lives. Such a curriculum encourages students to
identify real problems and then take steps to
solve them, thus encouraging critical thinking,
decision making, and creativity (NMSA, 2010).
With several states (including influential Texas)
having already adopted the newly revised ISTE
technology standards as requirements for their
P-12 curricula, and numerous other states
considering adoption (Team ISTE, 2017), we
look to ISTE in particular as the body to provide
such leadership in the field of educational
6

technology.
The ever-accelerating push for schools to adopt
new technologies and incorporate technological
competencies into their curricula is unlikely to
slow in the foreseeable future. The Council for
the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, the
primary accrediting body for educator
preparation programs (EPPs), now requires
those EPPs to integrate technology as a cross-
cutting theme throughout their programs. With
lawmakers increasing policy mandates relating
to technology, and large educational donors
pushing techno-centric agendas in P-12 schools
(e.g., Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2018),
professional educators are left with a choice—
either we increase our influence over the
educational technology narrative, and claim our
right to define technology in a manner that will
best serve our students and our society, or we
cede control to those who would define
technology in narrower material ways.
References
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology:
A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Bell, C. V. (2013). Uptake as a mechanism to
promote student learning. International
Journal of Education in Mathematics,
Science and Technology, 1(4), 217-229.
Bell, C. V., & Pape, S. J. (2012). Scaffolding
students’ opportunities to learn through
social interactions. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 24(4),
423-445. doi:10.1007/s13394-012-
0048-1
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2018). K-12
education: Strategy overview.
Retrieved from
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What
-We-Do/US-Program/K-12-Education
Bradbury, R. (1953). The murderer. In The
golden apples of the sun. New York, NY:
Doubleday & Company.
Chen, H., Chiang, C., & Lin, W. (2013). Learning
effects of interactive whiteboard
pedagogy for students in Taiwan from
the perspective of multiple intelligences.
Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 49(2), 173-187.
Cifuentes, L., & Hsieh, Y. C. J. (2004).
Visualization for middle school students’
engagement in science learning. Journal
of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 23, 109-137.
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and
as method. Science, 31, 121-127.
Ercan, O., Bilen, K., & Ural, E. (2016). ‘Earth,
sun and moon’: Computer assisted
instruction in secondary school science -
achievement and attitudes. Issues in
Educational Research, 26(2), 206-224.
Frankel, J. (2017). Limiting screen time for kids
might not work. Newsweek. Retrieved
from
http://www.newsweek.com/screen-
time-its-own-isnt-bad-751356
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to
teach us about learning and literacy.
New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Gomez, M. (2017). Expert shares advice on how
to limit screen time for kids. CBS New
York. Retrieved from
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/12/2
6/limiting-screen-time-for-kids/
Hoffman, T. (2017). The best projectors of 2018.
PC Magazine. Retrieved from
https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,281
7,2374594,00.asp
Ives, W. H. (1912). What school facilities shall be
provided for instruction by means of
motion picture machines, stereopticon
lanterns, talking machines, player
pianos, etc. The American School Board
Journal 45(1), 24-55.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning
points 2000: Educating adolescents in
the 21st century. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Jones, G. (2017). Classroom technology: What’s
new for 2017? Edudemic: Connecting
Education & Technology. Retrieved
from
http://www.edudemic.com/classroom-
technology-in-2017/
7

Kocakaya, F., & Gönen, S. (2014). Influence of
computer-assisted roundhouse
diagrams on high school 9th grade
students' understanding the subjects of
“force and motion”. Science Education
International, 25(3), 283-311.
Kolb, L. (2015). Is technology a gimmick in your
classroom? International Society for
Technology in Education. Retrieved
from
https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDet
ail?articleid=334&category=In-t
Kposowa, A. J., & Valdez, A. D. (2013). Student
laptop use and scores on standardized
tests. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 48(3), 345-379.
Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W.
(1989). A theory of instruction: Using
the learning cycle to teach science
concepts and thinking skills
[Monograph, Number One]. Kansas
State University, Manhattan, KS:
National Association for Research in
Science Teaching.
Lu, J., Li, D., Stevens, C., & Ye, R. (2016). How
do students evaluate computer use for
learning? Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 54(6), 793-815.
Maslow, A. (1966). The psychology of science: A
reconnaissance. New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful
learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 226-
232.
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS).
(2013). Technology position statement
and guidelines. Retrieved at
https://www.socialstudies.org/positions
National Council of Teachers of English. (2013).
NCTE framework for 21st century
curriculum and assessment. Retrieved
from
http://www.ncte.org/governance/21stce
nturyframework
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
(2015). Strategic use of technology in
teaching and learning mathematics: A
position of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA:
Author.
National Middle School Association (NMSA).
(2010). This we believe: Keys to
educating young adolescents.
Westerville, OH: Author.
National Science Teachers Association. (NSTA).
(2011). Quality science education and
21st-century skills. Retrieved from
http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/2
1stcentury.aspx.
Odom, A., & Bell, C. (2012). Recommendations
for using computers in science classes:
Making a positive impact. Science
Scope, 36(1), 72-78.
Odom, A. L., Marszalek, J. M., Stoddard, E. R., &
Wrobel, J. M. (2011). Computers and
traditional teaching practices: Factors
influencing middle level students’
science achievement and attitudes about
science. International Journal of
Science Education, 33(17), 2351-2374.
Papanastasiou, E. C., Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas,
C. (2003). Can computer use hurt
science achievement? The USA results
from PISA. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 12, 325-332.
Pihlap, S. (2017). The impact of computer use on
learning of quadratic
functions. International Journal of
Technology in Mathematics Education,
23(1), 59-66.
R.I.P. Palm: A history of the smartphone/PDA
pioneer. (n.d.). PC Magazine. Retrieved
from
https://www.pcmag.com/feature/26043
9/r-i-p-palm-a-history-of-the-
smartphone-pda-pioneer
Rosenthal, A. (1951). The history of calculus. The
American Mathematical Monthly,
58(2), 75-86.
Saettler, P. (1969). Instructional technology:
Some concerns and desiderata. AV
Communications Review, 17(4), 357-
367.
8

Schrum, L. (2010). Revisioning a proactive
approach to an educational technology
research agenda. In L. Schrum (Ed.),
Considerations on technology and
teachers: The best of JRTE (pp. 1-8).
Eugene, OR: International Society for
Technology in Education.
Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., &
Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of
technology immersion on middle school
students’ learning opportunities and
achievement. The Journal of
Educational Research, 104(5), 299-315.
Slykhuis, D., & Park, J. (2006). Correlates of
achievement with online and classroom-
based MBL physics activities. Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science
Teaching, 25(2), 147-163.
Smith, G. E., & Throne, S. (2007).
Differentiating instruction with
technology in K-5 classrooms. Eugene,
OR: International Society for
Technology in Education.
Technology. (2018). Oxford English Dictionary
Online. Retrieved from
http://www.oed.com.proxy.library.umk
c.edu/view/Entry/198469?
Turk, H. S., & Akyuz, D. (2016). The effects of
using dynamic geometry on eighth grade
students' achievement and attitude
towards triangles. International Journal
for Technology in Mathematics
Education, 23(3), 95-102.
Walton, A. G. (2017). 6 ways social media affects
our mental health. Forbes. Retrieved
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwal
ton/2017/06/30/a-run-down-of-social-
medias-effects-on-our-mental-
health/#8e9e0cb2e5af
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S.
(2005). What makes the difference? A
practical analysis of research on the
effectiveness of distance education.
Teachers College Record, 107, 1836-
1884.
9

Defining Technology for Learning: Cognitive and Physical

More Related Content

Similar to Defining Technology for Learning: Cognitive and Physical (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Defining Technology for Learning: Cognitive and Physical