Technology makes a difference : inclusiveness of technology in education - REFERENCES

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Technology makes a difference : inclusiveness of technology in education

Heemskerk, I.M.C.C.

Publication date

2008

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):

Heemskerk, I. M. C. C. (2008). Technology makes a difference : inclusiveness of technology

in education. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning.

General rights

It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)

and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open

content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations

If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please

let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material

inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter

to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You

will be contacted as soon as possible.

REFERENCES

AAUW Educational Foundation Research (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: AAUW.

Adler, M. A. (1999). Culture and computer technology in the classroom. Equity Coalition, 5, 9-13.

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational Techniques. In: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative methods (pp. 377-390). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Agosto, D. E. (2001). Propelling young woman into the cyber age: gender considerations in

the evaluation of web-based information. School Library Media Research. Retrieved Januari 10, 2008, from http://www.ala.org. ALA, volume 4.

Akrich, M. (1995). Users representations: practices, methods and sociology. In: A. Rip, T. Misa & J. Schot (Eds.), Managing Technology in Society (pp.167-184). London: Pinter Publishers.

Bain, A., Huss, P., & Kwong, H. (2000). The evaluation of a hypertext discussion tool for teaching English literature to secondary school students. Journal of Educational Comput-ing Research, 23(2), 203-16.

Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT impact report. A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Communities.

Barbieri, M.J., & Light, P. (1992). Interaction, gender and performance on a computer-based problem solving task. Learning and Instruction, 2, 199-213.

Barrett, E., & Lally, V. (1999). Gender differences in an on-line learning environment. Jour-nal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(1), 48-60.

Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. L. (1998). The equity threat of promising innovations: pioneering Internet-connected schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(1), 1-26. Becta (2002). ImpaCT2. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from

http://www.becta.org.uk/research/impact2.

Becta (2006). The Becta review 2006: Evidence on the progress of ICT in education. Becta ICT Research. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://www.becta.org.uk.

Bigelow, B., & Larson, M. (1999). On the road to cultural bias: the Oregon trail. Equity Coa-lition, 5, 22-25.

Biraimah, K. (1993). The non-neutrality of educational computer software. Computers and Education, 20(4), 283-290.

Bradshaw, J., Clegg, S., & Trayhurn D. (1995). An investigation into gender bias in educational software used in English primary schools. Gender and Education, 7(2), 167-175.

112

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn. Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Cassell, J., & Jenkins, H. (Eds.) (1998). From barbie to mortal kombat: Gender and computer games. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Ching, C.C., Kafai, Y.B., & Marshall, S.K. (2000). Spaces for change: Gender and technology access in collaborative software design. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 67-78.

Chisholm, I. M. (1995). Computer use in a multicultural classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 162-174.

Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Overall, T. (2005). Transition points for the gender gap in computer enjoyment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 23-37. Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes

among secondary school students; what has changed? Educational Research, 45, 155-165 Collis, B., & Remmers, E. (1997). The World Wide Web in education: Issues related to cross-cultural communication and interaction. In: B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction. (pp.85-92) Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: the special case of gender. Journal of Computer As-sisted Learning, 22, 320-334.

Damarin, S. K. (1998). Technology and multicultural education: The question of conver-gence. Theory into Practice, 37(1), 11-19.

Damarin, S. K. (2000). The 'digital divide' versus digital differences: Principles for equitable use of technology in education. Educational Technology, 40(4), 17-22.

De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: a permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10, 249-266. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Lowyck, J. (1996). Computers and learning. In E. de Corte &

F.E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp.695-700). Oxford/New York: Pergamon.

De Haan, J., & Van ‘t Hof, C., (Red.) (2006). Jaarboek ICT en samenleving. De digitale ge-neratie [Yearbook ICT and society. The digital generation]. Amsterdam: Boom. De Haan, J., & Huysmans, F. (2002). Van huis uit digitaal. Verwerving van digitale

vaardig-heden tussen thuismilieu en school. [Originally digital: acquisition of ICT skills at home and school]. The Hague, The Netherlands: SCP.

De Jean, J., Upitis, R., Koch, C., & Young, J. (1999). The story of PhoenixQuest: how girls respond to a prototype language and mathematics computer game. Gender and Education, 11, 207-223.

De Vaney, A. (1998). Can and need educational technology become a postmodern enterprise? Theory into Practice, 37(7), 72-80.

DeVoogd, G. L. (1998). Computer use levers power sharing: Multicultural students' styles of participation and knowledge. Computers and Education, 31, 351-364.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. In John Dewey, The middle works, 1899-1924, vol. 6. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

D’Haenens, L. (2003). ICT in multicultural society: The Netherlands: A context for sound multiform media policy? International Communication Gazette, 65, 401-421.

Fabos, B., & Young, M.D. (1999). Telecommunication in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217-259.

Fiore, C. (1999). Awakening the tech bug in girls. Learning & Leading with Technology, 26 (5), 10-17.

Freedman, K., & Liu, M. (1996). The importance of computer experience, learning processes, and communication patterns in multicultural networking. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(1), 43-59.

Furner, J., Holbein, M. F. D., & Scullion, K. J. (2000). Taking an Internet field trip: promot-ing cultural and historical diversity through Mayan mathematics. TechTrends, 44(6), 18-22.

Gillani, B. B. (2000). Culturally responsive educational websites. Educational Media Interna-tional, 37, 185-195.

Goodlad, J. I., Klein, M. F., & Tye, K. A. (1979). The domains of curriculum and their study. In J.I. Goodlad and Associates (Eds.), Curriculum Inquiry: The study of curriculum prac-tice (pp. 43-76). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gougeon, T. D. (1998). Gender sensitive instruction: a distance education issue. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the American association for adult and continuing educa-tion (AAACE), Phoenix, AZ.

Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills; The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 432-448.

Hativa, N., Lesgold, A., & Swissa, S. (1993). Competition in individualized CAI. Instruc-tional Science, 21(5), 365-400.

Heemskerk, I., Brink, A., Volman, M., & Ten Dam, G. (2005). Inclusiveness and ICT in edu-cation: a focus on gender, ethnicity and social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learn-ing, 21 1-16.

Heemskerk, I., Volman, M., Admiraal, W., & Ten Dam, G. (submitted a). Inclusiveness of ICT in Secondary Education; Students’ Appreciation of ICT Tools.

Heemskerk, I., Volman, M., Ten Dam, G., & Admiraal, W. (submitted b). Social scripts in educational technology and inclusiveness in classroom practice.

Henderson, L. (1996). Instructional design of interactive multimedia. A cultural critique. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 85-104.

Hodes, C.L. (1996). Gender representations in mathematics software. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24(1), 67-73.

Hoyles, C., Healy, L., & Pozzi, S. (1992). Interdependence and autonomy: aspects of group-work with computers. Learning and Instruction, 2, 239-257.

Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C. (1997). Productive discussion in science: gender equity through elec-tronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23-36.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. London: Sage Publications Inc.

Ikegulu, N. T. (1997). Effectiveness of mediated instructional strategies and learning styles in multiculturally linguistic environments: Implications for developmental educators. Gram-bling, LA: Grambling State University.

Irwin, M., Moore, M. A., & Stevenson, J. (1994). Enhancing a multicultural program through hypertext links. In: W.M. Reed, J. K. Burton & M. Liu (Eds.), Multimedia and megachange: New roles for educational computing (pp.255-280). The Haworth Press, Inc. Joiner, R., Messer, D., Littleton, K., & Light, P. (1996). Gender, computer experience and

computer-based problem solving. Computers and Education, 26, 179-187.

Joo, J. E. (1999). Cultural issues of the Internet in classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 245-250.

Kafai, Y.B. (2002). Elementary students’ perceptions of helping interactions: development, experience, and equity in collaborative software design activities. Paper presented at the AERA 2002, Chicago.

Kutnick, P. (1997). Computer-based problem-solving: the effects of group composition and social skills on a cognitive, joint action task. Educational Research, 39(2), 135-147. Kwalitan (www.kwalitan.nl).

Larson, M. (1999). Guidelines for selecting equitable electronic software. Equity Coalition, 5, 20-21,25.

114

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. A framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London/ New York: Routledge Falmer.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cam-bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Li, N., & Kirkup, G. (2007). Gender and cultural differences in Internet use: A study of China and the UK. Computers & Education 48, 301-317.

Lu, M. Y., Walker, D. F., & Huang, J. (1999). Do they look at educational multimedia differ-ently than we do? A study of software evaluation in Taiwan and the United States. Inter-national Journal of Instructional Media, 26(1), 31-42.

Marble, S. (1997). Narrative visions of schooling, Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 55-64.

Maurer, M. M., & Davidson, G. (1999). Technology, children, and the power of the heart. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 458-460.

McLoughlin, C. (1999). Culturally responsive technology use: developing an on-line commu-nity of learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (3), 231-243.

Michel, A. (1986). Down with stereotypes! Eliminating sexism from children's literature and school textbooks. Paris: UNESCO.

Milone, M. N., Jr., & Salpeter, J. (1996). Technology and equity issues. Technology and Learning, 16(4), 38-41,44-47.

Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15-31.

Nordli, H. (2000). From “spice girls” to cyber girls? The role of educational strategies in the construction of computer-enthusiastic girls in Norway. Retrieved November 26, 2001, from http://www.hf.unit.no/itk/sts/SLIM/slimgirlscomp2.html.

Novak, T.P. & Hoffman, D.L. (1998). Bridging the digital divide: the impact of race on computer access and internet use. Retrieved November 26, 2001, from http://www.2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/papers/race/science.html.

OECD (2006). Are students ready for a technology-rich World? Paris: OECD.

Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the user as everybody; gen-der and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Tech-nology, & Human Values, 29(1), 30-63.

Oudshoorn, N., Seatnan, A. R., & Lie, M. (2002). On gender and things; reflections on an exhibition on gendered artefacts. Women’s Studies International Forum, 25, 471-483. Passig, D., & Levin, H. (1999). Gender interest differences with multimedia learning

inter-faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(2), 173-183.

Pinkard, N. (2005). How the perceived masculinity and/or femininity of software applications influences students’ software preferences. Journal of Educational Computing Research 32, 57-78.

Pryor, J. (1995). Gender issues in group work – a case study involving work with computers. British Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 277-289.

Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Brown, W., & Prosser, B. (2004). A user’s guide to MlwiN. Version 2.0. London: Center for Multilevel Modeling, Institute of Education, University of Lon-don.

Reeves, T. C. (1997). An evaluator looks at cultural diversity. Educational Technology, 37(2), 27-30.

Rijkschroeff, R., Ten Dam, G., Duyvendak, J.W., De Gruijter, M., & Pels, T. (2005). Educa-tional policies on migrants and minorities in the Netherlands: success or failure? Journal of Education Policy, 20 (4), 417-435.

Roblyer, M. D., Dozier-Henry, O., & Burnette, A. P. (1996). Technology and multicultural education: The ‘uneasy alliance’. Educational Technology, 36(3), 5-12.

Rommes, E. (2002). Gender scripts and the internet; the design and use of Amsterdam’s digi-tal city. Enschede: Twente University Press.

Rosser, S.V. (1989). Teaching techniques to attract women to science: applications of feminist theories and methodologies. Women's Studies International Forum, 12(3), 363-377. Royer, J. M., Greene, B. A., & Anzalone, S.J . (1994). Can U.S. develop CAI work

effec-tively in a developing country? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(1), 41-61.

Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Brindley, S. (2004). Teacher representations of the successful use of computer-based tools and resources in secondary-school English, mathematics and science. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 259-275.

Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Lingenfelter, D. (1996). Gender, group composition, and task type in small task groups using computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Be-havior, 12 (4), 549-565.

Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Schofield, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (2002). Bringing the Internet to school: lessons from an urban district. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Selby, L., & Ryba, K. (1994). Creating gender equitable computer learning environments. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 10(2), 7-10.

Simons, P. R. J., Van der Linden, J. L., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.) (2000). New learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Solomon, G. (2002). Digital equity: It's not just about access anymore - Sure, most schools now have computers and Internet access, but are all students receiving the same high-quality learning experience? We examine the issues. Technology & Learning, 22(9), 18-27.

Steyaert, J., & Gould, N. (2007). The rise and fall of the digital divide. Currents.

Sutton. R. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools. Review of Educational Research, 61(4), 475-503.

Ten Dam, G. (1999). Pedagogisch geleerd [Didactically learnt]. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers AUP.

Underwood, J., Underwood, G., & Wood, D. (2000). When does gender matter?: Interactions during computer-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 10(5), 447-462. Upitis, R. (1998). From hackers to luddites, game players to game creators: Profiles of

ado-lescent students using technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(3), 293-318. Van den Akker, J. J. H. (1998). De uitbeelding van het curriculum [The enactment of the

cur-riculum]. Inauguration. Enschede: Twente University.

Van Dijk., J. A. G. M. (2003). De digitale kloof wordt dieper. Van ongelijkheid in bezit naar ongelijkheid in vaardigheden en gebruik van ICT. [The digital divide deepens. From ine-quality in possession to ineine-quality in skills and use of ICT.] Den Haag / Amsterdam: SQM en Infodrome@United Knowledge.

Van Eck, E., & Volman, M. (1999) New technology, new differences: A review study on gen-der differences and ICT in primary and secondary education. Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstamm Institute.

Van Zoonen, L. (2002). Gendering the internet: claims, controversies and cultures. European Journal of Communication, 17(1), 5-23.

Vier in balans monitor 2007 [Four in balance monitor 2007] (2007). Zoetermeer, The Neth-erlands: Kennisnet Ict op school.

Volman, M. (1997). Gender-related effects of computer and information literacy education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29, 315-328.

Volman, M., & Van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education. The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71, 613-631.

116

Volman, M., Van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I., & Kuiper, E. (2005). New technologies, new differ-ences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils’ use of ICT in primary and secondary edu-cation. Computers & Education, 45, 35-55.

Wang, C., & Reeves, T.C. (2007). The meaning of culture in online education; Implications for teaching, learning, and design. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized E-learning cultural challenges (pp.1-17). Hershey, London, Melbourne, Singapore: Information Science Pub-lishing.

Wilson, E.V. (2000). Student characteristics and computer-mediated communication. Com-puters and Education, 34, 67-76.

Wilson, T. (1999). Unequal computer access and the achievement gap. Equity Coalition, 5, 26-30.

Wolfe, J. (2000). Gender, ethnicity, and classroom discourse: Communication patterns of hispanic and white students in networked classrooms. Written Communication, 17(4), 491-519.

Woolgar, S. (1992). Configuring the user. The case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination (pp.58-99). London: Routledge.