Project 3: Improving Teacher Quality Grant Proposal

Tracey Anderson
October 15, 2016

Demonstrated Need
Benjamin Bannekers most recent College and Career Readiness Performance
Indicator (CCRPI) score published in 2015 is 56.3; Fulton County School Districts
average CCRPI score is 71.8 (Georgia Department of Education, 2016). The students
at Benjamin Banneker who are economically disadvantaged students and students
with disabilities have even fewer opportunities according to their CCRPI results:
31.23 and 10.57 respectively (Georgia Department of Education, 2016). Benjamin
Bannekers students also have the lowest SAT scores averages-less than 1,200- in
the Fulton County School District (Fulton County Schools, 2016b). And according to
the most recent annual Title 1 meeting (2015), less than 60% of the schools
students graduate on time. Benjamin Banneker is clearly struggling to help students
succeed academically. Because quantitative data is being used more frequently to
determine funding and even organizational control in the case of the November, 2016
Georgia ballot option for the Opportunity School District, Benjamin Banneker High
School will have to help students perform better academically.
Benjamin Banneker High Schools School Plan identifies a need for identifying
and prioritizing opportunity areas to improve student achievement results and a
plan to achieve specific student performance gains and meet student needs (Fulton
County Schools, 2016a, p. 3). And in its Strategic Plan for 2017, Fulton County
Schools (2016b) recognizes the school districts previous limitations of instructional
delivery methods and instructional offerings instructional models as well as the need
for more integration of technology. The school district (2016b) also has set a 100%
career readiness goal for the end of this school year. And in its most recent annual

Title 1 meeting information (2015), the school identified a goal of improving US

History EOC/Milestone performance from 40% of students receiving a meeting or
exceeding score to 50% of students receiving a meeting or exceeding score. This
professional development program should help the school and school district improve
on these identified areas of need.
Comparative Literature Review
Research Question
In considering how inquiry-based learning and technology works in and for the
social studies classroom, some researchers identified a specific technology or practice
used in inquiry-based learning, and others examined what teachers need or benefit
from in cultivating such instructional environments. Doering and Vetsanios (2007)
explored the motivational effects geospatial technologies can have on students
learning geography, while Shin (2006) wanted to see how GIS (the online Geographic
Information System) can be used to enhance the geographic knowledge and map
skills of fourth grade students. Strickland (2005) wanted to know how a webquest
compares to traditional activities in affecting students performance on end-of-unit
tests, and Schul (2012) wanted to see the effect of integrating documentary-making
into a history course as well as why teachers integrate this activity into a history
classroom.
Manfra and Lee (2011) wanted to see how blogs contribute to relevant instruction,
and Journell (2008) wanted to examine the effectiveness of asynchronous discussion
in facilitating historical discussions among adolescents as well as what factors appear
to affect the quality of discussion, and such discussion activities can be crucial to
inquiry-based learning in a technology-rich learning environment. Van Fossan and
Waterson (2008) also wanted to find out about the instructional technology choices
teachers make by examining the degree to which and purpose of secondary grades
social studies teachers use the internet in the classroom as well as the factors most

associated with more frequent and higher-order use of the internet in secondary
grades social studies classes. Hofer and Swan (2008) as well as Beeson, Journell,
and Ayers (2014) explored the effects of TPACK. Hofer and Swan (2008) investigated
the extent to which teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
informs their instructional planning; Beeson, Journell, and Ayers (2014) wanted to
know how a teachers TPCK affect the complexity and authenticity of civics
instruction. Journell (2008) also investigated the role of the teacher by analyzing the
role the teacher plays in facilitating asynchronous discussions. Ravitz (2010)
analyzed how teachers using project-based-learning differ according to teacher
culture, student culture, and instructional reforms.
Other research focused on process. DiCamillo (2015) examined what happens
during expedition learning. And some research attempted to identify the processes
skilled readers engage in when locating and reading information on the internet as
well as what informs the choices such readers make when engaged in this type of
digital literacy (Coiro & Dobler, 2007). Some research concentrated on what students
think about a piece of technology or practice. Munoz and Thomas (2016) investigated
students perceptions of cell phone use for instruction and in the classroom. Snyder,
Paska, and Besozzi (2014) wanted to know what students think about screencasting;
DiCamillo (2015) wanted to see how students view expedition learning. Some studies
focused on the support teachers need. And DiCamillo (2015) identified challenges
teachers face in facilitating expedition learning. La Paz, Malkus, Monte-Sano, and
Montanaro (2011) examined the relationship between the degree to which teachers
participated in professional development and student learning over the course of one
academic year, while Sugar and van Tryon (2014) wanted to know what resources a
technology coach could provide for teachers facilitating virtual learning.
Population Studied

Social studies students participating in studies of inquiry-based learning and the

use or effect of technology can span different geographical regions, socio-economic
situations, academic levels, types of schools, grade levels, and social studies
subjects. Shin (2006)s research focused on 4th graders, while Doering and
Vetsanioss (2007), Stricklands (2005), Coirio and Doblers (2007), Schuls (2012)
research concentrated on middle school students. Beeson, Journell, and Ayers
(2014), Journell (2008), Manfra and Lee (2011), Snyder, Paska, and Besozzi (2014),
DiCamillo (2015), and Thomas and Munoz (2016) focused on high school students
work, interactions, or interview responses. La Paz, Malkus, Monte-Sano, and
Montanaro (2011) included elementary, middle, and high school students in their
study. Some studies appeared to have less racially or academically diverse student
populations than others, although not all studies identified the race or academic level
of student participants. Doering and Vetsanioss (2007) and Journells (2008)
included only white participants. Shins (2006) study included African American and
Caucasian students; Schuls (2012) included African American, Hispanic, and
Caucasian students. And Schuls (2012) was the only one to include a special
education class. However, Manfra and Lee (2011) included at-risk students.
In addition to student participants of various grade levels, researchers included
teacher participants of various grade levels. Beeson, Journell., and Ayers (2014),
DiCamillo (2015), Sugar and van Tryon (2014), Hofer and Swan (2008), Manfra and
Lee (2011), and Journell (2008) involved high school social studies teachers. La Paz,
Malkus, Monte-Sano, and Montanaro (2011) and Sugar and van Tryon (2014)
surveyed and observed or just surveyed elementary, middle, and high school
teachers. Whereas Van Fossan and Waterson (2008) and Hofer and Swan (2008)
gave only middle or high school social studies teachers on-line questionnaires or
conducted interviews with them. And the teachers and students participating in the
studies came from the Midwest (Schul, 2012; Thomas & Munoz, 2016; Doering &

Vetsanios, 2007), Indiana (Van Fossan & Waterson, 2008), Northern California (La
Paz, Malkus, Monte-Sano, and Montanaro,2011), New York (DiCamillo, 2015), North
Carolina (Manfra & Lee, 2012; Beeson, Journell, and Ayers, 2014), Virginia (Journell,
2008), and Texas (Strickland, 2005).
Methodologies
In investigating the use and effect of inquiry strategies and technology, many
researchers relied on interview data from students and teachers. Shin (2006),
Doering and Vetsanios (2007), Manfra and Lee (2011), Coiro and Dobler (2007), and
Schul (2012) all interviewed students. Thomas and Munoz (2016) and Snyder, Paska,
and Besozzi (2014) surveyed students. Shin (2006), Schul (2012), Strickland and
Nazzal (2005), Hofer and Swan (2008) and Coiro and Dobler (2007), and Journell
(2008), Schul (2012) interviewed teachers. Van Fossan and Waterson (2008) gave
teachers an online-questionnaire, and Sugar and van Tryon, (2014) surveyed
teachers. Researchers also examined students work. Schin (2006), Manfra and Lee
(2011), Strickland and Nazzal (2005), Schul (2012) analyzed students discussion
posts, sketch maps, presentations, and documentaries. And Shin (2006), Coiro and
Dobler (2007), Schul (2012), and Strickland and Nazzal (2005) conducted multiple
observations of teachers and students interacting with each other and technology in
the classroom. For those researchers trying to determine what impact technology or
a use of technology has on learning, they used students pre- and post- assessments
(Strickland, 2005; La Paz, Malkus, Monte-Sano, and Montanaro, 2011; DiCamillo,
2015).
Researchers applied different strategies to analyzing the data. For qualitative
data derived from observations, students work, and interview or survey responses,
many created some type of category coding (Sugar and van Tryon, 2014; Beeson,
Journell, and Ayers, 2014; Journell, 2008; Doering & Vetsanios, 2007; Shin, 2006;
Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Hofer & Swan, 2008; La Paz, Malkus, Monte-Sano, and

Montanaro, 2011; and Snyder, Paska, and Besozzi, 2014; Ravitz (2010). For those
researchers focusing on improved student learning informed, they analyzed the
quantitative data derived from assessments (La Paz, Malkus, Monte-Sano, and
Montanaro, 2011; Coiro & Dobler, 2007; DiCamillo, 2015; Strickland & Nazzal,
2005). Researchers also compared students and teachers actions during
observations and/or responses to interviews or surveys (Coiro & Dobler, 2007;
Stricklandl, 2005; Hofer & Swan, 2008). Because Van Fossan and Waterson (2008)
wanted to see how much internet use had changed, they compared teachers on-line
questionnaire responses to those responses gathered from an earlier study.
Lens/Theory
Many of the researchers examined teaching practices and student learning by
applying a constructivist approach in which the instructor works more as a facilitator
as students engage in acts of discovery that encourage students to use their prior
knowledge. through a constructivist lens (Doering & Vetsanios, 2007). Shin (2006),
Coiro and Dobler (2007), Manfra and Lee (2011), Van Fossan and Waterson, (2008),
and Doering and Vetsanios (2007), and Beeson, Journell, and Ayers (2014), and
Snyder, Paska, and Besozzi (2014) all applied this approach. Van Fossan and
Waterson (2008) also explained how they were informed by the idea that authorship
can push students beyond acquiring knowledge to learning about the nature of
facts, evidence, and interpretation (p. 132). And Manfra and Lee (2011) expanded
on this attention to student-centered learning by describing a real-world learning
environment. Thomas and Munoz (2016) and Snyder, Paska, and Besozzi (2014)
implicitly addressed student-centered learning by asking for students perceptions
about activities and practices in their learning. Schul (2012) as well as Hofer and
Swan (2008) applied TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge), which is
appropriate for any study of a teachers classroom practice and planning with
technology since this approach includes all of a teachers knowledge in an inquiry-

based and technology integrated classroom-not just knowledge of a discipline or

knowledge or a technology tool.
Findings
Some researchers did find that students learning improved, either through
assessment data or students responses and practices. Shin (2006) found that
students geographical knowledge and map-reading skills did improve with the use of
the GIS technology in an inquiry-based type learning environment; however, the
improvement in map-reading skills appeared more immediate and the improvement
in geographic knowledge appeared to be more gradual. La Paz, Malkus, Monte-Sano,
and Montanaro (2011) also found that inquiry-based learning-with or without
technology- improved student learning as students DBQ performance had improved;
nevertheless, the rate of improvement appeared linked to the amount and degree of
sustained professional development in which teachers had participated. Although
Doering and Vetsanios (2007) werent able to cite specific improvements in their
investigation of technology use- specifically, Google Earth- they did find that students
were able to easily use technology and that some students reported learning more
about areas and thinking differently about areas far away and close to home in a way
they hadnt done before. In looking at student-made documentaries, Schul (2012)
concluded that students did use technology and inquiry to engage in a meaningful
learning experience and to practice the skill of history-making, even if the initial part
of documentary-making process lacked the history-specific line of questioning the
researchers had anticipated. DiCamillo (2015) determined that students gained a
stronger understanding of the content when they engaged in cross-curricular
expeditionary learning; however, they tended to make stronger connections between
English and art than they did between global studies and English or global studies
and art. Manfra and Lee (2012) identified the benefit of blogging as an experience
that allowed students to access their prior knowledge, a skill necessary for

succeeding in inquiry-based learning. And one of Schuls (2012) teacher participants

thought that the documentary-making activity may have been the first time some of
the students used a computer to conduct authentic research, a benefit that needs no
further explanation.
Some researchers couldnt determine that inquiry-based learning with technology
actually improved student learning. In fact, Strickland (2005) found that students
performed better on the traditional poster-making activity than they did on a
webquest. And by reviewing the discussion posts from students taking an online
history course, Journell (2008) concluded that the majority of responses were lacking
in substance. Journell (2008) also found that the majority of students had not read
their classmates posted discussions, and he attributed the lack of substance and
involvement to the instructors lack of facilitation in these discussion since the
instructor had provided meaningful and sustained commentary for only one of the
multiple discussions.
In examining the role of the teacher in inquiry-based learning with technology,
some researchers looked at teacher beliefs and practices. Van Fossan and Waterson
(2008) concluded that teachers learning how to implement problem-based learning
with internet technology ultimately changed their understanding of classroom
instruction. Although Van Fossan and Waterson (2008) did find that more Indiana
teachers are using the internet than they were in 1999, 70% still reported wanting to
use the internet more for instruction and learning. Similarly, Sugar and van Tryons
(2014) teacher respondents also reported wanting more-more information and
resources that could help them integrate technology into their instruction. Like
Strickland (2005), Van Fossan and Waterson (2008) found that the existence of
technology didnt necessarily translate to improved learning. However, Van Fossan
and Waterson (2008) did conclude that higher-order use of the internet seemed
more prevalent among teachers who had more training and who worked in

environments with faster internet connections. Beeson, Journell., and Ayers (2014)
found that while two award-winning civics teachers claimed to promote the same
type of authentic, investigatory, and critical-thinking environment with technology,
one teacher used technology more as a digital textbook and notebook.
Because students are the ones using technologies, it makes sense that
researchers find out what students think. Despite the promotion of cell phones for
instructional use, 70% of the 628 high school students in Thomas and Munozs
(2016) study indicated that they werent convinced cell phone use actually helped
them learn more or better. And 90% of these students reported having used cell
phones for some type of learning
9th grade student participants in Snyder, Paska, and Besozzis (2014) study didnt
speak to the level of learning impacted by technology use, they did indicate that they
support using screencasting as a technological instructional tool. Although the
student participants engaging in a webquest in Stricklands (2005) study didnt
necessarily perform as well as their poster-making peers, they did report positive
experiences with the webquest. And the middle schoolers using Google Earth in
Doering and Vetsanioss (2007) study reported having fun (p. 249).
Data Review
Quantitative Data
Benjamin Bannekers most recent College and Career Readiness Performance
Indicator (CCRPI) score published in 2015 is 56.3; Fulton County School Districts
average CCRPI score is 71.8 (Georgia Department of Education, 2016). The students
at Benjamin Banneker who are economically disadvantaged students and students
with disabilities have even fewer opportunities according to their CCRPI results:
31.23 and 10.57 respectively (Georgia Department of Education, 2016). Benjamin
Bannekers students also have the lowest SAT scores averages-less than 1,200- in
the Fulton County School District (Fulton County Schools, 2016b). And according to

the most recent annual Title 1 meeting (2015), less than 60% of the schools
students graduate on time. Benjamin Banneker is clearly struggling to help students
succeed academically. Because qualitative data is being used more frequently to
determine funding and even organizational control in the case of the November, 2016
ballot option for the Opportunity School District, Benjamin Banneker High School will
have to help students perform better academically.
Qualitative Data
Benjamin Banneker High Schools School Plan identifies a need for identifying
and prioritizing opportunity areas to improve student achievement results and a
plan to achieve specific student performance gains and meet student needs (Fulton
County Schools, 2016a, p. 3). And in its Strategic Plan for 2017, Fulton County
Schools (2016b) recognizes the school districts previous limitations of instructional
delivery methods and instructional offerings instructional models as well as the need
for more integration of technology. The school district (2016b) also has set a 100%
career readiness goal for the end of this school year. And in its most recent annual
Title 1 meeting information (2015), the school identified a goal of improving US
History EOC/Milestone performance from 40% of students receiving a meeting or
exceeding score to 50% of students receiving a meeting or exceeding score. Because
the school district and the school have identified specific areas for improvement, any
professional development program the school engages in will have to actively and
specifically integrate these goals into its instruction and practice.
Project Goals and Objectives
Georgia world history social studies standards ask students to be able to
Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question
(including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the
inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating
understanding of the subject under investigation (Georgia Department of Education,

10

2012) as well as to analyze globalization in the contemporary world (Georgia

Department of Education, 2012). These standards also promote Integrat[ing]
information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent
understanding of an idea or event, noting discrepancies among sources (Georgia
Department of Education, 2012), so inquiry-based learning is a pedagogical approach
appropriate to helping students cultivate these skills.
Summer Workshop Goals
During the week-long summer workshop, participants should have achieved the goals
and completed the activities of the objectives listed below.
Goal 1
Participants will understand how inquiry-based learning with technology works.
Objective 1: Participants will see what inquiry-based activities look like.
Objective 2: Participants will hear students explain their experiences working with
inquiry-based learning with technology.
Goal 2
Participants will understand how to facilitate inquiry-based learning with technology.
Objective 1: Participants will create a class Edmodo page.
Objective 2: Participants will create a Google Doc.
Objective 3: Participants will post a message to the class Edmodo page.
Objective 4: Participants will upload a document with hyperlinks to the Edmodo page.
Objective 5: Participants will participate in a collaborative Google Doc discussion.
Objective 6: Participants will access relevant digital resources.
Objective 7: Participants will work in groups to create an inquiry-based learning
weebly site.
Goal 3
Participants will engage in an inquiry-based learning activity.
Objective 1: Participants will visit a museum to view an exhibit.

11

Objective 2: Participants will visit a museum to take a tour.

Objective 3: Participants will pose questions about items in the exhibit and
information learned during the tour.
Objective 4: Participants will use digital resources to try to answer questions they
created.
Goal 4
Participants will apply a Georgia world history social studies standard to design
inquiry-based learning activities with technology.
Objective 1: Participants will choose a museum exhibit.
Objective 2: Participants will generate a list of inquiry-based questions incited by the
museum exhibit.
Objective 3: Participants will design two activities that align with two different
Georgia world history social studies standards.
Goal 5
Participants will design a collaborative inquiry-based learning unit with technology.
Objective 1: Participants will work with other teachers.
Objective 2: Participants will create activities that incorporate at least one other
discipline in the promotion of a World History Social Studies Georgia Performance
Standard.
School Year Goals
During the school-year, participants should have achieved the goals and completed
the activities of the objectives listed below.
Goal 1
Participants will understand how to use observation notes and feedback to adjust
inquiry-based learning practices.
Objective 1: Participants will create a reflective journal.

12

Objective 2: Participants will observe classes using inquiry-based learning with

technology.
Objective 3: Participants will modify their teaching as necessary.
Goal 2
Participants will facilitate inquiry-based learning at Benjamin Banneker High School.
Objective 1: Participants will present an inquiry-based learning activity theyve used
at a faculty meeting.
Objective 2: Participants will post an inquiry-based learning activity to the schools
lesson resources.
Plan of Operations
Strickland (2005), Van Fossan and Waterson (2008), and Journell (2008)
determined that the existence of technology does not necessarily translate to
improved teaching or learning. Teachers have to know more than how to use
technology in the classroom; they have to understand how to exploit the
opportunities technology offers to help students learn. So many of the program
activities offer teachers the opportunity not only to interact with their colleagues in
the same face-to-face and digital arenas their students will have but also to use the
technology in a way that encourages the participating teachers to see what using this
technology actually allows for.
Beeson, Journell, and Ayers (2014) found that teachers need content knowledge
as well as technology knowledge, so that is one of the reasons teachers are visiting
Emorys Michael C. Carlos Museum and working with one of the docents. Manfra and
Lee (2012) determined that the blogging exercise they observed in an 11th grade
social studies class filled with at-risk students did allow students not only allowed
students to participate in authentic learning but also build on prior knowledge, so
that is why teachers are learning how to set up and communicate in digital
discussions. La Paz, Malkus, Monte-Sano, and Montanaro (2011) determined that

13

teachers-and students, of course-benefit from sustained professional development,

so that is why teachers are engaging in reflective journal practices as well as
observing classes and being observed. While Benjamin Banneker High School may
not have the technology coordinator that Sugar and van Tryon (2014) described as
necessary to technology integration, the graduate assistants working with teachers
during the school year should be able to provide some of that necessary assistance.
Week-long Summer Workshop Schedule
Day 1
8:00am-9:30am- Introductions, team-building activity that invites participants to
generate a list of off-site resources for inquiry-based learning
9:30am-10:15am-College of education instruction discusses inquiry-based learning
with and without technology.
10:15am-11am-Students show activities produced from engaging in inquiry-based
learning with technology and answer questions about their experiences.
11:00am-12pm-Participants create an Edmodo class page, post a message, and
upload a document with hyperlinks.
12pm-1pm-Group lunch on site.
1pm-2:30pm-Participants create and communicate in Google Docs.
2:30pm-4pm-Particpants prepare for Emorys Michael Carlos museum visit by
accessing the Odyssey learning page, participating in some of the Odyssey learning
activities, and identifying and choosing two relevant social studies standards for the
inquiry-based learning activity.
Day 2
8am-9am-Breakfast with Michael C. Carlos museum docent who explains what the
museum offers for teachers and students as well as introduces the temporary exhibit
teachers will be viewing.

14

9am-10am-Participants work in groups to generate questions incited by the Coiling

Culture: Basket Art of North America exhibit.
10am-12pm-College of education instructor and Emory docent lead a workshop on
using this exhibit and these questions to facilitate inquiry-based learning with
technology.
12pm-1pm-Working lunch in which participant groups discuss ideas for permanent
exhibit visit.
1pm-2:30pm-Particpant groups visit one of the following permanent exhibits:
Egyptian, Nubian, and Near Eastern; Americas; Greeks and Romans; African; Asian.
As they explore the artwork, they take notes over possible lines of inquiry,
opportunities for cross-collaboration practice, and questions they have about using
such works.
2:30pm-4pm-Participant groups create and share google docs with two World History
Social Studies Georgia Performance Standards and two relevant inquiry-based
learning activities.
Day 3
8am-9am-Breakfast with the graduate students that participants will work with
during the school year.
9am-10am-Participants review other groups Google docs with standards and
activities.
10am-11:45am-Participant groups work with graduate students to create their
groups weebly with two work-ready activities.
12:30pm-1:30pm-Lunch at Delta Flight Museum with docent.
1:30pm-2:30pm-Tour of the Delta Flight Museum.
2:30pm-4pm-Participant groups explore Delta Headquarters and/or Atlanta Hartsfield
Airport to generate a list of possible inquiry-based learning ideas students could
participate in.

15

Day 4
8am-9am-Group discussion of the visits: advantages and disadvantages; possibilities
and challenges for doing so with students.
9am-10am-Particpant groups post and respond to other groups inquiry-based
learning ideas.
10am-12pm-Participant groups work with graduate students to begin planning a
collaborative inquiry-based learning unit.
1pm-4pm-Participant groups begin creating the activities and assessments for their
inquiry-based learning unit.
Day 5
8am-9am-Breakfast discussion in which participants share their what theyve
learned, what theyve thought about, concerns they have about using inquiry-based
learning.
9am-12pm-Groups finish creating the activities and assessment for their inquirybased learning unit and post the unit activities and assessments on their weebly
sites.
1pm-3pm-Participants give feedback to each groups weeblies and inquiry-based
learning units.
3pm-4pm-Participants complete course evaluations.
School-year Schedule
Day in August
Participants will observe inquiry-based learning classrooms in metro Altanta.
Day in September
Participants will be observed facilitating inquiry-based learning.
Day in September
Participants will meet with observer and fellow participants to evaluate and modify, if
necessary, inquiry-based learning activities.

16

Once a month first semester

Each participant will work with graduate student on using reflective journals to
facilitate inquiry-based learning.
Once during the school year
Each participant will present his inquiry-based learning activity at a faculty meeting
or during a professional development meeting at school.
Day in January
Participants will observe an inquiry-based learning school.
Day in February
Participants will meet to work with graduate students in promoting inquiry-based
learning at the school.
References
Beeson, M. W., Journell, W., & Ayers, C. A. (2014). When using technology isn t
enough: A comparison of high school civics teachers TPCK in one-to-one laptop
environments. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 38(3), 117-128.
Bloom, M. (2015, July 9). These are the schools ranked among Georgias lowest
performing. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Retrieved from
http://www.ajc.com/news/local education/these-are-the-schools-ranked-amonggeorgias-lowest/nmt85/.
Center for Inspired Teaching. (2008). Inspired issue brief: Inquiry-based teaching.
Washington, DC: author.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies
used by sixthgrade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the
Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.
DiCamillo, L. (2015). Exploring an interdisciplinary expedition in a global history
class. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 39(3), 151-162.
Doering, A.D., & Veletsianos, G., (2007). An investigation of the use of real-time,

17

authentic geospatial data in the K-12 classroom. Journal of Geography, 106,

217-225.
Fulton County Schools. (2016a). Benjamin Banneker High School. Retrieved from
http://school.fultonschools.org/hs/banneker/Pages/default.aspx.
Fulton County Schools. (2016b). Building our future: Strategic plan for 2017.
Retrieved from
http://school.fultonschools.org/es/barnwell/Documents/Important%20School
%20Docs/FCS-StrategicPlan2017Presentation.pdf.
Fulton County Schools. (2016c). School plan. Retrieved from
http://school.fultonschools.org/hs/banneker/Pages/School-Plan.aspx.
Georgia Department of Education. (2012). 2015 College and Career Readiness
Performance Index. Retrieved from http://ccrpi.gadoe.org/2015/.
Georgia Department of Education (2012). World History Social Studies Georgia
Performance Standards. Retrieved from
https://www.georgiastandards.org/Standards/Georgia%20Performance
%20Standards/World-History.pdf.
Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in
action: A case study of a middle school digital documentary project. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 179-200.
Journell, W. (2008). Facilitating historical discussions using asynchronous
communication: The role of the teacher. Theory & Research in Social
Education, 36(4), 317-355.
La Paz, S. D., Malkus, N., Monte-Sano, C., & Montanaro, E. (2011). Evaluating
American history teachers' professional development: Effects on student learning.
Theory & Research in Social Education, 39(4), 494-540.
Manfra, M. M., & Lee, J. K. (2011). Leveraging the affordances of educational blogs
to teach low-achieving students United States history. Social studies research

18

and practice, 6(2), 95-106

Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models and
changing instruction with project-based learning. Peabody Journal of Education,
85(3), 290-312.
Terrell, Ms. (2015, September 29). Banneker High School title 1 annual meeting.
Retrieved from http://school.fultonschools.org/hs/banneker/Title I Documents
/BHS Annual Title I Meeting 2015-16revisedpdf.pdf.
Thomas, K., & Muoz, M. A. (2016). Hold the phone! High school students'
perceptions of mobile phone integration in the classroom. American Secondary
Education, 44(3), 19.
Schul, J. E. (2012). Toward a community of learners: Integrating desktop
Documentary making in a general secondary history classroom. International
Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 44-62.
Shin, E. K. (2006). Using geographic information system (GIS) to improve fourth
graders' geographic content knowledge and map skills. Journal of geography,
105(3), 109-120.
Snyder, C., Paska, L. M., & Besozzi, D. (2014). Cast from the past: Using
screencasting in the social studies classroom. Social Studies, 105(6), 310.
Strickland, J. (2005). Using webquests to teach content: Comparing instructional
strategies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2),
138-148.
Sugar, W., & van Tryon, P. J. S. (2014). Development of a virtual technology coach
to support technology integration for K-12 educators. TechTrends, 58(3), 54-62.
VanFossen, P. J., & Waterson, R. A. (2008). It is just easier to do what you did
before: An Update on Internet Use in Secondary Social Studies Classrooms in
Indiana. Theory & Research in Social Education, 36(2), 124-152.

19