This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]

On: 28 December 2014, At: 14:55

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T
3JH, UK

Journal of Research on
Technology in Education
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrt20

Using a Technology-Enriched
Environment to Improve
Higher-Order Thinking Skills
a b
Michael H. Hopson , Richard L. Simms & Gerald A.
c
Knezek
a
Stephen F. Austin State University
b
The University of North Texas
c
The University of North Texas
Published online: 24 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Michael H. Hopson, Richard L. Simms & Gerald A. Knezek
(2001) Using a Technology-Enriched Environment to Improve Higher-Order Thinking
Skills, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34:2, 109-119, DOI:
10.1080/15391523.2001.10782338

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2001.10782338

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified
with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,
damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
 directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the
use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014
 Using a Technology-Enriched
Environment to Improve
Higher-Order Thinking Skills
Michael H. Hopson
Stephen F Austin State Uniwrsitj

Richard L. Simms and Gerald A. Knezek

The University ofNorth Texas
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014

Abstract
This study examined the effect ofa technology-enriched dtilssroom on student development of
higher-order thinking skills and student attitudes toward computers. A sample of 80 sixth-
grade and 86fifth-grade students was tested using the Ro~-s Test ofHigher Cognitive Processes
and surveyed using the Computer Attitude Questionnatre. The creation of a technology-
enriched cla::sroom environment appears to have had a pcsitiz;e effect on student acquisition
ofhigher-order thinking skills. This study identified sevm:;l implications related to classroom
design to enhance the development ofhigher-order thinkif!g skills. Teachers reported that the
technology-enriched classroom differed ftom the traditiorlll classroom in several significant
ways. (Keywords: classroom environment, higher-order thinking skills, instructional change,
instructional technology.)

The need to prepare stud~nts for adulthood is a recurring theme throughout

educational retorm. The advent of the Information Age has made the develop-
ment of problem solving, citical thinking, and higher-order thinking skills cru-
cial to future success (Fontc..na, Dede, White, & Cates, 1993; Morgan, 1996;
Norris & Poirot, 1990; Ramirez & Bell, 1994). Hence, experiences that engage
students at higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy (analysis, synthesis, evaluation)
need to become common practice (Morgan). According to Harris (1996), "In-
formation Age citizens must learn not only how to access information, but
more importantly how to manage, analyze, critique, cross-reference, and trans-
form it into usable knowledge" (p. 15).
Kelman (1989) identifies higher-order thinking skills as one of the instruc-
tional areas that could be inproved by using the computer. Salomon (1990)
concludes that for the computer to be an effective ckssroom tool, "most every-
thing in the classroom neeci.s to change in a way that makes curriculum, learn-
ing activities, teacher's behavior, social interactions, learning goals, and evalua-
tion interwoven into a whole newly orchestrated learning environment" (p. 51).
In light of what is known about learning, using the computer and other tech-
nology as tools for meaningful projects seems reasonable as a method for engag-
ing students in problem solving and critical thinking (Muir, 1994; Peck &
Dorricot, 1994). Ragsdale ( 1989) challenged educators to teach with the com-
puter because "tool" applications are independent of subject matter and can be
used for curriculum integration across grade leve~s and subject areas.

Journal ofResearch on Technology in Education 109

 In his review of earlier studies, Atkins (1993) noted that the richer and more
co::nprehensive the interactions between the learner and the material, the more
the learner learns. Levine (1990) points out that with increased placement of
co::nputers in the classroom has come an increased interest in assessing their po-
tentially diverse effects and that "investigators typically find themselves search-
ing for new study designs and data collection strategies" (p. 461). Recent stud-
ie_<; suggest that research in the field has moved beyond a focus on the computer
to an interest in designing an environment that fosters within students the dis-
pcsition for critical thinking (Facione, Facione, & Sanchez, 1994; Taube, 1995;
\Vi burg, 1995-1996). This restructuring of the classroom includes the use of
computers to provide active learning, authentic tasks, challenging work, com-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014

plex problem solving, and higher-order thinking skills (Dalton & Goodrum,
1991; David, 1993). Dede (1990) suggests that higher-order thinking skills for
structured inquiry are best acquired where:
1. learners construct knowledge rather than passively ingest information;
2. sophisticated information-gathering tools are used to stimulate the learner
to focus on testing hypotheses rather than on plotting data;
3. there is collaborative interaction with peers, similar to team-based ap-
proaches underlying today's science; and
4. evaluation systems measure complex, higher-order skills rather than simple
recall of facts.
According to Ryan (1991), the perceived need for improving instruction and
stcdent achievement through the use of computer technologies has challenged
ed..1cational administrators to find optimal ways of integrating computers into
~earning environments. Research has not clearly delineated the relationship be-
rween implementation characteristics and increased academic achievement
~:chen, 1985; Hoot, 1986; Stennett, 1985).
In their comparative study of the use of the computer for improving higher-
order thinking skills, Cousins and Ross (1993) conclude "there is little research
wl-ich would inform practice as to the use of the computer as a tool to accom-
plish pre-specified tasks" (p. 94). An additional conclusion is that studies de-
signed to measure change in student performance are needed, specifically in
higher-order thinking skills.

METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
'XTe investigated the effect of a technology-enriched classroom on student de-
velopment of higher-order thinking skills and student attitudes toward comput-
ers. We defined higher-order thinking skills as those cognitive skills that allow
students to function at the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels of Bloom's
Taxonomy. We addressed the following research questions:
1. Do students in a technology-enriched classroom demonstrate better use of
higher-order thinking skills than students in a traditional classroom?
2. Do attitudes toward computers differ between students in a technology-
enriched classroom and students in a traditional classroom?

110 Winter 2001-2002: Volume 34 Number 2

 SampJe
Parccipants included fifth- and sixth-grade students in a suburban North
Central Texas school district. The treatment group was comprised of students
who were enrolled in the technology-enriched classroom magnet program in
tl:e 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 school years. These students came from each of
the district's six elementary campuses selected at random from among the stu-
dents who applied for the program. Comparison g:-oups included students not
accepted into the magnet program and students from comparable campuses
without a technology-enriched curriculum.

Instrumentation
The Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes was selected because of its stated
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014

purpose to judge the effectiveness of curricula or instructional methodology de-

signed to teach the higher-order thinking skills of e:.nalysis, synthesis, and evalu-
ation. The reliability coefficients for the 105-item test were obtained using test-
retest and split-half procedures. The reported test-retest reliability coefficient
was .94, while the coefficient derived from the split-half procedure is reported
as .92. The test validity was determined by correlation with chronological age
and was found to be r = .674.
The Computer Attitude Questionnaire (CAQ, Knezek, Christensen, &
W~iya&~ita, 1998) was used to determine student attitudes toward the computer.
The questionnaire used 65 Likert-type questions for ei.ght psychological disposi-
tions. The reliability for the eight attitude measures ranges from 0.80 to 0.86
(Knezek & Christensen, 1996). The reliability coefficients were cakulated using
data from 1995 (N = 588). The values reflect the internal consistency of the in-
sr::-ument and are all within the very good range, according to guidelines for re-
search scales provided by DeVillis (1991).

Research Design
This study used a posttest and a quasi-experimental design (Campbell &
Stanley, 1981). The treatment and comparison groups were given the Ross Test
of Higher Cognitive Processes and the Computer Attitude Questionnaire. Four
distinct groups were identified for the study. Sixth-grade students (20 male, 16
female) who had been in the program for one year and five months comprised
Treatment Group 1, and fifth-grade students (20 male, 23 female) who had
been i...1 the program for five months constituted Treatment Group 2. Sixth-
grade students (21 male, 22 female) enrolled in social studies classes at the
middle school were selected for Comparison Group 1. Students in Comparison
Group 1 were selected from preexisting middle schonl classes to which they
had been randomly assigned by a computer-scheduling program. Students for
Cnmparison Group 2 (23 male, 21 female) were identified at an elementary
school with comparable demographics and selected at random from all fifth-
grade students.
The treatment groups were instructed using the district's fifth-grade curricu-
lum in a technology-rich environment, and they were provided access to the
computer as a tool for learning. Treatment classrooms were equipped with one
ccmputer for every two students. Treatment teachers were trained in the use

Journal ofResearch on Technology in Education 111

 of and equipped with a multimedia teaching station that was used for direct in-
struction.
Students were taught to use s_Freadsheet, database, and word processing soft-
ware. Students were required to use these tools to take notes, produce assign-
ments, and construct projects. In addition, the classroom was equipped with In-
ternet access and "electronic resource materials," such as a thesaurus,
encyclopedia, and atlas. Additio::1ally, students were taught to use a scanner,
QuickTake Camera, and the multimedia presentation software HyperStudio
(1989-2000).
The comparison groups were instructed in a traditional classroom setting us-
ing the district's prescribed curriculum for the fifth grade. The teachers for the
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014

comparison groups were not trained in the use of technology, and no computer-
based teaching stations were available to them. The comparison group class-
rooms had no computers. The only exposure to technology for students in the
comparison groups was through the campus computer labs that were used for
computer literacy and remediati::m.

Data Analysis
A univariate analysis of variance was used to establish initial equivalence for
the comparison and treatment groups on the Ross Test (Table 1). The results of
the AN OVA indicated no signJicant difference between the fifth-grade treat-
ment and comparison groups. Thus, a one-way ANOVA conducted on posttes-r
data was used. The differences between the sixth-grade groups was significant,
so an analysis of covariance was .::-equired for these students on the Ross Test re-
sults. The Computer Attitude Q_uestionnaire data for both grades were analyzed
using Analysis of Variance.

Table 1. Comparison of Ross Test Scores for Group One and Group Two

Sum of Significance
Variable Squares df F-value ofF

Sixth-grade TAAS" Between 1242.957 1 9.764 0.003**

Within 9797.517 77
Fifth-grade TAAS Between .107 1 0.002 0.968
Within 5576.786 82

a TMS = Texas Assessment ofAcademic Skills. **The F-score for the between-groups comparison
is significant (p < 0.01).

RESULTS
Research Question 1: Do students in a technology-enriched classroom dem-
onstrate better use of higher-order thinking skills than do students in a tradi-
tional classroom?
Statistics for all groups on the Ross Test are reported in Table 1. Mean scores
are shown in Table 2. Maximum scores for each subtest are: analysis, 36; syn-
thesis, 39; and evaluation, 30.

112 Winter 2001-2002: Volume 34 Number 2

 Table 2. Mean Scores for the Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Ability

Group Sub test M SD

Sixth grade Comparison Analysis 22.53 15.07

Synthesis 23.00 6.43
Evaluation 18.93 4.06
Treatment Analysis 23.89 4.28
Synthesis 25.92 5.70
Evaluation 22.19 3.82
Fifth grade Comparison Analysis 19.05 5.23
Synthesis 23.05 5.17
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014

Evaluation 15.21 4.72

Treatment Analysis 19.36 4.22
Synthesis 21.47 4.67
Evaluation 20.36 3.49

Analysis of variance results for Grade 6 (Table 3) indicate that the difference
between the scores for the treatment group and the comparison group on the
evaluation subtest was significant at the p < .01 level. Treatment group students
exhibited a higher level of evaluation skill as measured by the Ross Test. There
was no significant difference in the performance of the two groups on the
analysis and synthesis subtests.

Table 3. Comparison of Ross Test Results for

Sixth-Grade Treatment and Comparison Groups

Sum of Significance
Variable Squares df F-value ofF

Analysis 3.047 0.024 0.878

Synthesis 28.697 0.885 0.350
Evaluation 122.110 8.111 0.006**

** Significant at p < 0. 0 I.

The results for Grade 5 (Table 4) indicate that the difference between the
scores for the treatment group and the comparison group on the evaluation
subtest was significant at the p < .Ollevel. As with the sixth-grade students,
treatment group scores were higher than comparison group scores. There was
no significant difference in the performance of the two groups on the analysis
and synthesis subtests.

Research Question 2: Do attitudes toward computers differ between students

in a technology-enriched classroom and students in a traditional classroom?
Group mean scores are presented in Table 5. The results of the ANOVA (one-
tailed) for the Computer Attitude Questionnaire for grade (Table 6) indicated
no significant difference between the treatment and comparison groups on any

journal ofResearch on Technology in Education 113

 Table 4. Comparison of Ross Test Results for Fifth-Grade Treatment and
Comparison Groups

Sum of Significance
Variable Squares df F-value ofF

Analysis Between 2.060 1 0.092 0.762

Within 1904.216 85
Synthesis Between 54.298 1 2.248 0.137
Within 2053.105 85
Evaluation Between 574.227 1 33.629 0.000**
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014

Within 1451.383 85

** Significant at p < 0. 0 I.

of the eight attributes measured. As previously noted in the analysis of the Ross
Test data, the extensive variation within the groups for sixth-grade scores made
the results difficult to interpret.
The analysis of fifth-grade student scores (Table 7) indicated that the treat-
ment group scores were signitl.cantly higher (p = .05) on subtests measuring im-
portance, motivation, and creativity. No significant differences were found on
enjoyment, study habits, empathy, anxiety (reported as less anxiety), or seclu-
sion (reported as less seclusion).

DISCUSSION
This study added to the limited research on the use of computers to enhance
the student development of higher-order thinking skills. It provides data that
may be used to create a new paradigm for classroom organization and structure.
The results will also be useful for educators who are formulating long-range
technology plans.
This study was limited by the characteristics of the population. The suburban
district's profile was not comparable to that of the state or nation; therefcre,
generalizations will require additional research. A second concern was the in-
ability to control for the effect of personal and home computers on the com-
parison group. In addition, the higher-order thinking skills studied were limited
to analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, as identified by Bloom and measured by
the instrument.
The creation of a technology-enriched classroom environment appears to
have had a minimal but positive effect on student acquisition of higher-order
thinking skills. Although the difference in scores was not significant for every
level of Bloom's Taxonomy, the scores were generally higher for analysis and
synthesis and significantly higher for evaluation. The argument can be made
that the minimal effect was less related to an ineffective treatment and more a
result of the short duration of the treatment (20 weeks) and the inability of the
study to control for home use of the computer.

114 Winter 2001-2002: Volume 34 Number 2

 Table 5. Computer Attitude Questionnaire Mean Scores

Sixth Grade Fifth Grade

Variable M SD M SD

Computer importance Treatment 2.8750 .3513 2.7352 .4245

Comparison 2.7562 .4032 2.5679 .4754
Computer enjoyment Treatment 2.7708 .2257 2.6721 .2249
Comparison 2.7069 .2200 2.6531 .2572
Motivation Treatment 2.2118 .2417 2.3333 .3033
Comparison 2.1743 .2778 2.2222 .3012
Study habits Treatment 2.4844 .2371 2.6488 .2873
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014

Comparison 2.4534 .2556 2.5878 .2629

Empathy Treatment 2.8531 .3910 2.9366 .3878
Comparison 2.8828 .5086 2.8537 .4032
Creativity Treatment 3.1707 .4166 3.3002 .3680
Comparison 3.2042 .3618 3.0882 .5187
Computer anxiety Treatment 1.9453 .3283 1.9453 .3500
Comparison 2.0905 .4373 2.0122 .3706
Computer seclusion Treatment 2.4447 .2367 2.5253 .2383
Comparison 2.4814 .2636 2.4916 .2407

Table 6. Comparison of Computer Attitude Questionnaire Results for

Sixth-Grade Treatment and Comparison Groups

Sum of Significance
Variable Squares df F-value ofF

Computer importance Between 0.291 1 1.958 0.083

Within 13.092 88
Computer enjoyment Between .0843 1.711 0.097
Within 4.337 88
Motivation Between .02896 0.410 0.262
Within 6.209 88
Study habits Between .01972 1 0.318 0.288
Within 5.466 88
Empathy Between .01811 0.082 0.388
Within 19.482 88
Creacivity Between .02324 1 0.159 0.346
Within 2.844 88
Computer anxiety Between 0.435 2.687 0.053
Within 14.242 88
Computer seclusion Between .02781 0.430 0.257
Within 5.696 88

journal ofResearch on Technology in Education 115

 Table 7. Comparison of the Results of the Computer Attitude
Questionnaire for Fifth-Grade Treatment and Comparison Groups

Sum of Significance
Variable Squares df F-value ofF

Computer importance Between 0.573 1 2.824 0.049*

Within 16.247 80
Computer enjoyment Between 7.377E-03 0.126 0.362
Within 4.670 80
Motivation Between 0.253 2.770 0.050*
Within 7.309 80
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014

Study habits Between 7.622E-02 1.005 0.160

Within 6.066 80
Empathy Between 0.141 1 0.901 0.173
Within 12.517 80
Creativity Between 0.92 4.555 0.018*
Within 16.182 80
Computer anxiety Between 6.879E-02 1 0.530 0.235
Within 10.393 80
Computer seclusion Between 2.338E-02 1 0.408 0.263
Within 4.589 80

*Significant at p < 0. 05 (one-tailed test).

The teachers reported that the technology-enriched classroom differed from
the traditional classroom in several significant ways. The learning was more stu-
dent centered and less teacher/textbook driven. The environment facilitated the
use of cooperative groups and student participation focused on application
rather than knowledge acquisition. Current research in the fields of cognition
and brain theory are reflected in this shift to a more learner-centered instruc-
tional paradigm in which students actively manipulate information in a variety
of contexts from a number of different resources in order to solve meaningful
and relevant problems (Ramirez & Bell, 1994).
This problem-solving environment resulted from the introduction of infor-
mation management and collaboration technology into the classroom (Schwen,
Goodrum, & Dorsey, 1993). The almost exponential increase in available
sources of information in the technology-enriched classroom created the need
for student learning to be assessed using non-traditional methods. The use of
individual student products and group projects replaced tests and homework as
the primary assessment tools.
There are several implications for this study related to the design of class-
rooms to enhance the development of higher-order thinking skills. We have
identified technology as the catalyst for restructuring and redesigning the class-
room to create an environment that promotes and encourages the development
of the higher-order skill evaluation. In this study, technology was the tool that
allowed the students to move beyond knowledge acquisition to knowledge ap-

116 Winter 2001-2002: Volume 34 Number 2

 plication. In earlier studies, Peck and Do::-ricot (1994) and Van Dusen and
Worthen (I 995) reported that the use of technolosr applications allowed stu-
dents to organize, analyze, interpret, and evaluate their work. As the students
began to use the technological resou::-ces to manage their learning, the role of
the teacher was transformed from lecturer to guide. The availability of vast
amounts of easily accessible informacion freed the teacher from the role of pur-
veyor of facts and allowed the teacher to encourage the students to use the com-
puter as a tool for problem solving a....1d decision rr_aking.
The technology-enriched classroom en.rironmer_t iad a significant effect on
the fifth-grade student attitudes of computer importance, the perceived value or
significance of knowing how to use computers, p = .05; motivation, including
attitudes such as unceasing effort, perseverance, and never giving up, p = .05;
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014

and self-reported creative tendencies, the i.:1clination toward exploring the un-
known, taking individual initiative, and finding u.:1ique solutions, p = .02, as
measured by the Computer Attitude Questionnaire.
Exposure to technology and training in its use results in a more positive atti-
tude relative to computer importance. Such a positive attitude indicates that
once students are successful using technology and recognize the associated ben-
efits, they will choose to continue using it as a learning tool. More positive atti-
tudes toward motivation and creativ_ty indicate that, when provided with tech-
nology, students are more likely to take c::mtrol of d:eir learning, stay focused
until the task is complete, and pursue more obscure and hypothetical solutions
to problems. II

Contributors
Michael H. Hopson is an assistant professor of secondary education and edu-
cational leadership at Stephen F. Austin State University" in Nacogdoches, Texas.
He received his PhD in curriculum and instruction i::1 1998 from the University
of North Texas. Dr. Hopson has 26 years of public school experience as teacher,
middle school principal, high school prir_cipal, an:l assistant superintendent.
His research interests are educational technology and administrative organiza-
tion. Richard L. Simms is a profeswr of teacher edu:::ation and administration
at the University ofNorth Texas (UNT) in Denton. He has been a professor,
Teacher Corps Director, and administrator at UNT Eince 1970. Prior to earning
his doctorate at the University of J\.1issouri, he was a public school teacher and
administrator. His writings have appeared in many of the major education jour-
nals. Gerald A. Knezek is a professor of technolog:v and cognition and coordina-
tor of the doctoral program in educationli computing at UNT. He is principal
investigator of the C.S. Department of Education T xhnology Innovation Chal-
lenge Grant R303A99030, external evalv_ation for 1 )'99-2004, and lead princi-
pal investigator for the U.S. Department of Educati,:::;n Preparing Tomorrow's
Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) 1\Ellennium Project Capacity and Implemen-
tation Grants (P342A990474 & P342A000123A: t)r 1999-2003. He held the
Matthews Chair for Research in Education at the L'civersity of North Texas
from 1995-1997. He was a Fulbright Scholar at the Tokyo Institute ofTechnol-

journal ofResearch on Technology in Education 117

 ogy and Japan's National Center for University Entrance Examinations during
1993-1994. He received his BA in mathematics and the Social Sciences from
Dartmouth College and his MEd and PhD degrees in educational psychology
from the University of Hawaii. (Address: Dr. Michael H. Hopson, Stephen F.
Austin State University, College of Education, Department of Secondary Edu-
cation, Nacogdoches, TX 75962-3055; mhopson@sfasu.edu.)

References
Atkins, M. J. (1993). Evaluating interactive technologies for learning. journal
ofCurriculum Studies, 26(4), 333-342.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. (1981). Experimental and quasi-experimental
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014

designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Chen, M. (1985). A macro-focus on microcomputers: Eight utilization and
effects issues. In M. Chen & W Paisley (Eds.), Children and microcomputers: Re-
search on the newest medium (pp. 37-58). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cousins, J. B., & Ross, J. A. (1993). Improving higher order thinking skill by
teaching "with" the computer: A comparative study. journal ofResearch on Com-
puting in Education, 26( 1), 94-115.
Dalton, E. W, & Goodrum, D. A. (1991). The effects of computer program-
ming on problem-solving skills and attitudes. journal ofEducational Computing
Research, 7(4), 483-506.
David, J. L. (1993, April). Realizing the promise oftechnology: The need for sys-
temic education reform. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Dede, C. (1990). Imaging technology's role in restructuring for learning. In
K. Sheingold & M.S. Tucker (Eds.), Restructuring for learning with technology
(pp. 49-72). New York: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street Col-
lege of Education, and National Center on Education and the Economy.
DeVillis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Facione, N.C., Facione, P. A., & Sancez, C. A. (1994). Critical thinking as a
measure of competent clinical judgment: The development of the California
critical thinking dispositions inventory. journal ofNursing Education, 33(8),
345-350.
Fontana, L.A., Dede C., White, C. S., & Cates, W M. (1993). Multimedia:
A gateway to higher-order thinking skills. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University,
Center for Interactive Educational Technology.
Harris, J. (1996). Information is forever in formation, knowledge is the
knower: Global connectivity in K-12 classrooms. Computers in the Schools,
12(1-2), 11-22.
Hoot, J. D. (1986). Computers in early childhood education: Issues and prac-
tices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
HyperStudio [Computer software]. (1989-2000). Torrance, CA: Knowledge
Adventure, Inc.
Kelman, P. (1989, June). Alternatives to integrated instructional systems. Paper
presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Nashville, TN.

118 Winter 2001-2002: Volume 34 Number 2

 Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (1996, January). Validating the computer atti-
tude questionnaire (CAQ). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the South-
west Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Miyashita, K. (1998). Instruments for assessing
attitudes toward information technology. Denton: Texas Center for Educational
Technology.
Levine, H. (1990). Models of qualitative data use in the assessment of
classroom-based microcomputer education programs. journal ofEducational
Computing Research, 6, 461-4 77.
Morgan, T. (1996, February). Using technology to enhance learning: Chang-
ing the chunks. Learning & Leading with Technology, 23(5), 49-51.
Muir, M. (1994). Putting computer projects at the heart of the curriculum.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 14:55 28 December 2014

Educational Leadership, 5(7), 30-33.

Norris, C., & Poirot, J. L. (1990). Problem solving and critical thinking_fot
computer science educators [Monograph]. Eugene, OR: International Society for
Technology in Education.
Peck, K. L., & Dorricot, D. (1994). Why use technology? Educational Leader-
ship, 51(7), 11-14.
Ragsdale, R. G. (1989). Teacher development: The implications of using
computers in education. Canadian journal ofEducation, 14(4), 444-456.
Ramirez, R., & Bell, R. (1994). Byting back: Policies to support the use oftedmol-
ogy in education. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Ryan, A.W (1991). Meta-analysis of achievement effects of microcomputer
applications in elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly,
27(2),161-184.
Salomon, G. (1990). The computer lab: A bad idea now sanctified. Ed~Jca
tional Technology, 30(10), 50-52.
Schwen, T., Goodrum, D., & Dorsey, T. (1993). On the design of an en-
riched learning and information environment. Educational Technology, 33, 5-9.
Stennet, R. G. (1985). Computer assisted instruction: A review ofthe reviews. Lon-
don: The Board of Education for the City of London. (ERIC No. ED 260 687)
Taube, K. (1995, April). Critical thinking ability and disposition as facto:s t~f
performance on a written critical thinking test. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisc::>.
VanDusen, L. M., & Worthen, B. (1995). Can integrated instructional t~ch
nology transform the classroom? Educational Leadership, 53(2), 28-33.
Wiburg, K. (1995-1996, December/January). Changing teaching with tech-
nology. Learning & Leading with Technology, 23(4), 46-48.

Journal ofResearch on Technology in Education 119