References
[1]. Albright, M., & Graf, D. (1992). Teaching in the
Information Age: The Role of Educational Technology.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
[2]. Bali, S. (1988). Computers, concrete materials and
teaching fractions. School science and mathematics.,
88,470-475.
[3]. Braden, J. R, Show, S. R., & Grecko, L. (1991). An
Evaluation of a Computer—Assisted instructional Program
for Elementary Hearing-Impaired Students. The Volta
Review, 93(6), 247-252.
[4]. Brush, T. A. (1997). The effects of group composition
on achievement and time on task for students
completing ILS activities in cooperative pairs. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 30(1 ), 2- I 7.
[5]. Char, C. (1989). Computer graphics feltboards.' New
software approaches for young children's mathematical
exploration. San Francisco: American Educational
Research Associatlon.
[6]. Christmann, E., Badgett, J., &: Lucking, R. (1997).
Microcomputer—Based Computer—Assisted Instruction
within Differing Subject Areas: A Statistical Deduction.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 281 -
296.
[7]. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning
from media. Review of educational research, 53, 445-
460.
[8]. Clements, D. (1998). /Young Children and
Techno|ogy./ Paper presented at the Forum on early
childhood science, mathematics, and technology
education, Washington, DC.
[9]. Coley, R., Cradleer, J., & Engel, p. (2000). Computers
and the Classroom: The Status of Technology in US
Schools. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center,
Educational Testing Service.
[10]. Connell, M. L. (1998). Technology in Constructivist
Mathematics Classrooms. The Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 17(4), 311 -338.
[11]. Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (1987). Applied
BehaviorAnalysis. Columbus: Merrill.
[12]. Dusek, J. B., & Joseph, G. (1983). The bases of
teacher expectancies: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 75, 327-346.
[13]. Farrell, A. M. (1996). Roles and Behaviors in
Technology-Integrated Precalculus Classrooms. Journal
ofMathematicalBehavior, '15, 35-53.
[14]. Funkhouser, C. (1993). The Influence of Problem-
Solving Software on Student Attitudes about Mathematics.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(3),
339-346.
[15]. Glass, G.V., McGaw, B., &Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-
analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
[16]. Hecht, J. B., Roberts, N. K., Schoon, P L., & Fansler, G.
(1995). Teacher Teams and Computer Technology. Paper
presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
[17]. Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for
meta-analyses. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
[18]. Hembree, R., & Dessart, D. J. (1986). Effects of hand
held calculators in precollege mathematics education: A
meta-analysis. /Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, I7/, 83-99.
[19]. Hunter, E., & Schmidt, F. (1990). Methods of meta-
analysis.' correcting error and bias in research findings.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[20]. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990).
Gender differences in mathematics performance: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, I 39-155.
[21]. Irish, C. (2002). Using Peg- and Keyword Mnemonics
and Computer—Assisted Instruction to Enhance Basic
Multiplication Performance in Elementary Students with
Learning and Cognitive Disabilities. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 17(4), 29-40.
[22]. Jones, K. (2005). Graphing calculators in the
teaching and learning of mathematics: A research
bibliography. Micromath, Summer, 31 -33.
[23]. Kieran, C., & Hillel, J. (1990). It's tough when you
have to make the triangles angles: Insights from a
computer-based geometry environment. Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 9, 99-127.
[24]. Kim, S. (1993). The relative effectiveness of hands-on
and computer-simulated manipulative in teaching
seriation, classification, geometric, and arithmetic
concepts to kindergarten children. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 54(09), 3319.
[25]. Kulik, K. (2003). Effects of using instructional
technology in elementary and secondary schools: What
controlled evaluation studies say (Research Report No. SRI
Project Number PI0446.003). Arlington, VA: SRI
International.
[26]. Kulik, K., Schwalb, B., & Kulik, J. (1982). Programmed
instruction in secondary education: A meta-analysis of
evaluation findings. Journal of Educational Research,
75(3), 133-138.
[27]. Li, Q. (2004). Technology and mathematics
education: Any impact? Paper presented at the the
Eleventh International Literacy and Education Research
Network Conference on Learning, La Havana.
[28]. Li, Q. (2005). Gender and CMC: A review on conflict
and harassment. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 21(3), 382-406.
[29]. Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-
analysis (Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
[30]. Lou, Y., Abrami, R C., & d'Apollonia, S. (2001). Small
group and individual learning with technology: A meta-
analysis. Review of educational research, 71 (3), 449-521 .
[31]. Mac Iver, D. J., Balfanz, R., & Plank, S. B. (1998). The
Talent Development Middle School. An Elective
Replacement Approach to Providing Extra Help in Math -
The CATAMA Program (Computer— and Team—Assisted
Mathematics Acceleration). Report No. 21/. Baltimore,
MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students
Placed at Risk.
[32]. Ma, X. (1999). Anxiety and Achievement. Journal of
Research in Mathematics Education.
[33]. Merriweather, M., & Tharp, M. L. (1999). The Effect of
Instruction with Graphing Calculators on How General
Mathematics Students Naturalistically Solve Algebraic
Problems. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 18(1 ), 7-22.
[34]. Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. (2002). Exploring
representation in the middle grades: Investigations in
geometry with virtual manipulatives. The Australian
Mathematics Teacher, 58(1 ], 19-25.
[35]. Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J., &Spikell, M. (2002). Whatare
virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics,
8(6), 372-377.
[36]. Mullany, L. (2000). The application of current
language and gender theory to managerial meeting
discourse. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 15, 1 -16.
[37]. Mushi, S. (2000). Use of Interactive Video Technology
to Teach Middle School Mathematics in Chicago.
Chicago: Northeastern Illinois Univ., Chicago, Dept. of
Teacher Education.
[38]. Nute, N. (1997). The impact of engagement activity
and manipulatives presentation on intermediate
mathematics achievement, time-on-task, learning
efficiency and attitude. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 58(08), 2988.
[39]. Parr, J. (2003). A review of the literature on
computer-assisted learning, particularly integrated
learning systems and outcomes with respect to literacy
and numeracy. Auckland, New Zealand: M. O.
Education. The University of Auckland.
[40]. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-Graders Learn
About Fractions Using Virtual Manipulatives: A Classroom
Study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 24[1), 5-25.
[41]. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for
social research (Vol. 6]. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
[42]. Royer, J. M., Greene, B. A., &AnzaIone, S. J. (1994).
Can U.S. developed CAI work effectively in a developing
country? Journal of Educational Computing Research,
'10(1),41-61.
[43]. Salerno, C. A. (1995). The Effect of Time on
Computer-Assisted Instruction for At-Risk Students. Journal
ofResearch on Computing in Education, 28(1 ), 85-97.
[44]. Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Lingenfelter, D. (1996b).
Gender and group composition in small task groups using
computer-mediated communication. Computers in
human behavior, 12(2), 209-224.
[45]. Schram, C. M. (1996). A meta-analysis of gender
differences in applied statistics achievement. Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21 (55- 70).
[46]. Shyu, H. Y. (1999). Effects of Media Attributes in
Anchored Instruction. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 21(2), 119-139.
[47]. Shyu, H. Y. (2000). Using video—based anchored
instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan's experience.
British Journal ofEducational Technology, 31(1), 57-69.
[48]. Suh, J., Moyer, P. S., & Heo, H. (2005). Examining
technology uses in the classroom: Developing fraction
sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. The
Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4), 1 -21 .
[49]. Terry, M. (1996). An investigation of differences in
cognition when utilizing math manipulatives and math
Appendix "I . Effect Sizes for Studies of Technology
manipulative software. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 56(7), 26-50.
[50]. Thompson, P. (1992). Notations, conventions, and
constraints: Contributions to effective uses of concrete
materials in elementary mathematics. Journal of
Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 123-147.
[51]. Willett, JB, & Singer, JD. (1991). From whether to
when: New methods for studying student dropout and
teacher attrition. /Review of Educational Research/, 61,
407-450.
[52]. Wilson, D. (2001). Effect Size Determination Program.
Maryland: University of Maryland.
[53]. Woodward, J. (1995). Technology-Based Research
in Mathematics for Special Education. /Focus on Learning
Problems in Mathematics, 17/(2), 3-23.
[54]. Xin, J. F. (1999). Computer-Assisted Cooperative
Learning in Integrated Classrooms for Students With and
Without Disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood
Education, 61 -78.
[55]. Ysseldyke, J., Spicuzza, R., Kosciolek, S., & Boys, C.
(2003). Effects of a Learning Information System on
Mathematics Achievement and Classroom Structure. The
Journal of Educational Research (Washington, D.C.],
96(3), 163-173.
