The Use of Technology Applications to Improve the Students’ Achievement and Communication With the Parents

Xiaosu TANG

Abstract


With the explosion of social networks and other technological applications, better communications can be achieved within school learning communities. Through these technological applications, parents are enabled to monitor their children’s academic progress and have better collaboration between them and their child’s teachers and school administration to ensure improved academic achievement and success. This paper reviews and discusses some past key research linking technology use with parent involvement and student achievement and success.


Keywords


Technology applications; Communications; Parental involvement; Students’ achievement

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bartel, V. B. (2010). Home and school factors impacting parental involvement in a title I elementary school. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(3), 209-228.

Bennett, R. E. (2002a). Issue brief: Using electronic assessment to measure student performance. NGA Center for Best Practices.

Bennett, R. E. (2002b). Technology and assessment symposium. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Bracewell, R., & Laferriere, T. (1996). The contribution of new technologies to learning and teaching in elementary and secondary schools (Documentary review).

Burstein, J., Marcu, D., Andreyev, S., & Chodorow, M. (2001, July). Towards automatic classification of discourse elements in essays. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Toulouse, France.

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. (1999). Frequently asked questions about computer adaptive tests. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2001, June). The CEO Forum school technology and readiness report: Key building blocks for student achievement in the 21st century.

Coley, R., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools (p.37). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center.

Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: assessing the effectiveness of parental involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education July, 78, 233-249. doi:10.1177/003804070507800303

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2004). Issues A-Z: Parent involvement. education week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/parent-involvement/

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (9), 701-712.

Epstein, J. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships. Boulder: Westview Press.

Fletcher, J. D. (2002). Is it worth it? Some comments on research and technology in assessment and instruction. Technology and Assessment: Thinking Aloud-Proceedings from a Workshop (pp.26-39). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Foltz, P. W., Gilliam, S., & Kendall, S. (2000). Supporting content-based feedback in online writing evaluation with LSA. Interactive Learning Environments, 8(2), 111-129.

Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Holbein, M. F. D. (2005). Examining the relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.

Henderson, A. T.,. & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Hillel, J., Kieran, C., & Gurtner, J. (1989). Solving structured geometry tasks on the computer: The role of feedback in generating strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 1-39.

Ho Sui-Chu, E., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126-141. EJ533315.

Honey, M., Culp, K. M., & Carrigg, F. (1999). Perspectives on technology and education research: Lessons from the past and present. New York: Center for Children and Technology.

Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In K. McGilly, (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integration cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jordan, C., Orozco, E., & Averett, A. (2001). Emerging issues in school, family, and community connections. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Kingsbury, G. G. (April, 2002). An empirical comparison of achievement level estimates from adaptive tests and paper-and-pencil tests. Paper presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Kulik, J. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, Virginia: SRI International.

Lafer, S., & Markert, A. (1994). Authentic learning situations and the potential of Lego TC Logo. Computers in Schools, 11(1), 79-94.

Machen, S. M., Wilson, J. D., & Notar, C. E. (2005). Parental involvement in the classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 13-16.

Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., & Kottkamp, R. (1998). West Virginia story: Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive instructional technology program. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Educational Technology.

McCoy, L. P. (1996). Computer-based mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 438-460.

Means, B., & Olson, K. (1997). Technology and education reform. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Contract No. RP91-172010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Middleton, B. M., & Murray, R. K. (1999). The impact of instructional technology on student academic achievement in reading and mathematics. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(1), 109.

Newman, D. (1994). Computer networks: Opportunities or obstacles? In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise (p.232). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

O’’eil, H., Jr., & Schacter, J. (1997). Test specifications for problem-solving assessment. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

O’Reilly, T. M. (1998). An investigation of Hmong students’ academic success in Eau Claire Wisconsin, Doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota.

Paglin, L. (2011). Facing forward: A student’s story (film documentary). Cleveland International Film Festival.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J. L. (2000). Building school-family-community partnerships in middle and high school. In M. G. Sanders (Ed.), School students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents (pp.339-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Kotchmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Simon, B. S. (2000). Predictors of high school and family partnerships and the influence of partnerships on student success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.

Simmons, M., & Cope, P. (1990). Fragile knowledge of angle in turtle geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 375-382.

Simmons, M., & Cope, P. (1993). Angle and rotation: Effects of different types of feedback on the quality of response. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 163-176.

Smith, E. G. and Wisconsin Information Network for Success School (2005). Student learning through Wisconsin school library media centers: Library media specialist survey report. Division for Libraries, Technology and Community Learning, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.125 S. Webster Street; Madison, WI 53707.

Stevens, R., et al. (1999). Artificial neural network-based performance assessments. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 295-313

Tesser, P. T. M., & Iedema, J. (2001). Deel I Vorderingen op school. Rapportage Minderheden. Den Haag: SCP.

Todaroa, J. B. (2008). ). The iPod… No shiny metal object here. Publishing models and article dates explained. Published online: 12 Oct 2008. Full access. doi: 10.1300/J107v13n04_10

Walberg, H. J. (1984). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(6), 397-400.

White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-188.

Zollman, A., Oldham, B., & Wyrick, J. (1989). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on reading and mathematics achievement of Chapter 1 students. Resources in Education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 313 024).




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/%25x

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 Canadian Social Science



Reminder

  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

Submission Guidelines for Canadian Social Science

We are currently accepting submissions via email only. The registration and online submission functions have been disabled.

Please send your manuscripts to css@cscanada.net，or css@cscanada.org for consideration. We look forward to receiving your work.

 Articles published in Canadian Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

 

Canadian Social Science Editorial Office

Address: 1020 Bouvier Street, Suite 400, Quebec City, Quebec, G2K 0K9, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail:caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture