Skip over navigation

Journal Issue: Children and Computer Technology Volume 10 Number 2 Fall/Winter 2000

Children and Computer Technology: Analysis and Recommendations
Margie K. Shields Richard E. Behrman

Endnotes

  1. National Center for Education Statistics. Internet access in public schools and classrooms: 1994–99. Stats in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, February 2000.
  2. Woodward, E.H. IV, and Gridina, N. Media in the home 2000: The fifth annual survey of parents and children. Philadelphia: Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, 2000, p. 11.
  3. Committee on Information Technology Literacy and Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications, National Research Council. Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999, pp. 6–14.
  4. Nie, N.H., and Erbring, L. Internet and society: A preliminary report. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society, February 17, 2000.
  5. Internal Revenue Service. Projections of returns to be filed in calendar years 2000–2006, Table 1. In Statistics of Income Bulletin, Winter 1999/2000, IRS Publication 1136, rev. February 2000.
  6. Ain, S. In brief: Election.com calls test in Arizona a success. Sunday Long Island Weekly Desk. March 19, 2000; see also Ladd, D. Casting your vote on the Internet: Yea or nay. Interactive Week from ZDWire. July 3, 2000.
  7. Trotter, A. Question of effectiveness. Education Week: Technology counts '98, October 8, 1998, 18:6–9.
  8. National School Boards Foundation. Safe and smart: Research and guidelines for children's use of the Internet. Alexandria, VA: NSBF, March 28, 2000.
  9. Turow, J. The Internet and the family: The view from parents, the view from the press. Philadelphia: Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, May 1999, pp. 14, 25.
  10. Roberts, D.F., Foehr, U.G., Rideout, V.J., and Brodie, M. Kids and media @ the new millennium. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 1999.
  11. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Falling through the Net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1999.
  12. Chaney, H. The U.S. "digital divide" is not even a virtual reality. Bridge News. March 12, 2000.
  13. Coley, R.J., Cradler, J. and Engel, P.E. Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center, 1996, p. 8; and Public Law 103–382, Improving America's Schools of 1994. October 20, 1994, Title III, Technology for Education, Part A, Technology for Education of All Students, Sections 3111 and 3112.
  14. See, for example, Benson, P.L. All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997, pp. 32–33; Steinhauser, P.D. The primary needs of children: A blueprint for effective health promotion at the community level. Working paper for the Promotion/Prevention Task Force, Sparrow Lake Alliance, prepared October 1995; see also Pipher, M. The shelter of each other: Rebuilding our families. New York: Grosset/Putnam Books, 1996.
  15. American Academy of Pediatrics. Fitness, activity, and sports participation in the preschool child. Pediatrics (December 1992) 90:1002–04.
  16. American Academy of Pediatrics. Media education. Pediatrics (August 1999) 104:341–43.
  17. See note no. 2, Woodward and Gridina, p. 19.
  18. Special analyses from survey database described in Penuel, B., Golan, S., Means, B., et al. Silicon Valley Challenge 2000: Year 4 report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2000.
  19. For example, a survey conducted by America Online in February 1997 found that among the 290 respondents, 20% of boys ages 6 to 19 reported using the Internet 29 hours or more per week.
  20. See the article by Subrahmanyam and colleagues in this journal issue for further discussion of this topic.
  21. See note no. 2, Woodward and Gridina, p. 24.
  22. Alliance for Childhood. Fool's gold: A critical look at children and computers. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood, September 12, 2000.
  23. See, for example, Gortmaker, S.L., Must, A., Sobol, A.M., et al. Television viewing as a cause of increasing obesity among children in the United States, 1986–1990. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (April 1996) 150:356–62.
  24. Mendels, P. School computers may harm posture. New York Times. January 17, 1999, at 16; see also Harris, C., and Straker, L. Survey of physical ergonomics issues associated with school children's use of laptop computers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics (2000) 26:337–46; Palmer, S. Does computer use put children's vision at risk? Journal of Research and Development in Education (Winter 1993) 26:59–65.
  25. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Women and ergonomics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, March 2000.
  26. Griffiths, M.D. Friendship and social development in children and adolescents: The impact of electronic technology. Educational and Child Psychology (1997) 14:25–37.
  27. Colwell, J., Grady, C., Rhaiti, S. Computer games, self esteem, and gratification of needs in adolescents. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology (1995) 5:195–206.
  28. See note no. 2, Woodward and Gridina, p. 3.
  29. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., et al. Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist (1998) 53:1017–31.
  30. See note no. 16, AAP. The Academy had earlier advised that television viewing should be limited to no more than one to two hours per day. See American Academy of Pediatrics. Children, adolescents, and television. Pediatrics (October 1995) 96:786–87.
  31. Based on original analysis of Census data included in the article by Becker in this journal issue.
  32. eCME News. Electronic Newsletter of the CME. September 8, 2000. Available online at http://www.cme.org/publications/ecme/vol1_no1.html.
  33. Funk, J. Reevaluating the impact of video games. Clinical Pediatrics (1993) 2:86–89.
  34. Gallup Organization, in conjunction with CNN, USA Today, and the National Science Foundation. U.S. teens and technology. 1997. Some gender disparities continue to exist, however. See National Center for Education Statistics. Trends in educational equity of girls and women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, March 2000; see also American Association of University Women. Techsavvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: AAUW, 2000.
  35. See the article by Roschelle and colleagues in this journal issue.
  36. Zillmann, D., and Weaver, J. Psychoticism in the effect of prolonged exposure to gratuitous media violence on the acceptance of violence as a preferred means of conflict resolution. Personality and Individual Differences (May 1997) 22:613–27; see also Zillman, D., and Weaver, J. Effects of prolonged exposure to gratuitous media violence on provoked and unprovoked hostile behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology (1999) 29:145–65.
  37. Fling, S., Smith, L., Rodriguez, T., et al. Videogames, aggression, and self-esteem: A survey. Social Behavior and Personality (1992) 20:39–45.
  38. Oldberg, C. Children and violent video games: A warning. New York Times. December 15, 1998, at A16.
  39. Dietz, T.L. An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games: Implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior. Sex Roles (1998) 38:425–42.
  40. Federal Trade Commission. Marketing violent entertainment to children: A review of self-regulation and industry practices in the motion picture, music recording and electronic game industries. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission, September 2000.
  41. Blanton, W.E., Moorman, G.B., Hayes, B.A., et al. Effects of participation in the Fifth Dimension on far transfer. Boone, NC: Laboratory on Technology and Learning, Appalachian State University, College of Education, May 30, 2000.
  42. See Web site at http://www.pacificnews.org/yo.
  43. See Web site at http://www.indiana.edu/~eric_rec/fl/pcto/menu.html.
  44. See Web site at http://www.codetalk.fed.us/planet/planet.html.
  45. The big picture demographics: U.S. teens increase online shopping. Marketer's eRetail Report. Internet.com. September 22, 1999.
  46. Murray, J.P., Television and youth: 25 years of research and controversy. Boys Town, NE: The Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth Development, 1980, pp. 11–24.
  47. Wartella, E., and Reeves, B. Historical trends in research on children and the media: 1900–1960. Journal of Communication (Spring 1985) 35:122–23.
  48. See the article by Becker in this journal issue, Figure 8.
  49. Meskill, C., Swan, K., and Frazer, M. Tools for supporting response-based literature teaching and learning: A multimedia exploration of the Beat Generation, Report Series 2.29. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, State University of New York, 1997.
  50. See Web site at http://www.patchworx.org.
  51. Calvert, S.L., and Tan, S.L. Impact of virtual reality on young adults' physiological arousal and aggressive thoughts: Interaction versus observation. In Interacting with video. P.M. Greenfield and R.R. Cocking, eds. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1996, pp. 67–81.
  52. See the article by Montgomery in this journal issue for more on this topic.
  53. See note no. 2, Woodward and Gridina, pp. 37–38, 41.
  54. See, for example, The Children's Partnership. Online content for low-income and underserved Americans: The digital divide's new frontier. Santa Monica, CA: The Children's Partnership, March 2000.
  55. The conference, titled "Supporting Children in the Digital Village: A New Media Industry Roundtable," was convened in Stanford, CA, on July 5, 2000. For more information about the conference, see the Children Now Web site at http://www.childrennow.org.
  56. See the article by Wartella and Jennings in this journal issue for a more detailed discussion of this topic.
  57. See Web site for the Media Literacy Online Project at http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/HomePage.
  58. For more information about the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) project, see the ISTE Web site at http://cnets.iste.org.
  59. While somewhat dated, survey responses from the Census Bureau's October 1997 and December 1998 Current Population Survey of U.S. Households supplements used by Becker remain the most comprehensive source of data on children's access to and use of home computers.
  60. U.S. Department of Education. The condition of education 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2000, Section 4: Quality of Elementary and Secondary Educational Environments. Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/coe2000/section4.
  61. See Walsh, E.O. The truth about the digital divide. A technographics brief. Cambridge, MA: Forrester Research, Inc., April 11, 2000; see also Jupiter Communications. Income and age, not ethnicity, to remain largest gap for U.S. digital divide. Press release. New York: Jupiter Communications, June 15, 2000; note no. 2, Woodward and Gridina, pp. 12–13.
  62. Thierer, A.D. How free computers are filling the digital divide. The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder. April 20, 2000, issue no. 1361.
  63. See note no. 10, Roberts, Foehr, Rideout, et al., p. 11.
  64. Hamilton, D.P., and Brannigan, M. Fledgling PeoplePC lands deal with Ford and Delta—supply agreements show hope for struggling "nearly free" PC market. Wall Street Journal. February 7, 2000, at B4.
  65. U.S. Department of Commerce. What's new. Technology Opportunities Program Web site, September 28, 2000.
  66. See note no. 10, Roberts, Foehr, Rideout, et al., pp. 11, 14, 23, 26, 34, and 38.
  67. See the article by Becker in this journal issue for further discussion of this topic.
  68. The E-rate program was authorized under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which expanded the principle of universal access for wire and radio communications to include Internet connections for schools and libraries. The program is administered by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company, a not-for-profit corporation appointed by the Federal Communications Commission. For more information, see the "Program Overview" page on the SLD Web site at http://www.sl.universalservice.org.
  69. U.S. Department of Education. E-rate and the digital divide: A preliminary analysis from the integrated studies of educational technology. Document no. 00-17, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, September 2000, p. vii.
  70. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: Overview. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2000. Other private foundations active in supporting access through CTCs and libraries include the Benton Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, and The California Wellness Foundation.
  71. Resnick, M., and Rusk, N. Access is not enough: Computer clubhouses in the inner city. The American Prospect (July–August 1996) 27:60–68.
  72. For more information about Community Technology Centers, see http://www.ctcnet.org. See also Penuel, W., and Kim, D. Promising practices and organizational challenges in community technology centers. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2000.
  73. U.S. Department of Education. The 1996 National Educational Technology Plan. Online document available at http://www.air.org/forum/goals.htm. See section titled "Benefits of Technology Use."
  74. See note no. 1, NCES, February 2000. Income status is defined on the basis of the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch. Schools in the highest income bracket have less than 11% of their students eligible for such programs, while schools in the lowest income bracket have 71% or more eligible students.
  75. Executive Office of the President of the United States, President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. Report to the president on the use of technology to strengthen K–12 education in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1997. A 1997 While House Panel on Education Technology concluded that a large share of the school computer "inventory was obsolete and of very limited utility."
  76. See, for example, note no. 34, AAUW, Tech-savvy; see also Schofield, J.W. Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  77. Bayha, B. The Internet: An inclusive magnet for teaching all students. Oakland, CA: World Institute on Disability, March 1998.
  78. Technology for Students with Disabilities: A Decision Maker's Resource Guide. National School Boards Association and the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 1997.
  79. See note no. 13, P.L. 103–382 (October 20, 1994).
  80. Fatemi, E. Building the digital curriculum. Education Week: Technology counts '99. September 23, 1999, pp. 5–8.
  81. See, for example, Sivin-Kachala, J., and Bialo, E.R. 1999 research report on the effectiveness of techology in schools. 6th ed. Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association, 1999.
  82. U.S. Department of Education. Getting America's students ready for the 21st century: Meeting the technology literacy challenge. A report to the nation on technology and education. June 29, 1996. Available online at http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/NatTechPlan/.
  83. Paraphrased from opening remarks by Marshall (Mike) Smith, Acting Deputy Secretary of Education, at the Forum on Technology in Education: Envisioning the Future. Washington, DC. December 1–2, 1999.
  84. See Public Law 103–227, Goals 2000: Educate America Act (March 31, 1994); see also Olson, L. Worries of a standards "backlash" grow. Education Week. April 5, 2000, p. 1.
  85. Means, B., Chelemer, C., and Knapp, M.S., eds. Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students: Views from research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
  86. See Heubert, J.P., and Hauser, R.M. High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999; see also note no. 84, Olson.
  87. See, for example, note no. 83, Forum, December 1999; see also Papert, S. Remarks to a House of Representatives Panel on Technology and Education. Washington, DC: October 12, 1995.
  88. Wenglinsky, H. Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, September 1998.
  89. Kulik, J.A. Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. In Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994.
  90. Svec, M.T. Effect of microcomputer-based laboratory on students' graphing interpretation skills and conceptual understanding of motion. Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, Department of Education, June 1994; see also Thornton, R.K., and Sokoloff, D.R. Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics (1990) 58:858–66.
  91. White, B.Y., and Fredriksen, J.R. Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction (1998) 16:63, 90–91.
  92. Collins, A., Hawkins, J., and Carver, S. A cognitive apprenticeship for disadvantaged students. In Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students: Views from research and practice. B. Means, C. Chelemer, and M.S. Knapp, eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991, pp. 216–43.
  93. See the article by Hasselbring and Williams Glaser in this journal issue for further discussion of this topic.
  94. Zehr, M.A. The quest for quality: Screening for the best. Education Week: Technology counts '99. September 23, 1999, pp. 13–22.
  95. For more information about the panel and its findings, see the Department of Education Web site at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/LTD/panel.html.
  96. Who should teach? The states decide. Education Week (January 13, 2000) 19:8–9. See also the articles by Becker, by Roschelle and colleagues, and by Hasselbring and Williams Glaser in this journal issue.
  97. See note no. 82, U.S. Department of Education, June 29, 1996, Executive Summary.
  98. National Center for Education Statistics. Stats in brief: Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, NCES 2000–090, April 2000.
  99. See the summary of responses from Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998—A National Survey of Schools and Teachers (TLC-1998), as presented in the article by Becker in this journal issue.
  100. Data from Chambers, et al., cited by Jerald, C.D., and Orlofsky, G.F. Raising the bar on school technology. Education Week: Technology counts '99. September 23, 1999, p. 63. Also named as the biggest barrier in Education Week's own survey of teachers, p. 40.
  101. Trotter, A. Preparing teachers for the digital age. Education Week: Technology counts '99. September 23, 1999, p. 43. As shown on p. 18, in this survey, teachers identified expense as the biggest problem with digital content, followed by amount of class and preparation time required.
  102. See Hoff, D.J. Making the match: Digital content and the curriculum. Education Week: Technology counts '99. September 23, 1999, pp. 51–57.