See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274385941

Impact of Use of Technology in Mathematics Lessons on Student Achievement

and Attitudes

Article  in  Journal of social behavior and personality · January 2014

DOI: 10.2224/sbp.2014.42.0.S31

CITATIONS READS

18 23,448

2 authors:

Ramadan Eyyam Hüseyin S. Yaratan

Eastern Mediterranean University Cyprus International University
13 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   173 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Faculty Development in Technology Enhanced Learning View project

Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hüseyin S. Yaratan on 06 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2014, 42(Suppl.), S31-S42
© Society for Personality Research
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.0.S31

IMPACT OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS

LESSONS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDES

RAMADAN EYYAM AND HÜSEYİN S. YARATAN

Eastern Mediterranean University

Technology use in classrooms in today’s world is believed to have a positive impact on

students’ success and their attitudes towards lessons. In this study we investigated students’
attitudes towards technology use in class and whether the use of technology improved their
academic achievement. A quasiexperimental research design was used and we assigned
3 groups as experimental groups (n = 41) and 2 as control groups (n = 41). Mathematics
was selected as the subject to be studied. All groups completed a pretest and a posttest. For
the experimental groups, lessons were designed using several technological tools, whereas
lessons for control groups were taught using traditional teaching methods. At the end of the
study, the experimental groups completed a scale to investigate the preferences and attitudes
of the students in regard to technology-based instruction. One-way ANCOVA was used to
evaluate the differences in posttest results, which revealed that the mathematics posttest
results of the students who were instructed using technology were significantly higher than
the posttest results of the groups who were instructed without technology. Results showed
that students had a positive attitude towards technology use. The implications for curriculum
designers and teachers are discussed.

Keywords: achievement, attitude, quasiexperimental research design, mathematics, technology

use.

Today in most developed countries technology is being used extensively in

classrooms. As Bitter and Pierson (2005) and Wiske, Franz, and Breit (2005)
have pointed out, the use of instructional technology in class enhances learning

Ramadan Eyyam, Foreign Languages and English Preparatory School, Eastern Mediterranean
University; Hüseyin S. Yaratan, Educational Sciences Department, Eastern Mediterranean University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Ramadan Eyyam, Eastern
Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa, via Mersin 10, Turkey. Email: [email protected]

31
32 USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS

so that students can learn more effectively. In technology-implemented classes,

interactive student involvement in the learning process is fostered, and learning
becomes more fun and more attractive for the students (Smaldino, Russell,
Heinich & Molenda, 2005).
As stated by numerous researchers (e.g., Alessi & Trollip, 2001; Ashburn &
Floden, 2006; Bitter & Pierson, 2005; Egbert, 2009, Januszweski & Molenda,
2008; Jonassen, Howland, Marra, & Crismond, 2008; Kent, 2008; Lever-Duffy,
McDonald, & Mizell, 2005; Wiske et al., 2005) and it is an inevitable fact
that, in learning environments where educational technology is integrated into
instruction, both students and teachers experience benefits from using it. As
Smaldino et al. (2005) noted, the use of technology in instruction enhances not
only the learning capabilities of students but also their motivation; thus, students
are more engaged in the learning process.
Barron, Ivers, Lilavois, and Wells (2006) stated: “Technology provides an
excellent avenue for student motivation, exploration, and instruction” (p. 17);
it is also obligatory to consider the teachers who are the actual users of such
technology and the groundwork that consists of the necessary aids, training, and
equipment (Ashburn & Floden, 2005; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). It
has become evident that teaching, learning, and technology work synergistically
to provide effective and efficient knowledge transfer because educational
technology helps teachers create learning contexts that were not previously
possible with traditional teaching methods (Wiske et al., 2005).
Bitter and Pierson (2005) stated: “A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that
students using technology had modest but positive gains in learning outcomes
over those students who used no technology” (p. 107). Likewise, Bates and
Poole (2003) observed: “…technology does not reduce the need for imaginative,
creative thinking about teaching and learning; indeed, it increases the need.
Technology opens up a vast range of opportunities for imaginative, creative
teaching …” (p. 178).
Additionally, it is believed that when technology is used appropriately in
classroom instruction, it has a very positive impact on student achievement or
success. Moreover, using technology in education or teaching helps teachers
provide immediate feedback to students and motivates active student learning,
collaboration, and cooperation. It also helps teachers provide individualized
learning opportunities and flexibility for their students.
In this regard Kelly and McAnear (2002) stated:
To live, learn and work successfully in an increasingly complex and in-
formation-rich society, students and teachers must use technology effectively.
Within a sound educational setting, technology can enable students to
become:
• Capable information technology users
 USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS 33
• Information seekers, analyzers, and evaluators
• Problem solvers and decision makers
• Creative and effective users of productivity tools
• Communicators, collaborators, publishers, and producers
• Informed, responsible, and contributing citizens. (p. 4).
Hawkes and Cambre (2001) stated: “Technology presents new opportunities
for students and teachers that can be organizational, instructional, individual,
procedural, and cultural…” (p. 1). The authors continued by stating that
technology has an impact if learners understand and experience the main purpose
of technology. They also pointed out that one of the main points that has to be
taken into consideration by schools is the necessity to prepare students for the
changing world in which technology plays an enormous part.
Baek, Jung, and Kim (2008) asserted that many researchers agree that using
technology is an efficient cognitive tool and instructional media. They also
suggested: “Technology can be helpful in classroom settings by encouraging
inquiry, helping communication, constructing teaching products, and assisting
students’ self-expression” (p. 1). Thus, it has been suggested by scholars that
using technology, or integrating technology into a classroom, enhances teaching
and helps students learn how to broaden their perspectives, and provides a better
learning environment by bringing the world into the classroom.
Educational technology can be defined in many different ways and many
scholars have provided various definitions (Bates & Poole, 2003; Battista,
1978; Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Marra, 2003; Newby, Stepich, Lehman, &
Russell, 2006; Seels & Richey, 1994; Smaldino et al., 2005). However, the most
comprehensive definition of educational technology has come from Seels and
Richey (1994) who wrote: “Instructional technology is the theory and practice of
design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and
resources for learning” (p. 9).
In order to prepare students for the future and help them learn how to think,
learn, and gain different perspectives, technology has to be integrated into the
classroom. It is undeniable that technology has a great impact on every aspect
of modern life. As Türkmen (2006) stated, children today need the learning
media now available to become engaged in the learning process. Newby et
al. (2006) contributed to this discussion and extended it, saying: “Educational
technology includes tangible tools (high-tech hardware such as computers,
and instructional media such as overhead transparencies and videotapes) as
well as other technologies (methods, techniques, and activities) for planning,
implementing, and evaluating effective learning experiences” (p. 22). Hence,
for effective learning experiences and motivation educators now believe that
using different, and appropriate, forms of technology in classrooms is necessary.
Therefore, in this study we investigated whether or not the use of appropriate
34 USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS

forms of educational technology had a positive effect on attitudes and enhanced

the achievement of students. As a starting point, we chose mathematics as the
subject to investigate this topic.
The Cyprus Turkish educational system has recently been updated, and, in
addition to introducing learner-centered instruction, integration of technology
in the teaching-learning process has also been prescribed (Cyprus Turkish
National Education System, 2005). However, no experimental study has yet
been conducted to provide local evidence that educational technology enriches
learning experiences and student success in Cyprus. Although the basics of the
new formal educational system seem clear, understandable, and appropriate
on paper, it is unfortunate that most of the proposed procedures have not been
completely accepted by schools and that the implementation of technology in
schools is very limited. This could have resulted from the fact that the Ministry
forced this program to be implemented without either preparing additional
infrastructure or providing necessary in-service training to teachers who are the
actual users of the technology; or it may have resulted from a lack of necessary
aids, equipment, and resources. Above all, within this context there is no primary
evidence that educational technology does, in fact, enhance achievement and
have a positive effect on attitudes among students.
Considering the poor integration of technology into the updated educational
system in North Cyprus, it is important to investigate the reasons that technology
has not been implemented in classes as expected by society. But prior to an
investigation of these reasons, it was vital to know whether or not the use of
technology does improve student achievement. In addition, investigation of the
attitudes of students towards the use of technology in this education system was
also important as the perception of students has an influence on the effectiveness
of technology use.
Therefore, in this study conducted in a private school in Cyprus, we
investigated whether of not the use of technology in the classroom enhanced
the achievement of seventh grade students in mathematics lessons, and whether
or not these students had a positive attitude towards technology use in class. To
investigate the effects on student achievement of using educational technology in
mathematics lessons, we set the following research questions:
a) What is the effect of using educational technology in mathematics lessons
on student achievement?
b) What is the attitude of students towards instruction in which educational
technology is employed?

Method

We used a quasiexperimental design that involved selecting groups without

 USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS 35
any random preselection process to investigate the two research questions.
In the private secondary school in which we conducted this study all seventh
grade students had been placed in four heterogeneous classes and the school
administration did not allow any changes in these groups for our study. For their
mathematics lessons, we randomly selected three of these classes (n = 41) to
form the experimental group and the remaining two classes (n = 41) were taken
as the control group. Because of the method of assigning students to classes, it
was evident to us that, across these classes as they had been formed, the aptitude
levels of the students were different. Hence, our preference for a quasiex-
perimental design.

Design
We chose mathematics as the subject area to be investigated. In the classes,
all groups completed a pretest at the beginning of instruction and a posttest
after instruction. In the experimental groups, we provided the teachers with
instructional technology to be used while teaching, whereas the control groups
were taught by traditional methods, with no technology being used.
The topics being taught in the mathematics lessons were completely new
to the learners. We provided teachers who regularly teach these lessons at the
school with the lesson plans, all necessary materials, and pre- and posttests. We
designed the lessons carefully, according to Gagne’s nine instructional events
(Gredler, 2005; Reigeluth, 1987). The only difference in the design of the lessons
for the experimental and control groups was that technology was included in
the lessons for the experimental groups, whereas no technology was used in
the design of lessons for control groups. A laptop with multimedia and a data
projector were used in experimental groups, and the lessons were transferred to
PowerPoint slides and videos, pictures, flash cards, animations, and so on. These
technological aids were provided with the aims of increasing student motivation,
making learning more meaningful and enjoyable, maximizing visualization
and maintaining students’ attention on the lesson. Consequently, neither books
nor the handouts prepared by the teachers were used during the lessons for the
experimental groups.

Measures
Pretest and posttest. These tests were prepared by obtaining expert opinion.
The pretest for mathematics, which was in an open-ended question format,
comprised 10 questions, and it was used to assess the prior knowledge of students
about the geometry topics that they would be studying during the lessons that
formed our research. Students were asked to read each question and write their
answers in the space provided below the question. The posttest had the same
format and topics as the pretest.
36 USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS

Educational Technology Perception Scale (ETPS). We prepared a two-factor

educational technology perception scale and the experimental group completed
this in order to investigate the students’ attitudes towards technology use in
class and their preferences in this regard. The scale consists of 11 items, and the
students were asked to state their opinions on a 3-point scale with Yes receiving
a rating of 2, Indecisive = 1, and No = 0.
Sample items are: “The lessons are fun when the teacher uses a computer and
data projector in the lesson,” and “I participate in lessons when the teacher uses
a computer and data projector in the lesson.”
We analyzed the data by means of a principal component analysis (PCA),
with direct oblimin rotation. Indicators of factorability were good. The Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy was .88, which is greater
than the cut-off value of .70. Furthermore, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity yielded
a significant result, 2 (55) = 435.43, p = .000 < .01, which showed that the
correlation matrix of measured variables was significantly different from an
identity matrix; in other words, items were sufficiently correlated to load on the
components of the measure. Two components with an eigenvalue of greater than
1.0 were found.

4
Eigenvalue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Component number

Figure 1. Scree plot for components of the measure.

In the scree plot there were two components in the sharp descending part of the
plot (see Figure 1). The loadings of the two factors of Attitudes of Students and
Preference of Students are presented in Table 1. Items 6, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 were
loaded on the Attitude of Students factor and items 2, 11, 1, and 9 were loaded
on the Preference of Students factor.
 USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS 37
Table 1. Items Representing Attitudes and Preferences of Students

Attitudes Preferences

ITEM 6 .832
ITEM 4 .779
ITEM 5 .771
ITEM 3 .755
ITEM 7 .521
ITEM 8 .513
ITEM 10 .490
ITEM 2 .917
ITEM 11 .755
ITEM 1 .639
ITEM 9 .426

For the measure, we computed the Cronbach’s alpha () value for the internal
consistency estimate of reliability, and the computed value was .91 for the whole
scale, for the attitude items the Cronbach’s alpha value () was .88, and for the
preference items the Cronbach’s value () was .77, indicating that the measure
had good reliability.

Results

We conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to find answers to

the research question “What is the effect of using educational technology in
mathematics lessons on student achievement?” The progress scores of students
were calculated by subtracting their pretest scores from their posttest scores.
Then, we used descriptive statistics to find out how the progress scores of the
students were distributed. As shown in Table 2, progress scores satisfied the
criteria for a normal distribution because both skewness (.257) and kurtosis
(-.812) of the distribution were between -1.0 and +1.0 (Bluman, 2004). We took
student report scores for mathematics from the previous term as the covariant in
the ANCOVA and we analyzed these for skewness (-.100) and kurtosis (-.301),
and the results of this analysis also satisfied the criteria for a normal distribution.

Table 2. Students’ Previous Term Scores and Progress Scores

n Min. Max. M SD Skewness Kurtosis

Previous term scores 82 24.25 90.50 63.29 15.01 -.100 -.301

Progress scores 76 -1.00 10.00 3.78 2.77 .257 -.812

We conducted a test of homogeneity of slopes in order to test the assumption

about whether the relationship between the previous term scores and the progress
38 USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS

scores differed significantly as a function of the independent variable of the

group, F(1, 72) = 2.39, p = .127 > .01. As can be seen in Table 3, the result
of this test was not significant; hence, it could be assumed that the slopes are
homogeneous. Therefore, a one-way ANCOVA could be conducted.

Table 3. Test of Homogeneity of Slopes Results

Source SS df MS F Sig. Partial Eta Squared

Previous Term Scores 23.641 1 23.641 3.385 .070 .013

Group * Previous Term Scores 16.670 1 16.670 2.387 .127 .032
Error 502.785 72 6.983
Total 1664.250 76

Note. R2 = .128 (Adjusted R2 = .092).

We conducted a one-way ANCOVA, and the progress scores of the students

were adjusted using the previous term’s scores. As can be seen in Table 4,
the effect of the covariate has effectively been removed from the data of the
experimental and control groups. When the mean scores of the groups are
examined, it is possible to say that the results of the experimental groups were
better than those of the control groups.

Table 4. Adjusted Mean of Progress Scores of Student Groups

n Actual M Adjusted M

Experimental Group 38 3.07 3.13

Control Group 38 4.49 4.43

As can be seen in Table 5, after adjusting the progress test scores, there was a
significant difference between the experimental and control groups, F(1, 73) =
7.12, p = .024 > .05). In other words, the use of technology in the lessons with
the experimental groups resulted in these students receiving higher scores in their
mathematics tests.

Table 5. ANCOVA Results for the Difference Between Experimental and Control Groups

Source SS df MS F Sig. Partial Eta Squared

Previous term scores 24.972 1 24.97 3.509 .065 .046

Group 37.822 1 37.82 5.315 .024 .068
Error 519.456 73 7.12
Total 1664.250 76

Note. R2 = .099 (Adjusted R2 = .075).

 USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS 39
Using the Educational Technology Perception Scale (ETPS), we analyzed data
collected from the students who had been learning in an educational-technology-
blended environment to find answers to the second research question, “What is
the attitude of students towards instruction in which educational technology is
employed?”
In order to assess students’ attitudes and preferences we computed the mean
score of each of these two components for every participating student. As can
be seen in Table 6, nearly half of the students were indecisive in their attitude
towards use of technology, nearly one third of the group liked using educational
technology in class; but just over a quarter of the students expressed negative
attitudes towards using educational technology. In terms of preference, nearly
half of the students preferred the use of educational technology in class, only
16.5% of them did not prefer the use of technology, and just over one third of
them were indecisive.

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Data Collected by ETPS

Attitudes of Students Preferences of Students

f % f %

No 21 26.6 13 16.5
Indecisive 34 43.0 28 35.4
Yes 24 30.4 38 48.1
Total 79 100.0 79 100.0

Discussion and Conclusion

We expected that the use of educational technology in mathematics lessons

would have a positive effect on student success and, after analyzing the collected
data, it is possible to conclude that these expectations were met.
In addition, the students who took part in the study expressed quite positive
attitudes towards the use of educational technology. According to the analysis
conducted with the mean results of the performance of students, the use of
educational technology had a positive effect on their performance, and the impact
of the use of technology can be seen in the students’ progress results. Although
many researchers have investigated the understanding of learners in mathematics
lessons, for example, Mji and Makgato (2006), Kotzé (2007), and Bansilal and
Naidoo (2012), the effect of the use of educational technology has not been
investigated extensively.
In the present study, we prepared a specific scale (ETPS) in order to gather
information from the learners about their attitudes about, and preferences in
regard to, the use of educational technology in mathematics lessons.
40 USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS

A significant number of students were indecisive about their preference.

This might be attributed to the fact that, because technology was not used even
occasionally in class, they were not familiar with this kind of instruction and,
therefore, did not have negative perceptions about its use. As can be seen, a large
percentage of the students were indecisive about whether or not they liked the use
of educational technology in mathematics lessons. When educational technology
is used, this is a tremendous change from the traditional method of teaching.
People are resistant to change, and this was the first time these students had
received instruction using educational technology; this may be the reason that
they did not decide in favor of this kind of instruction. Hence, a longer period
of time should be allowed for the use of technology, and this scale should be
readministered at the end of this period to determine if there is then a reduction
in the number of students whose response is that they are indecisive about use
of technology. After getting used to this kind of instruction, we expect that most
of the indecisive students and even some of the students who answered that they
did not like the use of technology in our study, would be in favor of the use of
educational technology in mathematics lessons. Thus, further research should be
conducted to consolidate our findings.
According to our results, many of the students preferred to be in a class where
educational technology was used, but they were not sure whether it would help
them become more successful in the class. In addition, students’ responses
indicated that they did not have a negative perception of technology use in the
class. We expect that, as the students had a positive perception of the use of
educational technology in class, continuous use of educational technology would
change their attitudes towards its use.
As education systems are not perfect, from time to time they are reviewed in
order to provide better education for learners. Similar to the Turkish Republic
of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) education system, the South African curriculum
has recently been reviewed as set out in the South African National Curriculum
Statement (Mwakapenda, 2008). The present situation in regard to the TRNC
education system is not promising in terms of using technology in classrooms
(İşman & Yaratan, 2004; Yaratan & Kural, 2010). One of the major constraints
is the lack of necessary equipment in schools. Another important point to be
considered is that teachers are not well trained in integrating technology into
classroom instruction. To overcome these problems, it will be necessary to
incorporate use of technology into teacher training and to supply teachers with
the necessary information, aids, and equipment useful to the process of providing
a better education by means of educational technology.
Our study exploring student success with the use of educational technology
was conducted using mathematics as the subject, and it could be repeated with
other school subjects. The findings in our study can shed light on the use of
 USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS 41
educational technology for teaching mathematics in similar education systems
around the globe, in order to encourage education administrators to implement
use of educational technology in mathematics lessons.

References

Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ashburn, E. A., & Floden, R. E. (2006). Meaningful learning using technology: What educators need
to know and do. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom?
Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Computers &
Education, 50, 224-234.
Bansilal, S., & Naidoo, J. (2012). Learners engaging with transformation geometry. South African
Journal of Education, 32, 26-39.
Barron, A. E., Ivers, K. S., Lilavois, N., & Wells, J. A. (2006). Technologies for education: A practical
guide (5th ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education:
Foundations for success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Battista, M. S. (1978). The effect of instructional technology and learner characteristics on cognitive
achievement in college accounting. The Accounting Review, 53, 477-485.
Bitter, G. G., & Pierson, M. E. (2005). Using technology in the classroom (6th ed.). New York:
Pearson Education.
Bluman, A. G. (2004). Elementary statistics: A step by step approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Egbert, J. L. (2009). Supporting learning with technology: Essentials of classroom practice. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Gredler, M. E. (2005). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hawkes, M., & Cambre, M. (2001). Educational technology: Identifying the effects. Principal
Leadership, 1, 48-51. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ630818)
İşman, A., & Yaratan, H. S. (2004). How technology is integrated into math education. In R. Ferdig
et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Conference
(pp. 4453-4457). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Januszweski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary.
New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R. M., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with
technology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with
technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Kelly, M. G., & McAnear, A. (Eds.) (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers:
Preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene, OR: Teacherline.
Kent, L. (2008). 6 steps to success in teaching with technology: A guide to using technology in the
classroom. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.
Kotzé, G. (2007). Investigating shape and space in mathematics: A case study. South African Journal
of Education, 27, 19-35.
Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J. B., & Mizell, A. P. (2005). Teaching and learning with technology (2nd
ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
42 USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MATHEMATICS

Mji, A., & Makgato, M. (2006). Factors associated with high school learners’ poor performance: A
spotlight on mathematics and physical science. South African Journal of Education, 26, 253-266.
Cyprus Turkish National Education System (2005). Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti Milli Eğitim
ve Kültür Bakanlığı Kıbrıs Türk Eğitim Sistemi [Cyprus Turkish national education system] -
Brochure. Nicosia, TR: TRNC Devlet Basımevi.
Mwakapenda, W. (2008). Understanding connections in the school mathematics curriculum. South
African Journal of Education, 28, 189-202.
Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. (2006). Instructional technology for
teaching and learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1987). Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories
and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-
centered classrooms. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the
field. Washington DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Smaldino, S. E., Russell, J. D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2005). Instructional technology and
media for learning (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Türkmen, H. (2006). What technology plays supporting role in learning cycle approach for science
education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5, 71-77.
Wiske, M. S., Franz, K. R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yaratan, H., & Kural, C. (2010). Middle school English language teachers’ perceptions of
instructional technology implementation in North Cyprus. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 9, 161-174.

View publication stats