Heafner, T. (2004). Using technology to motivate students to learn social studies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 4(1). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss1/socialstudies/article1.cfm
Using Technology to Motivate Students to Learn Social Studies
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Many teachers struggle with motivating students to learn. This is especially
prevalent in social studies classrooms in which students perceive social
studies as boring (Schug, Todd, & Berry, 1984; Shaughnessy & Haladyana,
1985). This article advocates the use of technology in social studies
as a means to motivate students by engaging students in the learning process
with the use of a familiar instructional tool that improves students’
self-efficacy and self-worth. The potential that technology has to motivate
students is discussed as it relates to expectancy-value model of motivation
which focuses three areas of motivational theory (Pintrich & Schunk,
1996): value (students’ beliefs about the importance or value of a task),
expectancy (students’ beliefs about their ability or skill to perform
the task), and affective (emotional reactions to the task and self-worth
Recently, during fieldwork, the author was observing in a high school
government class. The social studies concepts discussed in the lesson were
political parties, the role of campaigning, and the impact of media on citizens’
decisions. The teacher integrated a variety of traditional and constructivist
instructional methods. She incorporated a brief lecture, questioning strategies
to discuss readings, graphic organizers, and video clips of recent election
campaign commercials. Despite her efforts to engage students, the class was
chaotic. What follows is an excerpt from the author’s field notes describing the
complexities of the classroom environment.
Twenty-five students are seated in pods of four. One girl in the back is putting
on eyeliner and eye shadow. She frequently chats with two boys seated at her
table. She proceeds to mash zits. Two girls and one boy socialize in the back
of the class. They are more concerned about the social complexities of the school
rather than listening. However, periodically one will shout out a correct answer
without interrupting the flow of the social conversation. One girl, sitting
in the back of the class, totally isolates herself and has no verbal or nonverbal
communication with her peers or the teacher. A quiet boy and two girls sit at
a table located in the front of the class. They do not share comments and appear
to be intimidated by their peers.
A girl on the other side of the class begins to sing and continues to do so
periodically throughout the class time. Another girl gets up and walks around
the room. She is told to sit down, which she does, and in five minutes gets
up and walks around again. She is struggling to stay in her seat and is clearly
unconcerned with the class discussion. A boy in the center of the class covers
his head with his hood, lays his head down, and goes to sleep. Two other girls
at his table are engaged in a conversation about who will be homecoming queen.
What is a teacher to do with a class like this? This is a perplexing
situation, yet a common dilemma teachers encounter. Many teachers struggle with
the lack of student interest in the content which translates into a lack of
motivation to learn. This is especially prevalent in social studies classrooms.
Research indicates that students often are uninterested in social studies
because they perceive it as a boring subject (Schug, Todd, & Berry, 1984;
Shaughnessy & Haladyana, 1985). Students tend to equate uninteresting with
unimportant; thus, students are not motivated to learn social studies content
due to the lack of value of the content. Educators suggest that lack of student
interest in social studies is related to the instructional methods utilized in
disseminating information (Martorella, 1997).
This paper describes my investigation of technology integration in social
studies instruction to build an understanding of why technology is being used to
teach social studies content. Given the nature of social studies instruction and
the need to engage students in the learning process, I selected motivational
theory as a theoretical frame for this research.
| Figure 1. Expectancy-Value Model
To clarify a general misconception, motivation and ability are not equivalent.
Motivation refers to what a person will attempt, yet ability is defined as what
a person can do (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Thus, the purpose of motivation
theory is to explain student behavior and influence future behavior. Recent
theories of motivation can be categorized as variations of expectancy-value
model of motivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). This model focuses on three
areas: value (students’ beliefs about the importance or value of a task), expectancy
(students’ beliefs about their ability or skill to perform the task), and affective
(emotional reactions to the task and self-worth evaluation). Figure 1 represents
the relationship between the three areas of expectancy-value motivational theory
(Pintrich & Schunk, 1996).
First, task-value motivational theory addresses the question of why an individual
completes a task. The value component of motivation focuses on the reasons why
students become involved (or not involved) in an instructional activity (Pintrich
& DeGroot, 1990; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). It defines students’ beliefs
about the importance or value of a task and why students approach or avoid a
task. Engagement in the task varies with the value that students place on the
academic task and students’ self-confidence in their ability to accomplish the
task successfully if appropriate effort was made (Brophy, 1983).
Whether or not a student attempts a task is dependent upon students’
perceived success in completing the task (Atkinson, 1957; Stipek, 1997).
Perceptions of success are shaped by the nature of the task. The nature of the
task, defined as the procedures, social organization and products that each task
requires, regulates what students learn and how students learn (Doyle, 1983). If
students perceive the task as boring or too difficult, they will avoid the task.
Students will approach tasks they believe are fun, require a moderate amount of
effort, and are reasonably challenging. Thus, the nature of the task and student
perception of the importance of the task become key factors influencing student
motivation for approaching or avoiding the task (Blumenfeld, Mergendoller, &
Swarthout, 1987; Eccles et al., 1983).
Second, the concept of expectancy represents the key idea that students will
not choose to do a task or continue to engage in a task that they believe
exceeds their capabilities, but students will take on tasks and activities that
they believe they can handle (Schunk, 1991). If students expect failure, they
will avoid the task; conversely, if students anticipate success, they will
approach the task.
Expectancy relates to students’ self-efficacy, students’ confidence in their
cognitive skills (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). Student self-efficacy is
influenced by past experiences and familiarity with the task (Bandura, 1993;
Schunk, 2000). Students’ perceptions of competence about personal skills and
abilities are influenced by the learning environment. Positive learning
environments provide nurturing experiences for students to build their
self-confidence in their skills. Students are able to develop their skills
comfortably without the fear of failure. Students develop a familiarity with the
skills necessary to complete the tasks. It is this familiarity with the tasks
that builds students self-efficacy (Eccles & Wigfield, 1993). Expectancy
motivational theory addresses the question of “Can I do what is being asked?” or
“Am I capable of accomplishing this task?”
The final area of motivational theory relates to the affective domain and
identifies students’ emotional reactions to the task and self-worth evaluation.
A central part of all classroom achievement is the need for students to protect
their sense of worth or personal value (Covington, 1984). Self-worth theory
focuses attention on the pervasive need implied within the conflicting interests
of desire to approach success that invokes social recognition and a feeling of
competence and to avoid failure that causes a sense of worthlessness and social
disapproval (Covington, 1984; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Students’
perceptions of the causes of their successes and failures influence the quality
of their future achievement. According to self-worth theory, high ability
signifies worthiness. Because ability is tied to worthiness and it is related to
accomplishments, then self-perceptions of ability are significant to the way
students interpret their personal success (Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urban,
1996). Self-worth theory rests upon the perception that students are motivated
to establish, maintain, and promote a positive self-image (Covington, 2000).
A descriptive and exploratory case study (as described by Yin, 2002) was utilized
to examine the integration of technology for social studies instruction. This
case study sought to unveil the tacit knowledge, deconstructing student attitudes
about technology and motivations for using technology (Patton, 1990), to build
an understanding of why technology is being used to teach social studies content.
Qualitative methods were employed to provide an in-depth description of technology
use in a natural setting. The purpose of this study was to interpret the phenomena
and the meanings that students brought to this setting and to describe them
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Glesne & Peshkin, 1999; Marshall & Rossman,
The participant for this study was an in-service teacher. The secondary
social studies teacher taught 9th- and 10th-grade social studies classes. She
taught World History, Economic, Legal, and Political Systems, and a tenth grade
seminar that integrated the curriculum for English and social studies. Her
undergraduate degree was in early childhood education. She later returned to
school for her second undergraduate degree of history with a minor in secondary
education. After teaching for 7 years, she obtained her master’s degree in
social studies education. In addition she has achieved recognition as the only
nationally board certified social studies teacher in her high school.
This case study is atypical because this teacher has excellent professional
credentials and has had much experience at integrating technology in social
studies content. The uniqueness of this case study provides valuable insight
into research on technology integration in the social studies curriculum. This
research addresses a recognized need for examples of content specific technology
use in the social studies (Martorella, 1997; Mason, 2000-2001; Mason et al,
2000; Vanfossen, 2001; White, 1999) and supports existing qualitative research
that emphasizes the benefit of looking at best practices in teaching (Grossman,
Data sources for this study included interviews, observations, field notes,
and artifacts, such as technology work samples produced by the students, teacher
curricula, and teacher lesson plans. Interviews, field notes, and classroom
observations followed procedures outlined by the work of Spradley (1980) and
Schensul, Schensul, and Lecompte (1999). Field notes were condensed accounts of
events observed in the classroom. Missing gaps in these data were filled with
data collected from teacher and student interviews.
Before data collection and analysis began, study propositions were
formulated. In keeping with Yin’s (2002) case study methodology, two
propositions formed the core of the research framework: (a) Technology improves
students’ motivation to learn content and (b) technology augments the
development of student work through providing students with organizational
frameworks, connecting students to resources, and supporting students’
creativity. The integration of technology within the social studies provides
crucial links in building content and technological literacies.
Collected data was linked to the propositions through comparison of common
patterns (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Yin, 2002), analyzing emergent themes
(Spradley, 1980), and triangulation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Yin, 2002).
After the data was collected, analysis of the data formed links between the
theoretical framework and the results of the case. A crosswalk of issues showed
the links between the study questions, data sources, data analysis, and theoretical
framework and also helped establish reliability for the study.
A Closer Look
To redress the initial question of what a teacher is to do with these
uninterested and unmotivated students, a closer look at the case described is
necessary. Once the teacher in the scenario described earlier finished with the
classroom instruction, she assigned the students a project of creating a
PowerPoint slide as a political campaign advertisement for their state’s
senatorial race. Students were expected to research their candidate of choice
and develop an advertisement utilizing one of the various media strategies for
which the teacher had provided information. The teacher distributed a handout
clearly identifying the types of campaign advertisements and the expectations
for the task. Then the class was off to the computer lab.
The hallway trip was no different than the classroom scenario provided, but
something happened when they entered the computer lab. Students immediately sat
down at their computers and promptly began their work. Students exuded
self-confidence in their abilities, not only to work with the technology but to
master the content and successfully complete the task. Students had no
difficulty locating the websites for the candidates and finding the facts they
needed to construct their campaign advertisements. Students captured the key
political stances of each candidate. They also demonstrated an understanding of
the various campaign strategies. In addition to understanding the content,
students designed graphically appealing and interactive campaign ads using
PowerPoint. Several students knew about the intricacies of the software program
and tutored others on how to complete the desired special effects. Students were
collaborated and exchanged ideas. Students eagerly shared their work and ideas
with their peers.
Students were excited about learning and displayed pride in the PowerPoint
slides they created. The slides included sound bytes, video clips, pictures,
text, and animation. The product outcomes were impressive, but what was even
more impressive was the level of engagement. All students actively created their
products, learning about the candidates and the types of campaign advertisements
that are utilized in politics. It was an amazing transformation. The same
students who were described earlier were now focused and on task. Not only were
they actively involved in their project, they were learning social studies.
Students enjoyed working on the project with technology because they viewed
technology as more engaging and entertaining. All students reported enjoyment in
the task because technology made their work easier and more fun to do. One
student commented, “I like using computers, the Internet, and PowerPoint because
it is fun, fresh, and invigorating.” Many students identified that technology
made it possible for them to complete their work more quickly and efficiently.
One of the most common reasons for enjoyment in the task was that computer use
made students’ work neater, enabled them to add nice graphics, and made the
overall presentations look professional. These feelings were captured in this
student’s statement: “I like using technology to do my work because you can do
more with technology. You can make a really cool presentation that wouldn’t be
possible without the technology.”
Additionally, students reported that using technology enabled them to find
more information and helped them understand what they were talking about in
class. A student commented, “I like using computers to do school work, because
it helps me get my thoughts out better.” Another student replied, “I like using
computers because it’s easy to find lots of information about the stuff we are
discussing in class.”
One final point made by students was that working with computers gave them
the opportunity to refine their technology skills. Students identified that they
felt confident in their ability to use technology and liked having the
opportunity to complete tasks that allowed them to work with skills they already
possessed. At the same time, students felt that the task was challenging and
required them to take their skills to the next level.
Technology offers many benefits to enhance education. Most importantly,
technology integration has the potential to increase student motivation
(Anderson, 2000). The case described presents three elements of how technology
positively impacts student motivation. These factors are based upon
expectancy-value model of motivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Using
technology changes the nature of the task, increases student self-efficacy, and
improves student self-worth.
First, task-value motivational theory addresses the question, “Why do I
approach the task?” In the case presented, students were actively involved in
the project because they were working with technology. Students felt confident
in their ability to accomplish the task due to their familiarity with the
technology. The focus of the task shifted from social studies content to
technology use. Since students were self-confident in their technology skills,
they eagerly approached the task. Students were excited about the opportunity to
test their skills and viewed the task as challenging and engaging. This was in
contrast to the traditional classroom environment, where students avoided the
task either because it was boring or because they believed that they lacked the
skills necessary to be success in this environment.
Technology empowers students by engaging students in the learning process.
The nature of the task shifts from teacher centered to student centered. Given
the flexibility of technology to diversify tasks, the activity was designed
to build upon students’ prior knowledge and to address student interests. Research
indicates that challenging and engaging academic tasks that build upon students’
prior knowledge and enable students to construct their own understanding of
the content are more apt to enhance student motivation and increase student
self-confidence in their cognitive abilities (Brophy, 1983; Meece, 1991; Miller
& Meece, 1999).
Additionally, the use of technology improves student interest due to students’
familiarity with the technology. Increased enjoyment in learning is related
to students’ natural affinity for computer-based instruction; consequently,
social studies can become a more attractive subject when computers and the Internet
are included as teaching tools (Cassutto, 2000, pp. 100-101). Research touts
technology use in social studies as a purposeful method of instruction to best
meet the needs of students and to promote student interest in the task (Berson,
1996; Martorella, 1997; White, 1999).
Second, expectancy motivational theory addresses the question “Can I use this
technology or am I capable of accomplishing this task?” As identified in the
case, students displayed more self-confidence in the computer than in the
traditional classroom setting. Students possessed the skills necessary to
successfully accomplish the assignment. They felt comfortable in the secure
environment that the computer lab offered. This nurturing learning environment
enabled students to accomplish more with technology than they could without it.
Students were able to generate attractive, creative, and content rich PowerPoint
slides. Students took pride in their creations and eagerly shared their work
with their peers.
According to Ames (1990) technology has the potential to increase student
motivation by increasing student self-efficacy. This was evidenced in a research
study of the impact of technology use on high school student learning conducted
by Rochowicz (1996). Data identified that using computers increases students’
self-efficacy; consequently, students develop a more positive attitude toward
learning. Rochowicz concluded that computers make learning more relevant,
meaningful, and enjoyable; consequently, academic frustration declines. Students
experience a greater enjoyment from learning content because they are confident
in their ability to accomplish the task when using technology.
Additionally, technology enables students to accomplish more than they could
without the use of technology. Technology affords students opportunities to
access information and resources to create products far beyond their perceived
capabilities. Research identifies the benefits of technology integration as
the technical aspects to enhance the quality of work, promote access to resources,
positively impact student learning, and promote student metacognitive skills
(Heafner & McCoy, 2001; Scheidet, 2003). With the improved output, students
take pride in the products they create, which increases their self-efficacy.
This self-efficacy can have a positive impact on overall student motivation.
As Brophy (1983) contended, student motivation improves with students’ increased
self-confidence in their abilities to complete the academic task.
Third, self-worth and affective motivational theory addresses the question,
“How do my feelings about myself affect whether or not I will attempt or avoid
this task?” Using technology enabled these students to feel more self-confident
in completing the assignment due to their familiarity with technology.
Initially, the focus of learning shifted from social studies content to
technology. Technology integration camouflaged the learning process by drawing
students into a fun activity that relied on familiar technical skills. Once
students engaged in the task their attention shifted to the content. With the
integration of a familiar learning tool, students approached social studies
content that they had avoided in the traditional classroom setting. Students
eagerly approached the task when they were able to use an instructional tool
with which they had the knowledge, skill, and confidence in using. Familiarity
with the technology also increases students’ belief in their ability to
accomplish the task; consequently, students are more willing to take risks and
approach challenging tasks. This supports self-worth theory that students’
perceptions of worthiness are equated with ability (Covington, 2000; Midgley et
Typical instructional approaches utilized in social studies classes emphasize
ability-related activities such as memorization and rote learning (Martorella,
1997). In contrast, technology facilitates the development of decision-making
and problem-solving, data-processing, and communication skills (National Council
for the Social Studies, 1994). Instruction that builds upon these higher order
tasks generates a collaborative learning environment that promotes self-worth
and enables students to overcome task-avoidance (Covington, 1984). Using technology
to complete assignments changes the learning environment to focus on mastery
learning while promoting cooperative learning. Class is less structured and
diminishes traditional views of competition as a means to motivate.
Within this nurturing environment, students are able to rely comfortably on
their peers to assist with technical difficulties without fear of social embarrassment.
Students avoid feelings of worthlessness and social disapproval that accompany
competitive learning environments (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). As presented
in the case, increased peer communication and collaboration were positive outcomes
of technology integration. Students felt secure in sharing their knowledge and
skills with their peers in the noncompetitive computer lab environment. This
behavior contrasted with behaviors exuded in the traditional classroom, where
students avoided tasks and engagement with their peers.
Despite the recognized positive benefits of technology integration on
improving student learning as identified in this case study, caution is advised.
Much research exists that challenges the use of technology as positively
affecting student learning. The hesitancy of many schools and teachers to openly
embrace technology is, in part, related to their concern about the negative
effects of technology on students and the educational process. Research
recognizes various negative outcomes of technology use as social isolation, all
information is “good” misperception, information overload, and the time
consuming nature of technology (Clark, 1994; Cornelius & Boss, 2003; Heafner
& McCoy, 2001; Scott & O’Sullivan, 2000; Salomon, 1997). These tradeoffs
of technology can be a detriment to student learning.
This article does not contend that technology is the only method for
instruction nor it is the only means of motivating students to learn social
studies. Technology alone is insufficient to ensure effective social studies
education (Staley, 2000). However, effective technology integration offers
opportunities to enhance social studies instruction and to increase student
motivation while preparing students with the knowledge, skills, and values
necessary to become good citizens, which are the fundamental goals of the social
When planning for instruction, social studies teachers need to strongly
consider what motivates students to learn. Too often teachers sacrifice student
interest for content coverage. In a high stakes testing environment, social
studies teachers are entrenched in methods that rely heavily on lecture and
discussion. This teacher-centered classroom structure does not offer much
opportunity for motivating students to take an interest in social studies
content. Students have no motivation to learn social studies beyond the common
justification of “it will be on the test.” This lack of student interest
inhibits student development of metacognitive skills, which greatly impacts
To develop a more nurturing and engaging learning environment that promotes
cognitive growth, social studies teachers need to incorporate instructional
practices that are student centered. By focusing on students, teachers are able
to encourage student interest, which translates into increased student
motivation to learn. This article advocates the use of technology as a means to
motivate students by engaging students in the learning process with the use of a
familiar instructional tool that improves students’ self-efficacy and
self-worth. If teachers build students’ self-confidence, then students will more
likely enjoy learning, which can greatly impact student achievement.
Additionally, teachers should take into consideration that students are
individuals and may accomplish the same task for many reasons. Consequently,
social studies teachers should incorporate various instructional methods that
provide students with diverse, engaging, and challenging tasks to meet the needs
of all students. This is what technology affords educators and why technology
has the potential to impact student motivation positively and, subsequently,
student learning. The potential that technology offers to positively affect
student achievement is sufficient reason to integrate technology as a means to
motivate students to learn social studies.
Ames, C. A. (1990, Spring). Motivation: What teachers need to know. Teachers
College Record, 91(3), 409-422.
Anderson, M. A. (2000). It’s in the research. Library Talk, 13(1),
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Review, 64, 359-372.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-149.
Bandura, A., & Schunk (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and
intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 42, 586-598.
Berson, M. (1996). Effectiveness of computer technology in social studies:
A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist,
Blumenfeld, P. C., Mergendollar, J., & Swarthout, D. (1987). Task as a
heuristic for understanding student learning and motivation. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 19, 135- 148.
Cassutto, G. (2000). Social studies and the World Wide Web. International
Journal of Social Education, 15(1), 94-101.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Cornelius, C., & Boss, M. (2003). Communication abstracts. Communication
and Information Technology, 25(4), 533-555.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement:
An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1),
Covington, M. V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation:
Findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1),
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53,
Eccles, J., Adler, T., Futterman, R., Goff, S., Kaczala, C., et al. (1983).
Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Eds.), Achievement
and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1993). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109-133.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1999). Becoming qualitative
researchers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and
teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Heafner, T. L., & McCoy, L. P. (2001). Technology and the academic and
social culture of a university campus. In J. Price, D. Willis, N. Davis, &
J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology
in Teacher Education 01. Charlottesville, VA: Association for
the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Mason, C. L. (2000-2001, Fall/Winter). Collaborative social studies teacher
education across remote locations: Students’ experiences and perceptions. International
Journal of Social Education, 16(2), 46-61.
Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000).
Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(1).
Retrieved March 31, 2004, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/socialstudies/article1.htm
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Martorella, P. H., (Ed.). (1997). Interactive technologies and the social
studies: Emerging issues and applications. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Meece, J. L. (1991). The classroom context and students’ motivational goals.
In M. L. Maher & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motional and
achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 261-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urban, T. (1996). If I don’t do well tomorrow,
there’s a reason: Predictors of adolescents’ use of academic self-handicapping
strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 423-434.
Miller, S. D., & Meece, J. L. (1999). Third graders’ motivational preferences
for reading and writing tasks. The Elementary School Journal, 100(1),
National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Curriculum standards for
social studies: Expectations of excellence (Bulletin No. 89). Washington,
DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods
(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated
learning components of classroom academic performance, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education:
Theory, research, and applications. Ohio: Merrill.
Rochowicz, J. A., Jr. (1996). The impact of using computers and calculators
on calculus instruction: Various perceptions. The Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science, 15(4), 423-435.
Salomon, G. (1997). Of mind and media. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5),
Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential
ethnographic methods: Observations, interviews, and questionnaires. Walnut
Creek, CA: Altamira Press, a subsidiary of Sage Publications.
Scott, T. J., & O’Sullivan, M. (2000, May-June). The Internet and information
literacy: Taking the first step toward technology education in the social studies.
The Social Studies, 91(3), 121-125.
Scheidet, R.A. (2003). Improving student achievement by infusing a web-based
curriculum into global history. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
Schug, M. C., Todd, R. J., & Berry, R. (1984). Why kids don't like social
studies. Social Education, 48, 382-87.
Schunk, D. H. (2000). Motivation for achievement: Past, present, and future.
Issues in Education, 6(1/2), 161-166.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 26(3/4), 207-232.
Shaughnessy, J. M., & Haladyna, T. M.. (1985). Research on student attitude
toward social studies. Social Education, 49, 692-95.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Fort Worth, TX:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Staley, D. J. (2000). The role of technology in social studies education. International
Journal of Social Education, 15(1), 1-127.
Stipek, D. J. (1997). Motivation and instruction. In David C. Berliner &
Rober C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp.
85-113). New York: MacMillan.
Vanfossen, P. J. (2001). Degree of Internet/WWW use and barriers to use among
secondary social studies teachers. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 29(1), 57-75.
White, C. (1999). It’s not just another new thing: Technology as a transformative
innovation for social studies teacher education. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 7(1), 3-12.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task
values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12,
Yin, R. K. (2002). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte