Many funders are interested in seeing literature to substantiate your claim that your idea will improve things in your classroom. We have compiled a list of support articles on the benefits of the use of computers and calculators for data collection in the classroom. Many of the available articles can be accessed directly on the internet.
What the Research Says About the Value of Probeware for Science Instruction
White paper discusses use of data-collection technology to improve test scores, deepen understanding of science concepts, meet national and state educational standards, and support a framework for K-12 education.
Silverstein, Samuel C., Jay Dubner, Jon Miller, Sherry Glied, and John D. Loike, “Teachers’ Participation in Research Programs Improves Their Students’ Achievement in Science”. Science. 16 October 2009. 440-442.Read article synopsis at sciencemag.org
STEM SETDA Research 2008. SETDA discusses the importance of STEM education, the current state of STEM education, barriers to implementing STEM education, and recommends what stakeholders and policymakers can do to support STEM education.Download the STEM report
Friedrichsen, Patriacia Meis, Thomas M. Dana, Carla Zembal-Saul, Danusa Munford, and Chen Tsur “Learning to Teach with Technology Model: Implementation in Secondary Science Teacher Education.” Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching (2001) 20 (4), 377-394.
Lapp, Douglas Ph.D. and Dr. Vivan F. Cyrus “Using Data Collection Devices to Enhance Student Understanding”. Central Michigan University. 2000. This same paper can be found in Mathematics Teacher. 93 September 2000. 504-509.http://calcnet.cst.cmich.edu/faculty/lapp/MT2000.pdf
Evaluation of the Calculator-Based Laboratory System. Stanford University. 2000.
Phillips, Dennis W. “Physics on Graphing Calculators.” The Physics Teacher. 37. April 1999. 230-231.
Angell, Carl and Trond Ekern, “Measuring Friction on Falling Muffin Cups.” The Physics Teacher. 37 March 1999. 181-182.
Redish, Edward F. and Richard N. Steinberg. “Teaching Physics: Figuring Out What Works.” Physics Today. January 1999. 24-30.
Fay, Sarah and Angela Portenga. “Hey You! Shut the Refrigerator Door!.” The Physics Teacher. 36 Sept. 1998. 336-338.
Russel, David, Keith B. Lucas, and Campbell J. McRobbie. “Microprocessor Based Laboratory Activities as Catalysts for Student Construction of Understanding in Physics”. Queensland University of Technology. 1999. http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/luc99196.htm
Thornton, Ronald K. and David R. Sokoloff. “Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula.”American Journal of Physics. 66 April 1998. 338-352.
Laws, P. W. “Millikan Lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses.” American Journal of Physics. 65 January 1997. 14-20.
Milner-Bolotin, Marina. “Increasing Interactivity and Authenticity of Chemistry Instruction through Data Acquisition Systems and Other Technologies.” Journal of Chemical Education. February 2012 (web). Read article synopsis at acs.org
Durick, Mary Ann. “The Study of Chemistry by Guided Inquiry Method Using Microcomputer-Based Laboratories.” Journal of Chemical Education 78 (2001): 574-575.
Sale, Cynthia L, Nicole M. Ragan and Maureen Kendrick Murphy. “Using Calculator-Based Laboratory Technology to Conduct Undergraduate Chemical Research.” Journal of Chemical Education 78 (2001) 694-696.
Cherkas, Andy. Review of Computer and calculator data collection with Vernier Workshop.CHEM13 News. Nov. 2000. 5.
Jones, Rebecca B. “Life before and after Computers in the General Chemistry Laboratory”. Journal of Chemical Education. 77 August 2000. 1085-1087.
Rayner-Canham, et al. “A Computer-Interfaced Physical Chemistry Laboratory: Some Personal Experiences”. L’Actualité chimique canadienne. March 2000. 16-17.
Cortés-Figueroa and Deborah Moore. “Using CBL Technology and a Graphing Calculator to Teach the Kinetics of Consecutive First-Order Reactions.” Journal of Chemical Education. 76 May 1999. 635-638.