Cited by 187Education and Technology IntegrationEducational Innovations and TechnologyGender and Technology in Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of ICT: Do we know what we should know?

Cox, Margaret J., Marshall, Gail·2007·Education and Information Technologies

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-007-9032-x

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 52 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic.
  2. Collins, F. (1997) Social reality. London: Routledge.
  3. Cox, M. J. (1993). Information technology resourcing and use. In D. M. Watson (Ed.), Impact–an evaluation of the impact of the information technology on children’s achievements in primary and secondary schools. King’s College London.
  4. DfES (2003). Department for education and skills. Fulfilling the potential. Transforming teaching and learning through ICT in schools. DfES. London.
  5. Koutromanos, G. (2004). The effects of head teachers, head officers and school counsellors on the uptake of Information technology in Greek schools, Department of Education and Professional Studies. PhD thesis,. University of London.
  6. Marshall, G., & Herbert, M. (1983). Comprehensive school mathematics project. Denver, CO: McRel.
  7. Preston, C., Cox, M. J., & Cox, K. M. J. (2000). Teachers as Innovators: An evaluation of the motivation of teachers to use information and communications technologies. Croydon: King’s College London and Mirandanet.
  8. Watson, D. M. (Ed.) (1993). Impact—An evaluation of the impact of the information technology on children’s achievements in primary and secondary schools. King’s College London.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–187 of 187

Metadata

Authors
Cox, M. J., & Marshall, G.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Cox, Margaret J.
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Published
2007-05-11
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
59-70
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
OpenAlex
W2000450952
Cited by
187
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
FWCI
45.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Innovations and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
information and communication technology in education, ICT implementation, learning outcomes, longitudinal study, methodological limitations, standardized testing, socioeconomic status, school expenditures, teacher professional development, education policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review