___

• Alliance for Childhood (2007). “Fool's gold: a critical look at computers and childhood.” Retrieved on
• December-2008, from
• http://drupal6.allianceforchildhood.org/fools_gold
• Armstrong, A., & Casement, C. (1998). The child and the machine: why computers may put our children’s education at risk. Toronto: Key Porter.
• Beisser, R. S. (1999, February 28-March 4). Infusing technology in elementary social studies methods. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego.
• Bell, R., & Tai, R. (2003). Transforming science instruction with technology. In D. A. Sheekey (Ed.), How to ensure ed/tech is not oversold and underused. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press.
• Bennett, L. (2000). Technology standards for the preparation of teachers. International Journal of Social Education, 15(2), 1-11.
• Bennett, L., & Pye, J. (1998, February 18-22). Technology: Creating a community of thinkers. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, St. Louis, MO.
• Berson, J. M. (2000). Rethinking research and pedagogy in the social studies: the creation of caring connections through technology and advocacy. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(1), 121-131.
• Braun, A. J. J. (2000). A baker's dozen: Ideas and resources in social studies teacher education. International Journal of Social Education, 15(2), 12-30.
• Bryson, M., & de Castell, S. (1998). New technologies and the cultural ecology of primary schooling: imagining teachers as Luddites In/Deed (September, 5). Retrieved on 29-March-2009, from http://educ.ubc.ca/faculty/bryson/gentech/ luddites.pdf.
• Carvin, A. (2000). Mind the gap: the digital divide as the civil rights issue of the new millennium. Multimedia Schools, 7(1), 56-58.
• CEO Forum (1999). “Year 2 report professional development: a link to better learning.” Retrieved on 14-February-2001, from http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.htm.
• Conlon, T. (2002). Rewiring schools versus re-schooling society (January, 8). Retrieved on 15-March-2009, from http://www.spd.dcu.ie/cesi/TomConlon.htm.
• Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
• Cummings, C. A. (1998). Teacher attitudes and effective computer instruction (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED419 512). Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
• Darby, J. (1992). The future of computers in teaching and learning. Computers Education, 19, 193-197.
• Diem, A. R. (2000). Can it make a difference? Technology and the social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 493-501.
• Easley, L., & Hoffman, S. (2000). Creating the electronic classroom a practical guide. International Journal of Social Education, 15(1), 80-93.
• Fielding, R. (2003). IT in schools fails to raise standards (January, 15). Retrieved on 15-March-2009, from http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2121247/schools- fails-raise-standards.
• Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: an introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Random House.
• Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2
• nd ed., pp. 208-226).
• Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Gaillard, F. D. (2001). Understanding the digital divide as it relates to electronic commerce. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University.
• Gore, J. M. (1998). Disciplining bodies: on the continuity power relations in pedagogy. In T. S. Popkewitz & M. Brenman (Eds.), Foucault's challenge: discourse, knowledge, and power in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Gross, N. (1997, May 5). A notebook for every student? How Microsoft and Toshiba are scrambling to stoke the education market. Business Week.
• Healy, J. M. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children ’s minds — and what we can do about it. New York: Touchstone.
• Huinker, D., Fuller, H., & Ellwood, C. (1995). “Landscape of mathematics and science education in Milwaukee. A study of the Milwaukee public schools.” Milwaukee, WI: Center for Mathematics and Science Education Research, Wisconsin University.
• Hurd, J. M. (1988). Technology: an agent for change in education for information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(5), 323- 336.
• Keiper, T., Mhyre, O., & Pihl, P. (2000/2001). Enhancing school-university collaboration through technology. International Journal of Social Education, 15(2), 62-75.
• Kent, W. T., & McNergney, F. R. (1999). Will technology really change education? From blackboard to web. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Kleiner, A., & Farris, E. (2002). "Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2001.” National Center for Educational Statistics (September, 17). Retrieved on 19-March-2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp? pubid=2002018+.
• Mason, L. C., & Berson, J. M. (2000). Computer mediated communication in elementary social studies methods: An examination of students' perceptions and perspectives. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 527-545.
• Mason, L. C., Berson, J. M., Diem, A. R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1).
• Misfeldt, R., & Stahl, W. A. (1991). Attitudes toward computerization in Canadian universities. Technical paper #4. Ottowa: Canadian International Development Agency.
• National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1997). Task force on technology and teacher education. Washington, DC.: Technology and the new professional teacher: preparing for the 21st century classroom.
• O'Farrell, C. (1997). Foucault resources. Retrieved on 25-March-2008, from http://www.qut.edu.au/edu/cpol/foucault/.
• Popkewitz, T. S., & Brenman, M. (Eds.). (1998). Foucault's challenge: discourse, knowledge, and power in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Postman, N. (2000). Will our children only inherit the wind? Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 580-586.
• Robertson, H. J. (1998). No more teachers, no more books: the commercialization of Canada's school. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
• Ross, E. W. (2000). The promise and perils of e-learning. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 482-492.
• Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
• Seymour, L. (2000). Teachers online but disconnected; many in area lack the time, training to use computers in class. Washington Post, pp. A.01.
• Southwick, K. (1997, March). Are corporate technology initiatives more PR than philanthropy? Electronic School, p. A13.
• Stoll, C. (1999). High-tech heretic. New York: Random House.
• Tausz, A. (1996, October 15). How tech firms court the key education market. Globe and Mail, pp. C6.
• Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection. (1995). Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment.
• U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection, OTA-EHR-616 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1995).
• Van Dijk, J. (1999). The network society. Social aspects of new media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• VanFossen, P. J. (1999). An analysis of the use of the Internet and World Wide Web by secondary social studies teachers in Indiana. International Journal of Social Education, 14(2), 87-109.
• Whitworth, S., & Berson, J. M. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: an examination of the effectiveness literature 1996-2001. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(4), 472-509.