4 8 Technology and Student Achievement Ar 2013-2014 28

Running Head: CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 1
Classroom Technology and Student Achievement

Submitted to:
Dr. Patrick Terry
Senior Fellow, Educational Leadership

Submitted by:
Tara Allen, Wichita USD 259
Beau Bedore, Wichita USD 259
Ronald Orsak, Wichita USD 259
Megan Peraita, Wichita USD 259
Todd Roberts, Derby USD 260
Kristie Thackery, Wichita USD 259

Wichita State University

Classroom Technology and Student Achievement 2

Abstract
Technology is commonly used in 21
st
century classrooms. As a result, students are developing
the skills to communicate, collaborate, analyze, create, innovate, and solve problems. The goal
of educators is to encourage students to become competent individuals in life-long learning and
decision making. The use of technology engages the student by increasing motivation to be
more self-directed learners.
The purpose of this action research is to determine the effects of technology on student
achievement and teacher perceptions of technology use in the classroom. The various levels of
usage, types of technology being used, and the application toward student-centered learning will
be considered. Research results will lead to an action plan that proposes integration of effective
technology to promote best practices improving student achievement.


Historical Perspective
Technology is constantly changing. Evolving technology results in a challenge for
educators to leverage opportunities so students are prepared for a society saturated by
information and are globally connected (Boss, 2011). Educators need to reflect upon successful
technology implementation and continue to improve on that implementation in order to ensure
students have the opportunities needed for the future. Since the 1960s, technology in education
has been a way for students to be involved in interactive, hands-on learning experiences.
1960s-1970s
In the 1960s, Papert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was among the first to
realize the potential of technology to change the learning enterprise. Papert collaborated with
Swiss psychologist, Jean Piaget, to develop the Logo Programming Language. The program was
designed to allow adolescents without a sophisticated background in mathematics to take control
of their learning environment. The students were able to write and debug programs that
controlled a turtle robot with little instruction from the professor. The result was students gained
a better understanding of geometry concepts and programming. This approach was very
different from the normal drill and practice math common during this time. Papert also
acknowledged a higher level of student engagement (Boss, 2011).
In 1971 email was invented, now people from all over the world could communicate with
each other without picking up a phone. In an interview Papert said,
With computers, there is a substantially bigger chance that you can lead the child
with less effort into something he really likes doing. . . . The intersection with the
set of fun things with the set of educational things is sufficiently big so that you
should be able to keep every student internally motivated (Boss, 2011, n.p.).

Email was one of the beginning advances in communication technologies and provided
the opportunity for educational interactions to occur globally.
1980s-Present
Bringing endless amounts of information to people all over the world began in 1990
when Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web (Curtis, 2011). People were now able to
access information without going to the library or leaving the comforts of home. After the
establishment of the internet an increased accessibility created endless possibilities and
technology rapidly advanced. Today YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook, and many other websites
are visited daily by millions of people. With all of these changes in available technologies,
computer to student ratios have changed dramatically over the last 30 years. In 1981 there was
approximately one computer for every 125 students in a school. Ten years later that ratio was
down to 18 to 1 and by 2000 it had dropped even farther to five students for every one computer.
The cost of providing technology in classrooms has increased from $75 per student in the mid
1990s to over $119 per student in 1999 (Cuban, 2001). Cuban attributed this influx of
technology to the idea that students needed to be better prepared for the workforce.
Even with the plethora of technology available today most educators are still using it for
drill and practice and word processing activities (Boser, 2013). Boser also found that most states
are not studying the outcomes produced by technology in classrooms but instead only collect
data on availability. It is essential with the improved availability of technology for all students,
educators provide students from all backgrounds with engaging activities that facilitate learning.
Sheldrake and Watkin (2013) concludes, It is a matter of creating and developing the right
learner behaviors with the students (p.35). It is about teaching students how to effectively use

technology to their advantage and providing all students with varied experiences with
technology.
Literature Review
The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) conducted research on the
effects of technology in the classroom and came to the following conclusion: When
implemented appropriately, the integration of technology into instruction has positive effects on
student achievement (Knezek, 2008, p. 5). Students are learning how to communicate digitally,
create, and use media documents, and analyze data. Technology allows students to be assessed
in other ways than just standardized tests. It allows students to be evaluated through portfolios,
papers and reports, and formative assessments that involve critical thinking and problem solving.
By implementing technology for instruction and learning, students gain knowledge on specific
topics, as well as attain skills to be productive in higher education, in the workplace, and in the
community. Twenty-first century skills require students to have the ability to communicate,
collaborate, analyze, create, innovate, and solve problems (Knezek, 2008, p. 6). Three areas of
technology, laptops, game-based learning, and student response tools, became the focus of the
literature review.
Laptops
Laptops have entirely changed the learning environment. From efficiency, online
education, computer programs, and increasing engagement in class, laptops have transformed the
ways students learn. Research shows that not all schools are fortunate to have enough laptops
for their students, but the research also shows that it is not the number of laptops for the students
that increases student achievement, it is how the laptops are used (Lowther, Ross, & Morrison,
2003).

Implementing laptops in the classroom has created a new dynamic to learning. It is easier
and more efficient to search and obtain answers on the internet than ever before. A study
showed that students who use laptops are more likely to explore topics on their own; 80 percent
of laptop students versus 46 percent of non-laptop students studied subjects independently. Not
only do laptop students direct their own learning, but they also are able to access a range of
information which improves their research analysis skills (Gulek & Demirtas, 2005).
Students who use laptops have immediate access to information and the potential for
increased student achievement. Gulek and Demirtas (2005) concluded that students with
effective laptop use in the classroom tended to earn higher test scores and grades in writing,
language arts, and math. They also earned a higher overall grade point average. Research also
finds that students who use laptops as a means of learning every day are better writers, more
collaborative, and become more involved in their classwork. Additional benefits from laptops
include students working in groups more frequently, ability to work at their own pace, and
learning how to process and organize assignments. Project-based learning becomes more
common in classrooms because teachers increase the amount of projects assigned due to the
technology available. Adams and Burns (1999) noted students with disabilities also benefit from
the usage of laptops; the computers offer an opportunity for success that may not have been
obtainable without this educational tool. Assistive technology includes voice recognition
systems, speech synthesizers, Braille displays, and talking books. These features provide
learning and communication alternatives for those with disabilities.
Online education and computer programs have increased the quality of learning in the
past decade. Distance education would not be possible without computers. Students are able to
learn from home and acquire certificates and degrees from schools that would otherwise not be

available to them. From Skype to email, bulletin boards, and chat rooms, students are able to
gather data and resources, converse with colleagues, and struggle through challenging
assignments. These same computer tools can be used for students to reflect on their learning and
understanding with peers (Adams & Burns, 1999).
Game-Based Learning
Educators should capitalize on students natural inclinations as learners. One way to do
so is through the implementation of game-based learning via internet games or popular gaming
consoles. In todays society, internet games and gaming consoles are accessed by students
regularly outside the classroom for entertainment purposes. Shapley (2011) stated, Students
who attend school today are different from those of previous years because using technology in
non-school settings is altering their learning styles, strengths, and preferences (p.299).
Emerging technologies are also supporting more innovative forms of teaching and
learning as lessons supported by technology can involve real-world problems, current
informational resources, and educational games to reinforce key concepts. Lee, Waxman, Wu,
Michko, and Lin (2013) state educational technology is not a homogeneous intervention and
its effectiveness depends on how well it helps teachers and students achieve the desired
instructional goals (p.133). In todays schools, it is common practice for teachers to utilize
online educational games to encourage the practice of basic skills, especially at the elementary
level. Several websites such as coolmath.com, funbrain.com, mathplayground.com, and
hoodamath.com offer skills practice as a support to classroom instruction for computation,
problem-solving, spatial reasoning, number sense, letter recognition, phonemic awareness, and
many other key concepts learned at a young age.

Cameron and Dwyer (2005) considered the relationship between playing computer games
and realizing educational goals when they studied a sample of 422 students. They found that
students who played computer games had greater mathematical knowledge than those who did
not. Young-Loveridge (2004) suggested five-year-olds learn math skills easier and quicker by
playing computer games as their first encounter with mathematical concepts is a fun activity.
This evokes positive feelings increasing their motivation toward learning math. Therefore, not
only do educational computer games help reinforce skills taught in the classroom, but they also
improve motivation and make learning easier for students.
Divjak and Tomic (2011) describe computer games as being a direct support for learning
by giving pupils an opportunity to develop knowledge and cognitive skills in an emotional way,
to make decisions in critical situations by solving problems, to learn by researching and to
experience situational learning (p.16). By playing computer games, students discover and
develop their abilities and skills, gain experience, learn and create. Further, games support the
development of imagination and creativity among learners. As with any other program, the
impact of game-based learning and implementation of technology in a classroom depends upon
the use of sound teaching and learning strategies when working toward educating students to be
competent individuals in life-long learning and decision making.
Student Response Tools
Audience response system (AR) is better known as clickers in the educational arena.
This technology is becoming more prevalent in classrooms. Clickers can be used as a way To
assess student preparation and ensure accountability (Caldwell, 2007, p. 6). By using clickers,
students are engaged and able to actively participate in their learning. Students are able to
participate without fear of being humiliated by their peers or by not getting the answer correctly.

Caldwell (2007) states, Clickers generally cause improved student outcomes such as improved
exam scores or passing rates, student comprehension, and learning (p.13). He attributes this to
increased participation and being able to give immediate feedback. If a student has
misconceptions or does not understand something, the educator can quickly adjust the teaching
pace to correct this.
DeBourgh (2007) reasons that using clickers respects the diverse learning style of all
students. They are receiving the auditory lecture from a teacher, visually learning through
pictures or a SMART Board, and kinesthetically by using a clicker. Research has shown using
multiple modes of learning will help move the learning from their short-term memory to a
longer-term memory. In this study, there were ninety-two total students enrolled. Sixty-five of
the students completed a survey after the semester course. Fifty-four students said clickers were
very or somewhat useful. Only two of the sixty-five participants said clickers were somewhat or
very unhelpful.
Another rapidly growing trend in the world of technology is the use of iPads. Minimal
studies have been done using iPads as they are still new to the classroom. One study done by
Price (2011) was with a group of children with autism who were at least four grade levels behind
in reading. In her small study, the students used e-readers for the year, instead of using the more
traditional books. Price said, The percent of increase in information acquisition when using the
iPad was 0-50% in our study (p. 34). No student in her sampling had a decrease. Some of them
had minimal increases, while others had an enormous increase in their information acquisition.
Problem Statement
Technology is playing a critical role in classrooms today and can be used to engage and
motivate students to improve academic achievement (Shapley, 2011). While some schools have

an abundance of technology available for teacher and student use, others are still in the process
of acquiring new resources. Considering the skills needed by 21
st
century learners, educators are
challenged to incorporate technology while increasing student achievement.
Purpose
The purpose of this action research is to determine the effects of technology on student
achievement. The level of teacher usage, types of technology used, and student achievement on
district screener assessments will be considered. Research results will lead to an action plan that
proposes possible connections to technology and achievement for students of different
demographic and gender groups. The research is guided by the following questions:
1. What effect does technology have on student achievement?
2. How does technology affect the growth of students from different gender groups?
3. What is the effect of teacher comfort with technology on usage in the classroom?
4. What are teacher perceptions on usage of technology in the classroom?
Research Design
The research was situated in an action research paradigm, using elements of both
qualitative and quantitative design. Quantitative data was gathered from student math screeners
and teacher surveys. Qualitative data was gathered from teacher interviews to assess comfort
level with technology, perceptions of effectiveness, and ease of integration. Qualitative research,
through the interview, allowed data to be collected in the setting of the participants as well as
gave researchers the opportunity to clarify survey responses (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The use of
multiple sources allowed for the triangulation of the data, leading to an increase in the credibility
of the results.


Research Setting
The research was conducted at four schools in or surrounding a Midwestern metropolitan
area. Three of the schools are located in a large urban school district with high poverty levels.
One of the schools is located in a large suburban school district.
School A is in an urban middle school located in a large Midwestern city. There are 960
students with 76.88% of the population classified as economically disadvantaged. 56.77% of the
students are classified as white, 14.9% Hispanic, 11.88% African American, and 16.46% are
classified as other. 3.23% of the students are classified as English Language Learner (ELL)
students. There are 61 licensed teachers at School A. For the 2012-2013 school year, 83.5% of
students were proficient in reading and 72.5% of students were proficient in math.
School B is in an urban middle school located in a large Midwestern city. There are 627
students. There are 52 licensed teachers at School B. For the 2012-2013 school year 89.5% of
students were proficient in reading and 76% of students were proficient in math.
School C is an urban middle school located in a large Midwestern city. There are 752
students. There are 48 licensed teachers at School C. For the 2012-2013 school year, 78.7% of
students were proficient in reading and 58% of students were proficient in math.

School D is an elementary school located in a large suburban town. There are 636
students. There are 27 licensed teachers at School D. For the 2012-2013 school year, 94.3% of
students were proficient in reading and 95.7% of students were proficient in math.
Participant Selection
The qualitative research method employed a non-probability samplingpurposive
sampling. Purposive sampling was selected based on the fact that the participants could provide
valuable perceptions on the topic being studied (Merriam, 2009). For the quantitative research
method, the researchers collected survey data analyzing levels of technology usage and math
screener scores from each of their buildings for the 2013-2014 school year.
The participants selected for the research were a combination of teachers and classrooms
throughout the districts where the researchers conducted their practicum or teaching assignment.
By surveying and interviewing participants, the varying levels and types of technology usage
were established. Fifty math teachers in the four buildings were asked to participate in the
survey and all agreed to do so.
Participants were then chosen based on the technology usage in their classroom. In
classrooms designated as high technology, teachers used four or more types of technology a
minimum of three times a week. In addition, students accessed technology three times a week.
Students in low technology usage classrooms only accessed technology one to two times a
week. Eight classrooms were designated as high technology and eight were designated as
low technology. Teachers in these 16 classrooms (two high and two low from each

building) were then asked to participate in an interview. The interview consisted of open-ended
questions to allow participants to provide a personal, honest narrative of their perceptions of the
incorporation of technology used in their classrooms and how this affects the achievement of
their students. Participation in the study was voluntary.
Findings
Quantitative Student Achievement Data
The quantitative data was collected from each building and shows 2013 student growth
averages from fall to winter on district screener assessments. The assessments given were
AIMSweb Math Concepts and Applications (M-CAP), AIMSweb Math Computation (M-Comp),
and Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI). AIMSweb M-CAP assessment is a universal screener
assessment tests students ability to answer mixed math concept questions. AIMSweb M-Comp
is a universal screener testing a students ability to answer computation questions. Both
assessments are timed and students are not allowed to use any manipulatives. Scholastic Math
Inventory (SMI) is a widely used, computer-adaptive assessment that monitors growth of second
graders through Algebra I. SMI is an untimed assessment that gives students between 30-40
questions and will get more difficult as participants get questions correct until a quantile is
found. Data was analyzed according to level of technology use in math classrooms and gender
of students. The researchers tabulated the data collected using Excel.
The following graphs represent the data collected by test type displayed by categories:


Table 1:
AIMSweb Average Growth by Gender

Females made greater gains than males on all AIMSweb math assessments in both high
and low technology usage classrooms. In high technology usage classrooms, female students
showed more growth than males by an average of 2.86 points on the M-Comp and 0.64 points on
the M-Cap. In low technology usage classrooms females outscored males by 0.6 growth points
on M-Comp and 0.71 points on M-CAP. Females in high technology usage classrooms also had
higher growth than males and females in low technology classrooms. They outscored females in
low technology usage classrooms by 4.6 growth points on M-Comp and 0.28 points on M-CAP.
Females in high technology usage classrooms outscored males in low technology usage
classrooms by 5.2 growth points on M-Comp and 0.99 points on M-CAP.

6.61
9.47
4.27
4.87
3.45
4.09
3.1
3.81
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Males Females Males Females
High Technology Usage Low Technology Usage
M-Comp
M-CAP

Table 2:
AIMSweb Average Growth of All Students

Students in high technology usage classrooms had more growth on AIMSweb
assessments than students in low technology usage classrooms. Students in high technology
usage classrooms had 2.14 points more growth on M-Comp than students in low technology
usage classrooms. Students had less growth on M-CAP but high technology students scores
grew by 0.84 points more than students in low technology usage classrooms.

6.73
4.44
4.59
3.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
M-Comp M-CAP
High technology usage
Low technology usage

Table 3:
SMI Growth by Changes in Proficiency Levels for All Students

Students in low technology usage classrooms had more growth on the SMI than students
in high technology usage classrooms. When comparing SMI proficiency level data in high and
low usage classrooms 21 students in low technology usage classrooms had growth of one to two
levels while only 16 students in high technology usage classrooms demonstrated level increases.
Further analysis of proficiency level data showed four students in high technology usage
classrooms had level decreases compared to two students in low technology usage classrooms.

11
3
2
4
14
7
1 1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1 level 2 levels 3 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
Proficiency Levels increased Proficiency Levels decreased
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

high technology
usage
low technology
usage

Table 4:
SMI Changes in Proficiency Level by Gender

Males in low technology usage classrooms increased proficiency levels more often than
any other group. Sixteen males in low technology usage classrooms increased their proficiency
level on the SMI assessment by one or more proficiency levels while only 9 males in high
technology usage classrooms increased their proficiency level. Only five girls in high and five
girls in low technology usage classes made growth in proficiency levels. The number of students
with level decreases was the same for both males and females in low technology usage classes
with 1 each compared to 2 students each in high technology usage classrooms.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 level 2 levels 3 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels
Proficiency Levels increased Proficiency Levels decreased
n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

Male high tech
Male Low tech
Female high tech
female low tech

Table 5:
SMI Average Growth by Points for All Students

Students in low technology usage classrooms had more growth on the SMI than students
in high technology usage classrooms. When analyzing SMI scores for student growth, students
in low technology usage classrooms gained on average 14.56 points more than students in high
technology usage classrooms.
Qualitative
Findings from the qualitative portion of the research follow next. These findings were
developed around the themes of activities, planning and integration, barriers, benefits, support,
and student achievement.
Activities. The most commonly used devices, laptops, SmartBoards, clickers, document
cameras, and iPads, allowed a wide range of activities for the classroom. The participants
perceived technology as an easy way to enhance the activities and learning within their
classrooms. From group work, teacher-led instruction, centers for math, and independent
67.72
82.28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
high technology usage low technology usage
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

s
c
o
r
e

g
r
o
w
t
h


assignments, the participants felt there were more opportunities for varied activities while using
technology. There are more and more websites and programs that are iPad useable so we are
able to use them more frequently with the things we are working with in class, stated one
participant. Another participant commented, Sometimes [technology] is as simple as a
calculator, because its just a matter of making the calculations. Other activities for which
technology was beneficial included assessments and tracking student progress.
Technology enhanced activities within instruction. One of the common themes expressed
by the participants was the ability to go to a more advanced level with the use of technology.
Math teachers used the word reinforce when describing the activities conducted using
technology. IXL Math Online and Everyday Math were two activities mentioned supporting the
teaching of math. Microsoft Word and Excel were two other programs cited as being used for
projects and group work. The SMARTBoards and document cameras enabled students to show
their work, which heightened the sense of understanding. One participant created a project using
Microsoft Office where students developed a budget using spreadsheets and typed paragraphs
regarding their budgets. Another participant explained how technology within the classroom
helped him to differentiate instruction: They are working one-on-one with tutoring on
differentiated learning for math and language. Differentiated instruction allowed for teachers to
help students on a variety of levels.
Planning and integration. Participants identified a belief that planning to use
technology in the classroom takes more time. Most participants thought it was more time
consuming to use technology in the classroom for lesson planning. One stated, It takes me
longer because it makes me feel like I have to go through it and find and trouble shoot all the
problems they might have. Teachers may also need to take the time to find the right site for

their specific needs. One participant explained effective use of technology required teachers to
spend additional time trying to find apps that meets student needs. Teachers had to plan a time
to use the app, and a time to integrate it into the classroom when enough technology was
available for their students.
Participants perceived the need to integrate multiple types of learning when planning and
not rely solely on technology. Some staff members were concerned that we should not be reliant
solely on technology, and kids needed to see the importance of doing things using paper and
pencil. Technology is great but also making sure that we are doing the things that kids need to
do, observed a participant. Keeping a balance between technology and other activities provides
students with different ways to learn and different ways to do things.
Barriers. Participants perceived classroom management as a barrier to using
technology. Participants in general thought it was difficult to ensure that all students were on
task when using technology, especially laptops or iPads, in the classroom. One participant
observed, Some kids are really good at managing to pick that spot to sit where theyre not really
seen. They are good at flipping windows so that when you walk past them [it appears they are
on task]. Some participants suggested it was difficult to manage large groups of students when
students were having difficulty using the technology. It could become problematic when
students are just having difficulty logging in or retrieving something they already had saved.
In large groups these challenges can lead to management trouble as it is difficult for one adult to
help multiple students in a timely manner. Several participants cited a lack of student respect for
the technology. One participant noted, The respect of students for that technology is not there.
They have no concern about messing around with it, changing its settings, they think oh Im just
playing around having fun rather than using it effectively and working on task.

Participants identified the frequency of technology failing to work properly. When
reflecting upon planning for use of technology in the classroom, participants noted the need to
consider all possible outcomes of implementing technology in a lesson. Participants recalled
being hesitant to incorporate technology as it often fails to work as anticipated. Several
participants noted the importance of developing an alternative plan in order to be prepared for
any possible problems. One participant stated, If the internet is down, that is a huge obstacle.
Another participant noted, You always have to have a backup plan because sometimes your
technology doesnt work or on a cart of 30 laptops, there are only 11 [working] laptops.
When considering a recent experience, a third participant reflected, Technology provides
obstacles when it malfunctions. Participants believed one reason technology often fails is the
inferior equipment provided for classroom use.
Benefits. Participants believe that integrating technology into lesson planning leads to
higher student engagement. Most participants believed when technology was incorporated
within the lesson then the students had higher levels of engagement. Interviewees made
statements such as, We need to have more technology because that is what is engaging to
them, and I think they tend to pay more attention than when you are just standing up there
talking. One participant posited negative classroom behavior was stifled when technology was
used for student engagement noting, Classroom nonsense is minimized with the amount of
engagement that the clickers provide. Participants also believed implementing technology
motivated students to become more excited and engaged in the lesson. One participant stated,
You keep that newness, and the motivation goes up and the interest goes up. Others noted
technology use was preferred by students and increased excitement levels.

Participants perceived that technology allows them to relay information and feedback at
a faster pace. Participants felt that the speed at which they were able to find and relay
information, and give feedback was quicker when using technology. One participant stated, Its
quicker, its fast and because of those elements I am able to go ahead and meet the needs of the
students. Contributors believed electronic feedback enhanced their ability to assess students. A
participant who spoke about instant feedback stated, Electronic feedback is what I use nearly
every day the reason for that is again the kids like instant feedback. Instant feedback provided
students with a higher level of engagement and motivation.
Support. Participants identified varying levels of initial training and support as an issue
when it came to technology use in the classroom. Participants noted training levels that ranged
from excellent to minimal. Their responses seemed to depend on how the training was
scheduled. If teachers were expected to sign up and attend trainings on their own, many
educators did not seek out these opportunities. Those with higher interest levels in technology
who did seek out the training found it to be very worthwhile and helpful. Teachers noted
trainings held in the building on in-service days for example often went too fast. One participant
stated, Im frustrated because I feel like Im presented to it sort of quick, fast, and furious but to
internalize it and apply it is a challenge for me because I need more time to understand how to do
it and how to get there. Others also commented when they were given time in training to play
around and figure out things on their own they would often become frustrated and give up.
Participants felt less supported when there was a lack of ongoing training and absence of
an expert in the building. Several participants noted training was often provided during times of
the year where they were not able to immediately implement what they had learned. Another
participant commented she would like to see more [opportunities for training] offered that were

paid or not on their own time so they did not have to give up personal time to receive training.
Another participant felt frequent training or experts in the building would help them remember
where Im going. Just how to get there. Participants also noted an expert in the building could
assist with technical issues and increase their comfort level when using the technology. They
suggested trainings in the building would give them time to collaborate with colleagues who
were also using the technology, which would further assist them in integrating it more
completely in their lessons.
Student achievement. Participants identified a belief that technology could have a
positive effect on student achievement. Several participants recognized instant feedback as a
positive influence on students wanting to do better. Technology gives students a chance to see
their progress and challenges themselves to improve. One participant stated, They see their
high score and want to beat their score the next time. Another reason for improved
achievement identified by participants was student engagement. The students enjoy activities on
the computers and other devices, and this translates to more participation and attention. A
participant said, I think their engagement is higher so theyre more apt to do better because they
were engaged during that particular time. Other participants stated technology gives students a
sense of confidence, pride, and ownership in their work which translates to higher achievement.
Participants perceived the educators use of the technology as very important to student
achievement. Participants stated technology alone will not benefit students. The teacher needs
to have well thought out lessons utilizing technology in a way students find enjoyable. Students
are more willing to learn when technology is incorporated. A positive identified by one
participant was students are going to be good today; they are not going to be fighting me tooth
and nail. Several participants added constant monitoring needs to be done or students will

misuse the technology. The benefit of technology then comes down to proper use and ensuring it
is not abused.
Conclusions
Technology use in the classroom enhances student engagement. Student engagement is
critical to student motivation and success during the learning process. Project Tomorrow (2013)
suggests technology creates a motivating classroom environment where students are engaged in
learning. Many years ago, students attended school to learn world knowledge through their
teachers. However, with the internet and technology available, students are no longer just
consumers of information in the classroom but are capable of gaining more from technology
usage outside the classroom: Todays students place a higher premium on the learning
experience of creating content, and sharing their discoveries, masterpieces and manuscripts with
the world (Project Tomorrow, 2013, p. 4). Fijor (2010) noted engagement in a classroom can
be a difficult item to track. One could simply observe students watching, listening, and
answering teachers questions as engagement, but the quality of engagement should be observed.
The level of engagement plays a vital role in the learning process and allows researchers to
determine if the technology is assisting in the development of knowledge. Technology should
transform the way students are learning:
Higher-order thinking by students involves the transformation of information and ideas.
This transformation occurs when students combine facts and ideas and synthesize,
generalize, explain, hypothesize, or arrive at some conclusion or interpretation.
Manipulating information and ideas through these processes allow students to solve
problems, gain understanding, and discover new meaning. (Fijor, 2010, n.p.)

With the technology available today, it should not only gain students attention, but should push
them to think differently and learn the subject matter in ways not possible years ago.
Continued teacher training and support are necessary for increased technology use in the
classroom. Jones (2001) stated, To integrate technology into their classrooms, teachers must
feel comfortable with technology (p. 39). Technology use must be incorporated as critical
pieces of a well-planned lesson. Jones further suggested, Teachers readiness to use technology
in their classrooms will be increased with strong support systems (p. 38). Proper training and
onsite technical support are essential elements for increasing teacher comfort levels with
technology. According to Ertmer (1999):
Teachers need access to multiple types of training opportunities including on-site credit
courses, after-school short courses, specialized workshops, weekend retreats, and summer
intensive courses. It is currently recommended that technology training address both
pedagogical and technological needs, engaging participants in the same types of projects
that they are encouraged to use in their own classrooms. (p. 56)
It is difficult to assess the integration of technology and its effect on student achievement.
Integration of technology in the classroom is a critical component for improving student
motivation, engagement, and achievement. Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer (1996) identified
three areas that needed to be measured to determine the level of integration in the classroom.
These three areas included instructional strategies used by the teacher, teacher computer use, and
software used by both teachers and students. Some teachers in the study implemented
technology from an instructional standpoint, but not as a way for students to construct
knowledge. According to Dexter, Anderson, and Becker (1999), Technology-using teachers
range along a continuum of instructional styles from instruction to construction (p. 221). This

range in levels of technology integration was not measured in the survey presented to
participants for this study which may account for the mixed results found in the relationship
between low and high technology classrooms. Sheingold and Hadley (1990) found that teachers
who integrated technology in multiple ways using both tools and instructional software
experienced the greatest gains in student achievement and higher order thinking skills. The
limited survey focus employed in this study most likely led to unreliable identification of high
and low technology usage classrooms.
Implications
Reporting conclusions alone will not lead to action. Rather, reporting conclusions can
lead to suggesting actions that may be initiated or extended, or modifications of activities and/or
procedures that will improve existing practices, programs, or services (Stringer, 2008, p. 133).
Based on the conclusions and supporting literature, the research team developed implications
that will help clarify how the research might affect and guide professional practices (Gall, Gall &
Borg, 2005). These implications will be developed into an action plan school professionals can
use when addressing the issue of technology in schools.
Educational leaders can increase effective integration of technology in classrooms by
providing the following:
Teachers have support personnel on site to assist with hardware and software issues
Increased availability of up-to-date technology
Access to technology for all students
Designated professional development time focused on:
o Lesson planning to incorporate technology
o Student use of technology from an instructional to constructional range

o Use of technology tools such as word processing, spreadsheets, presentation
software
o Content area software (e.g. Everyday Math Online, Accelerated Reader, Khan
Academy)
Action Plan
The research team members developed the action plan. Action plans that are developed
collaboratively allow the participants to engage in the decision making process that outline the
implementation of the research results.
Action Plan
Classroom Technology and Student Achievement
Goal: To increase student achievement in math through use of
technology.

Support Data: Teacher interviews and math assessment data.

Intervention Strategies: 1. Training and time to implement.
2. Analyze current technology to ensure it is up-to-date and meets
school needs.
3. Examine use of technology.

Activities to Implement Intervention Person(s)
Accountable
Timeline

Establish a building technology team consisting of
teachers who use technology, site technology
specialist (STS), and other interested staff.
Principal

August 2014

Team examines current use of technology and
analyzes to assess adequacy for school needs and up-
to-date technology.

Team September 2014

Team identifies teachers who are considered high
technology and selects candidates to become school
tech experts.

Team September 2014

Teachers and other staff identified as tech experts
attend trainings in different uses and devices.

Tech Experts October-
December 2014

Team discusses findings and makes
recommendations on school needs and up-to-date
technology.

Team December 2014
Team establishes training schedule to share findings
and methods learned to encourage more teachers to
become tech experts.

Team & Experts January-April
2015
Team analyzes results and accomplishments for
school year in regard to technology usage and
student achievement. Puts plan in place for next
year.

Team May 2015


References
Adams, S., & Burns, M. (1999). Computers and constructivism. Retrieved from
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/tec26/cnc.html
Boser, U. (2013). Are schools getting a big enough bang for their educational technology buck?
Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2013/06/14/66485/are-schools-
getting-a-big-enough-bang-for-their-education-technology-buck/
Boss, S. (2011). Technology integration: A short history. n.p.: Retrieved from
http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-history
Caldwell, J. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practices tips.
CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
Cameron, B., & Dwyer, F. (2005). The effects of online gaming, cognition and feedback from
facilitating delayed achievement of different learning objectives. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 16(3), 243-258.
Curtis, M. (2011). A brief history of the world wide web. Retrieved from
http://www.uncp.edu/home/acurtis/Courses/ResourcesForCourses/WebHistory.html
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press
DeBourgh, G. (2007). Use of classroom "clickers" to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning
skills. Nurse Education in Practice, 8(2), 76-87. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2007.02.002
Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers view of computers as catalysts
for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
31, 221-238.

Dvijak, B., & Tomi, D. (2011). The impact of game-based learning on the achievement of
learning goals and motivation for learning mathematics - literature review. Journal of
Information & Organizational Sciences, 35(1), 15-30.
Ertmer, P.A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for
Technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4),
47-61.
Fijor, M. (2010). Defining student engagement with technology. Retrieved from
http://www.newschooltechnology.org/2010/04/defining-
student-engagement-with-technology/
Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Applying educational research: A practical guide
(5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Gulek, J.C. & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptops use on
student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2). Retrieved
from http://napoleon.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/viewFile/1655/1501
Jones, C.A. (2001). Tech support: Preparing teachers to use technology. Principal
Leadership.1(9) 35-39. Retrieved from
http://www.principals.org/portals/0/content/48158.pdf
Knezek, D. (2008). Technology and student achievementThe indelible link.
Retrieved from
http://www.k12hsn.org/files/research/Technology/ISTE_policy_brief_student_achieveme
nt.pdf
Lee, Y.H., Waxman, H., Jiun-Yu, W., Michko, G., & Lin, G. (2013). Revisit the effect of
teaching and learning with technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,

16(1), 133-146.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lowther, D., Ross, S., & Morrison, G. (2003). When each one has one: The influences on
teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23-44. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02504551
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Price, A. (2011). Making a difference with smart tablets: Are ipads really beneficial for
students with autism?. Retrieved from
http://www.ccde.org/Research/iPadStudy/iPadStudy.pdf
Project Tomorrow (2013). From chalkboards to tablets: The emergence of the K-12 digital
learner. Retrieved from
http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/SU12_DigitalLearners_StudentReport.html
Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C.,&Dwyer,D. (1996). The apple classrooms of tomorrow evaluation
study: Student engagement revisited: Views from technology-rich classrooms (Report to
Apple Computer). Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.
Shapley, K. (2011). Effects of technology immersion on middle school students learning
opportunities and achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 299.
doi:10.1080/0022067100376761
Sheldrake, R., & Watkin, N. (2013). Teaching the iGeneration: What possibilities exist in and
beyond the history classroom?. Teaching History, 150, 30-35.
Stringer, E. (2008). Action Research in Education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into
classroom practice. New York, NY: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street
College of Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED322900.pdf
Young-Loveridge, J. M. (2004). Effects on early numeracy of a program using number books
and games, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 82-98.


Appendix A
Survey Questions
1. How often do you use technology during your math instruction?
a. Rarely b. 1-2 times a week c. 3-4 times a week d. daily

2. What types of technology do you use during math instruction? Circle all that apply.
SMARTBoard, clickers, airliner, iPad, laptop, document camera/elmo, projector

3. Do you have any specific / special training in technology and its use in the classroom? If
yes, explain.

4. How often do your students use technology to assist them in math?
a. Rarely b. 1-2 times a week c. 3-4 times a week d. daily

5. What types of technology do your students use during math? Circle all that apply.
SMARTBoard, clickers, airliner, iPad, laptop, document camera/elmo, projector

6. List the activities that your students use technology for in math.

7. School: ___________ Name: ______________ Grade Level: ____________


Appendix B
Interview Questions
1. What types of activities are you conducting with technology in your classroom?

2. Which type of technology do you feel is most efficiently integrated into your lessons? Why?
3. How is lesson planning different when you are integrating technology?
4. What effect do you think technology has on student achievement?
5. What are obstacles to incorporating technology in the classroom?
6. What kind of a change do you see in your students when you use technology in your room?
7. How would you describe the level of training and support you have received for integrating
technology in the classroom?
8. Is there anything else you think we should consider about technology and its use in the
classroom?

4 8 Technology and Student Achievement Ar 2013-2014 28

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 8 Technology and Student Achievement Ar 2013-2014 28

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 1

Classroom Technology and Student Achievement

You might also like