CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY: A STUDY OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my
own or was done in collaboration with my Thesis Chair. This thesis does not include proprietary
or classified information.
Mary Katherine Drescher
Certificate of Approval:
_______________________________
______________________________
Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D.
Co-Thesis Advisor
Education Department
Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.
Co-Thesis Advisor
Education Department
CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY: A STUDY OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION
A thesis submitted
by
Mary Katherine Drescher
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
July 11, 2011
iii
Abstract
The purpose of this action research study is to examine quantitative and
qualitative data to determine if there is a change in student achievement and engagement
when the use of technology is integrated into elementary instruction. In recent years,
technology has become readily available for teachers to incorporate into interactive
lessons. Studies have shown that using technology in the classroom is both a positive and
motivating step forward. Two 5th grade classes were involved in this study. Both writing
classes were taught lessons based on the same Georgia State standards. The first class had
lessons in which technology was implemented, while the second class had no access to
technology. Using pre/post-test grades, and observing behaviors, data was collected to
support the assumption that technology is affective in promoting engagement and
positive academic transformations in the students. The results indicated that there was a
significant difference in achievement of the students who were in the classroom
immersed with technology. Compared to the classroom in which technology was not
available the achievement and engagement was lower.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract .....................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables and Figures .........................................................................................v
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................1
Significance of the Problem .......................................................................................2
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks ..................................................................3
Focus Questions .........................................................................................................6
Overview of Methodology .........................................................................................7
Human as Researcher .................................................................................................8
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature...........................................................................9
Incorporating Technology ..........................................................................................9
Technology Engagement ...........................................................................................12
Student/Teacher Technology Attitudes......................................................................15
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................17
Research Design.........................................................................................................17
Setting ........................................................................................................................18
Sample/Subjects/Participants .....................................................................................19
Procedures and Data Collection Methods ..................................................................20
Validity and Reliability Measures .............................................................................23
Analysis of Data .........................................................................................................26
Chapter 4: Results ......................................................................................................29
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results .........................................................39
Analysis......................................................................................................................39
Discussion ..................................................................................................................43
Implications................................................................................................................45
Impact on Student Learning .......................................................................................47
Recommendations for Future Research .....................................................................47
References ..................................................................................................................49
Appendixes ................................................................................................................52
A.....................................................................................................................52
B .....................................................................................................................57
C .....................................................................................................................58
D.....................................................................................................................59
v
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 3.1Data Shell ....................................................................................................20
Table 4.1 ....................................................................................................................32
Table 4.2 ....................................................................................................................32
Table 4.3 ....................................................................................................................33
Table 4.4 ....................................................................................................................34
Table 4.5 ....................................................................................................................34
Table 4.6 ....................................................................................................................38
Appendixes
A ................................................................................................................................52
B .................................................................................................................................57
C .................................................................................................................................58
D.................................................................................................................................59
Classroom Technology 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
This study investigated how teachers are not comfortable with technology in the
classroom. The problem in schools is that teachers are given technology and not properly
instructed on how to incorporate it into their classrooms. According to Jenkinson (2009),
“with the emergence of innovative electronic teaching and learning tools, technology has
radically altered the surface of the educational landscape (p.263).” With the constant
updates taking place in technology for both the classroom and everyday life, students
must be able to acquire knowledge in order to be a successful part of society in the future.
For teachers, learning how to properly use technology, whether it is a Promethean Board,
active voter eggs or slate, a projector such as an Elmo, or even just working with the
computer and TV connection, can pose a problem they do not understand how it works.
The outcome desired of this investigation is to assist teachers to be more comfortable
with technology in their classroom and also be able to incorporate it successfully.
Classroom Technology 2
Significance of the Problem
Technology is used each day to help to improve the lives of others. If technology
is so prevalent in our lives, why is it that teachers are not using it in the classroom? If
teachers want students to be more engaged in the lesson and more likely to remember the
content, then why are teachers not going to more workshops or classes to learn about the
technology? To some teachers, learning about the technology in their classrooms is the
least of their concerns. With test scores and teacher accountability always being stressed
by administrators, teachers are often so overwhelmed that they forget that students might
be more motivated and engaged if hands on activity were brought into lessons. In a 2006
study, Judge Puckett, and Bell (as cited by Lovell & Phillips, 2009) stated”…most
educators agree that computer access and literacy have become vital and necessary for
young learners in the 21st century” (p.197). Examining all of these questions took place in
this study to show how the students were affected by the technology when it is used
effectively in the classroom.
Classroom Technology 3
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
Looking at the general spectrum of this thesis, it aligns with the constructivist
philosophy of teaching. The constructivist theory is one that is based on students creating
their own learning. Constructivists believe that students learn only by doing hands-on
activities and making their own discoveries. Another aspect of constructivism is based on
social interaction. According to Dewy, as cited by Yang, Yen, and Wong (2009)
“Learning is a meaning-making process in which learners create personal views of the
world, indexed by their surroundings and experiences, which is consistent with Dewey’s
concepts of continuity and interaction” (p.288). There is a clear connection between
technology in the classroom and the constructivist thought, as well as the connection
between teacher attitudes and student achievement. While working to integrate
technology in the classroom forces teachers to be hands-on with their students, by
allowing them to understand a concept through demonstration of an activity. Students’
engagement in a lesson will also be higher if the students are allowed to participate in the
lesson and interact with the teacher while he/ she is teaching or reviewing a topic.
Johnson, Perry, and Shamir (2010) state that
Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in the classroom allows for a dynamic
presentation of material, individualized instruction, and a level of engagement in
the learning process that may not be possible in a more traditional classroom
setting. CAI can provide immediate feedback regarding correct responses,
reinforcement where appropriate, and modeling when needed (p.209).
Classroom Technology 4
This thesis about technology in the classroom aligns with the LaGrange College
(2008) Education Department Conceptual Framework using Tenets One, enthusiastic
engagement in learning, and Tenet Two, exemplary professional teaching practices. The
idea of the framework is to help align both state and national standards for the teacher
and students. Using the idea of enthusiastic engagement in learning follows the theory of
social constructivism, which helps students in social involvement. The students must
learn to work with one another in the classroom when working in groups or using
technology. Doing activities that involve hands-on practice shows that the students are
engaged in what they are learning. Underneath Tenant One, cluster 1.2 best aligns with
this thesis. Knowing the knowledge of curriculum shows that the teachers show how to
bring in multiple resources to make a lesson meaningful. According to the six domains of
the Georgia Framework for Teaching, Domains One and Two also apply, which follow
content and curriculum, as well as knowledge of students and their learning. A teacher
knowing their content and how to teach it follows the five National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards Core Propositions for Experienced Teachers. Working
with classroom technology teachers must be able to use the technology in their
classrooms. Learning how and incorporating technology into the classroom are part of
tenant two. The Clusters 2.2 and 2.3 are clusters that align with this technology thesis.
Cluster 2.2 works with instructional skills and how teachers choose to communicate with
their students within the classroom. Using technology can help teachers to more
effectively communicate with their teachers. In Cluster 2.3 the framework discusses
assessment skills and strategies. It is beneficial for both teachers and students to use
different types of assessment. Students do not all learn the same way so keeping in mind
Classroom Technology 5
multiple intelligences is important when you are considering how you will assess your
students. Technology can help with assessment by using software programs that show a
student’s achievement. Using the areas of planning, knowing learning environments and
assessment follows domain three, four, and five under the Six Domains of the Georgia
Framework for Teaching. Part of assessment in the classroom is monitoring students and
knowing the content in which you are teaching so under the five NBPTS Core
Propositions for Experienced Teachers this thesis follows proposition two and three.
Classroom Technology 6
Focus Questions
Within this thesis several questions are answered concerning how technology is
used in the classroom. The purpose of the following questions is to guide the study in
three specific areas of pedagogy, student outcomes, and reflection. By answering these
focus questions; this thesis will ultimately answer how teachers will integrate technology
to improve student engagement and teacher attitudes? Keeping this question in mind the
focus questions are as follows:
1. What is the process of integrating technology in the classroom?
2. How does technology integration affect student engagement and achievement?
3. What are teacher and student attitudes toward technology in the classroom?
Each of these questions follows a pedagogical approach, student learning outcomes, or a
reflective practice.
Classroom Technology 7
Overview of Methodology
This study demonstrates the comfort levels of teachers and students using
technology in the classroom. Action research was used to show if using the technology
in the classroom will help the student’s engagement and achievement. The study took
place at Rosemont Elementary School in a 5th grade writing classroom in a rural Troup
County, Georgia distinguished Title One School. The school and the classroom where
chosen because of the technology that was found within the school and the classroom.
The subjects/participants were found in two classes, one that is higher achievement and
one that is lower achievement. Both classes contain male and female students, but both
are more male heavily weighted. The lessons were created using 5th grade Georgia
writing standards and were taught to both classes using more technology in the one than
the other. Students took pre and post tests to determine if their learning is affected by the
amount of technology that is used. This study is valid, reliable and dependable based on
the ways that data was collected and analyzed. Bias was explained and kept to a
minimum. The analysis was collected by quantitative and qualitative means while also
coding for themes. It will also be analyzed holistically showing validation, credibility,
transferability, and transformational means.
Classroom Technology 8
Human as Researcher
I graduated from LaGrange in May 2010 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Early
Childhood Education, and July 2011 with my masters in Curriculum and Instruction. I am
currently a graduate student at LaGrange College working in the Lewis Library as a
technology assistant. Throughout my years at the college I have had numerous field
experiences where I was placed in several Troup County schools. Through those
experiences I have gained knowledge that has helped me to feel prepared to teach. While
I have not had my own classroom I still feel that I am qualified to write this study. My
bias for this study would be that not all teachers use technology correctly in their
classroom. I believe that all teachers should incorporate technology to the best of their
ability, because I think it will improve student engagement and attitudes. Technology is
so prevalent in our world today and using it in the classroom will give students something
to connect with and encourage their growth in learning to make them successful members
of society.
Classroom Technology 9
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Through the years technology has drastically changed the way in which teachers
go about teaching in the classroom. However, not all teachers are comfortable with the
idea of using so much technology in the classroom. Both teachers and students have
different attitudes about how technology can be used in the classroom as well as how
often it should be used. It has been suggested that students are more engaged, well
behaved, and achieve better when technology is used in the classroom. According to
Jacobs (2010), “As educators, our challenge is to match the needs of our learners to a
world that is changing with great rapidity. To meet this challenge, we need to become
strategic learners ourselves by deliberately expanding our perspectives and updating our
approaches (p.18).”
Incorporating Technology
What is the process of integrating technology into the classroom? Baker (1992)
states “Young children should live in a society of technology and technological change
(p.3).” Teachers need to take the time to plan and understand the technology in their
classroom so they can provide positive experiences for their students and allow them to
be more engaged. Being aware of the technology that is available for teachers to use it
can help to make their teaching more versatile. Baker states “Teachers need to become
aware of the functions of the computer, the capabilities of the technology with young
children and the response of young children to the computer learning environment (p.4).”
Using this type of interactive instruction offers the children an opportunity to become
familiar with the parts of the computer as well as the functions it possess. Having this
Classroom Technology 10
type of hands on learning allows them to become successful members of society when
they grow up.
When working on certain subjects some students might find it more effective to
have a lesson that incorporates technology. Paying attention to students multiple
intelligences with technology can be a very effective way of teaching. Using technology
in the classroom can teach students how they can use technology to solve everyday life
problems. Keeping a positive attitude about the changes that technology brings is so
important for both teachers and administrators. Lovell & Phillips(2009) state,
“Increasing emphasis on computer technology and literacy in classrooms reflects
the accelerating importance of computer technology and literacy in society.
Appropriate technology use and access to facilitate learning is an important aspect
of contemporary education, especially as most children will frequently encounter
and interact with technology outside the classroom (p. 198).”
While there might not always be funds for up to date classroom technology when
teachers acquire new technology they should do their best to make sure they learn as
much as they can. Jacobs (2010) explains that it is vital for us as teachers to keep up with
new curriculum and rethink the way that we teach in order to keep our students engaged.
Teachers want to broaden their horizons as much as they can. Going to the latest seminars
and doing web classes to learn and keep up with the latest technology are ways that
teachers and keep themselves up to date. Teachers have a great deal on their plate and
while it is hard for some to integrate technology it is imperative that they keep their
students engaged and for some that is the use of technology. However, looking at
education as a whole, there are some states that are way ahead of the others in
Classroom Technology 11
technology. These states have ensured that their teachers are educated about technology.
According to Jacobs (2010), “When it comes to education, the United States are not
united. The state systems are in parallel universes” (p. 10). The United States working
together as a united front on technology would help our students to be more successful.
According to Wehling (2007), we need to prepare our students for the world.
Wehling writes that, “A new system of public education will emerge that empowers
teachers and students to collaboratively create the knowledge and skills they need for
successful participation in a “flat world”. The flat world rewards continuous learning,
sustained teamwork, and flexible adaptation to change (p. 46.).” Being united as we work
towards a technological future will help our students to be great contributors to society.
Communities need more problem solvers in the world and in order to have problem
solvers teachers have to be them as well as teach them. Younger teachers, the Millenials
as Wehling calls them, will not have as much of an issue transitioning into using
technology in the classroom since they use it more and are more well versed with the
technology. However, as long as they are open for the change and willing to learn
teachers who are older can learn to be just as good at the integration process. Moving
classrooms into the 21st century Wehling puts it best:
“Now “Teaching 2.0,” is emerging in response to a 21st Century convergence of
forces that includes: a knowledge-based global workforce; a new understanding of
how people learn; and a widespread adoption of collaborative teamwork in the
workplace. Teaching 2.0 is customized to individual learning needs. In Teaching
2.0, teachers and students co-create coherence and meaning out of the wide range
Classroom Technology 12
of learning experiences they can pursue in an open learning economy that is
enriched by smart networking and user generated content” (p.48).
Technology Engagement
How does technology integration affect student engagement and achievement?
According to Jenkinson (2009), “As we continue to integrate technology into teaching
practice, we struggle with understanding the true value of these various media
modalities” (p. 263). When trying to teach a new topic it is often easier for students to
learn by touching and doing allows them to investigate their own learning. Jenkinson
(2009) states, “Typically, studies measuring the impact of educational technology are
examining either the efficacy of the tool in teaching students, or the end-user’s interaction
with the system” (p. 274). One of the main goals to make this study successful is to make
sure that technology is well integrated and takes a flexible approach.
Another study conducted by Johnson, Perry, & Shamir (2010) demonstrated how
to teach different skills to different groups to see which groups made higher achievement
at the end of the study. Johnson, Perry, and Shamir believe, “One reason mastery learning
has been a success in the classroom is because computers allowed the mastery techniques
to assume a shape close to what Bloom originally proposed” (p.211). Computer assisted
learning can help students to master a skill that they have been working on instead of just
using the paper/pencil method. MAI, originated by Bloom, focuses on the thought that if
given time students will learn a topic. However, because they are rushed most days
students are not given the time most of them need. At the conclusion of their study
Johnson, Perry, & Shamir found that, in the long term students who were taught with
Classroom Technology 13
computer assisted instruction had a larger schemata; which increases the chance of
reaching mastery.
If we could give students the tools that they need to be truly successful in the class
room, giving each student a laptop would be a step towards that goal. Teachers want for
students to be engaged in the lessons. By using technology they can learn using the
hands on approach and expand their knowledge through exploration on a computer. Chen
(2010) states that “weapons of mass instruction: one student, one computer” (p. 87)
would allow this learning to happen. Teachers have to remember that students learning
just while they are at school is no longer the case if they are given the tools to learn
outside of the four walls of the school students would be more outgoing with their
learning. Slowly but surely, whole school systems are distributing laptops to both
teachers and students in certain grades to test if their engagement and motivation were
raised from years past. Following those students who were first given the laptops into
high school the grades went up and they found that the students were working much
harder in school. For example, since language and literacy are a problem, teachers can
now work on creating pod casts and use iPods in the classroom to help with the issue.
This is also helpful when you have a student in your classroom that is learning English as
a second language. Technology is also helpful when you have students with disabilities in
your classroom. Chen believes, “The fast-changing field of assistive technology (AT) is
one of the most exciting in education today” (p. 131). Technology that can be helpful to
all, including those with a disability, and can be added into everyday functions flawlessly.
While technology is helpful in so many ways, there are some who do not agree
that the technology push should be put into education. “It’s not that schools never change.
Classroom Technology 14
It’s that they change very slowly, states Collins and Halverson.” (p. 30). Worrying those
students will become dependent on technology and not learn how to do something the
long way principals and teachers are hesitant to change.
There are also always issues to having technology in the class room. According to
Collins & Halverson (2009), the problems are: cost and access, classroom management,
computers can’t teach, the challenges to instruction, authority, and assessment. When you
look at the cost not all schools or districts will have the money to put all new technology
in their schools or keep software and hardware updated. Therefore you have no access
when it is not provided in your schools. For teachers, classroom management has always
been an issue. When you throw in technology that gives teachers one more thing to keep
an eye and hand on while they are trying to teach. Computers are “dispensers of content”
(Collins & Halverson, p. 40) while teachers are there to motivate and inspire their
students to their very best in all they do. Teachers cannot be replaced by a piece of
technology. While some jobs in the world can be done better by a machine, teaching is
not one of them. Just like adding more standards for teachers to cover. Putting technology
in lessons takes more time and effort than some teachers have to spare. For teachers, they
have to teach their students to still use their own creativity instead of depending on
technology to do it for them. With so much emphasis put on testing computers cannot
meet their criteria needed for students to be successful on those tests. Collins &
Halverson (2009) state, “Schools are designed to teach us everything we might need to
know later in life. But perhaps this is a fool’s errand, given the knowledge explosion our
society has enjoyed in recent years” (p. 48).
Classroom Technology 15
Student/Teacher Technology Attitudes
What are teacher and student attitudes about technology in the classroom? It is
extremely important to make sure that when integrating technology it is found in your
everyday teaching. According to the study by Tosun, Sucsuz, and Yigit (2006), the idea
of using computer assisted instruction and computer based teaching are two methods that
you can use in the classroom. Looking at computer assisted instruction and computer
based instruction there was not much of an attitude change found in the students and
teachers. Computer assistance is meant to be helpful to the teacher so that questions can
be answered accurately. This method was found to be the most beneficial for both sides.
The attitude of the teacher was found to be more positive because they could use the
computer to add to her lessons and the students were more engaged.
Saparniene & Saparnis (2005) state, “Attitude is an inner psychic state influencing
behavior. Therefore, we can understand an inner state from actions and words. For
instance, we can presume that a person actively avoiding a computer has a negative
attitude towards it” (p.1). For most teachers and students their attitudes are based on past
experiences. If these attitudes were positive, then, often times they were happy to work
with the technology again. In the off chance that it was a negative experience, students
and teachers are less likely to use it again. Keeping in mind certain factors when working
with technology and attitudes of students/teachers are the sociophysical and
socioeducational factors. Cognitive features according to Saparniene and Saparnis cite
are extremely important while the non-cognitive features are equally important.
Jacobs (2010) talks about how technology will take some getting used to for
teachers. Jacobs gives examples of teachers who are working to integrate more
Classroom Technology 16
technology into their classrooms. Jacobs (2010) believes, “Our students are in the 21st
century they are waiting for our teachers and curricula to catch up” (p. 211). Jacobs
(2010) puts it best when she states: “Changing our mental models about what we teach,
how we teach it, and how we assess students learning growth will take some time getting
used to. Such changes require open-mindedness, flexibility, practice, and courage” (p.
211). The more that teacher’s set their minds to changing the way that they teach they
will be successful in doing so. You have to have mind over matter. Keeping a positive
attitude will allow teachers to show their students that they can achieve anything that they
put their mind to.
Summary
In conclusion, while technology can be difficult, it is important that we take the
time to train teachers about the technology in their classrooms. Then teachers will be able
to update their teaching and keep their students engaged. Jacobs (2010) reminds teachers,
“Changing our mental models about what we teach, how we teach it, and how we assess
students’ learning growth will take some getting used to. Such changes require “openmindedness, flexibility, patience, and courage” (p. 211). Changes are not always the
easiest transitions to make for teachers or students, but as time continues to evolve, we
must evolve too.
Classroom Technology 17
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The purpose of this study was to show the level of comfort for teachers using
technology in the classroom and student achievement. Observing how teachers comfort
levels of technology affect the achievement of students in their classrooms. Heidi Hayes
Jacobs (2010) points out; teachers today have to keep up with technology in order to have
our students prepared for their future. Finding the comfort and achievement levels with
technology will be done using action research. Data will be collected by using a pre and
post tests to determine if there were gains made with the students’ abilities in the
classroom. Hendricks (2009) explains that using artifacts that show achievement can best
be found in items such as test scores and assignments. Another way data was collected
was through a focus group with the teachers to find their attitudes and comfort levels of
using the technology in their classrooms (see Appendix A). During the time of the study
there was specific lessons used to incorporate more and less technology depending on the
classes (see Appendix B). While the lessons were taking place, there was a reflective
journal written and an observational behavior chart filled in watching for specific
behaviors of the students. Looking at the pretests and posttests there was an independent
and dependent T test done to determine if the study was in fact valid. The focus group
showed valid data to demonstrate the emotions and understand the mindset of the
teachers when they are working to create lessons and teach the students. This study gave
a clear understanding of why teachers are not comfortable with technology in the
classroom.
Classroom Technology 18
Setting
The study took place in a Rosemont Elementary 5th grade writing classroom in
rural Troup County Georgia. The school was a Title One Distinguished school with
middle to low socioeconomic status. The school and classroom was chosen because the
amount of technology that was available in the school and the classroom. After speaking
with the cooperating teacher, permission was granted. Next, there was a meeting with the
principal where the study was being conducted to explain the research and to gain
permission to do the study (see Appendix A and B). Following this step, a form was
submitted to Troup County Board of Education. After acquiring the permissions to
complete the study a letter will be sent home to the parents to let them know when the
study took place and the reasons for the study. The parents will also be notified if any of
the students are used for examples. The students will remain anonymous throughout the
entire study. Lastly, an IRB (Institution Review Board) form was submitted to LaGrange
College IRB for approval.
Classroom Technology 19
Subjects/Participants
The subjects/participants were students in a 5th grade writing class. Participants
included all the 5th grade teachers in the focus group. Students from two classes: one
considered being a higher achieving class and the other is a lower achieving class
participated. These classes were determined by their CRCT scores from the previous
year. However, the students can be moved from one class to another. If they are doing
well in the low class, they can move to the high class to be challenged more. Most of the
students come from low to middle socioeconomic status. The classes have both male and
female in the classes, but are often more male populated. Since they are currently divided
into high and low classes for this study, they did remain in those groups. To ensure
reliability, they were not allowed to switch classes during the study. Since one class
received more technology than the other, both groups needed to be receiving the same
type lessons for the whole study.
Classroom Technology 20
Procedures and Data Collection Methods
The goal of this study was to show if there is higher achievement when
technology is used in the classroom and how the attitudes may, or may not change. In
order to gain results to determine if in fact there is higher achievement in the classroom
there are going to be three questions answered. Looking at the data shell (Table 3.1), the
matrix outlines how the questions were answered and how the questions are backed up by
previous studies, as well as, how the data will be gathered.
Table 3.1
Focus
Questions
Literature
Sources
Type Method,
Data, Validity
Type of Method:
What is the
process of
integrating
technology in
the
classroom?
Baker, B.
(1992)
Lovell, M.
& Phillips,
L. (2009)
Instructional
Plan
Rubric and
Interview
Type of Data:
Qualitative
Jacobs,
H.J. (2010) Type of Validity:
Wehling,
B. (2007)
Content
How are data
analyzed?
Rationale
Looking for
categorical and
Recurring repeating data
that form
Dominate
patterns of
Emerging behaviors.
Coded for themes
Classroom Technology 21
How does
technology
integration
affect student
engagement
and
achievement?
Jenkinson,
J. (2009)
Type of
Method:
Johnson,
E.P.,
Perry, J.
&Shamir,
H. (2010)
Teacher made
Pre/Post Tests
Chen, M.
(2010).
Classroom
observations
Dependent T
Independent T
Effect Size whole
group and
Independent T
Pearson Coefficient
Type of Data:
Quantitative
Collins, A, Interval
&
Type of Validity:
Halverson,
R. (2009). Content
What are
teacher and
student
attitudes
about
technology in
the
classroom?
Tosun, N.,
Sucsuz, N.
& Yigit, B.
(2006)
Saparniene,
D., Merkys,
G. &
Saparnis, G.
Jacobs, H.J.
(2010
Type of
Method:
Reflective
Journal
Focus Group
Observational
Behaviors
Type of Data:
Qualitative
Type of
Validity:
Construct
To determine if
there is a
significant
difference in
two groups.
To determine if
there is a
significant
difference in
the means of
two groups.
Measures the
magnitude of a
treatment
effect.
Looking for
categorical and
Recurring repeating data
Dominate that form
patterns of
Emerging behaviors.
Coded for themes:
Independent T
To determine if
there is a
significant
difference in
the means of
two groups.
Classroom Technology 22
In order to improve the use and attitudes of technology in the classroom there
were lesson plans created using the Georgia Standards for 5th grade writing. These
lessons were given to the teacher for her to teach to the two classes. As a method to show
if there is a learning difference between the two groups, however, ones class’ lessons, the
treatment group, will involve the use of all technology and class 2, the control group, had
no technology. While the lessons are being taught, there were notes taken on the students’
behavior and attitudes toward the lesson. By having the students take pre and posttests,
data was gathered to hopefully show improvement. Also, having the focus group will
allow the study to show the attitudes of the teachers. The session will be recorded for
quality purposes when looking at data. These data for focus question one will be
collected qualitatively by using the instructional plan, rubric, and the interview
(Appendix B and C). For focus question two quantitative interval data was used in the
study and included pretests and posttests where there was a dependent T, independent T
tests, the effect size, and Pearson’s coefficient done to show if the study is valid and
reliable. The observations that took place throughout the study, and the behaviors were
tallied on a behavior chart where a percentage was found for participation. For focus
question three, there was ordinal data collected using a focus group and the reflective
journal (Appendix D). Keeping a reflective journal served as a record of reflective
questions answered throughout the course of the study. These questions included: What
were three main things I learned from this session? What have I changed my mind about,
as a result of this session? One thing I learned in this session that I may be able to use in
Classroom Technology 23
the future? I am still unsure about? What I liked about this session was…and what I
disliked about this session was? There will be descriptive and inferential statistics used.
Classroom Technology 24
Validity, Reliability, Dependability and Bias
Data gathering for focus questions one used an instructional plan with a rubric
and an interview. Through this qualitative data, data that contains words was gathered.
The data was valid because of content validity, which Popham (2008) states “content
validity refers to the adequacy with which the content of a test represents the content of
the curricular aim about which inferences are to be made” (p.53). The study was
dependable because data collection was kept consistent and there was control kept of the
data collection setting. Popham (2008) states that absence of bias “refers to qualities of an
assessment instrument that offend or unfairly penalize a group of students” (p.73). The
assessment was considered bias if it containd offensiveness or disparate impact, which
Popham defines as further scrutiny to see if an assessment, is bias (p.77).
The data gathering method for focus question two, consists of teacher made
pretests and posttest using the test re-test method that also contained a Person
Correlation. Collecting these scores quantitative data, data made up of numbers, and
interval data were obtained. According to Salkind (2007), “interval level of measure is
where a test or an assessment tool is based on some underlying continuum such that we
can talk about how much more a higher performance is than a lesser one” (p. 140).The
data was valid because of content validity. All assessments were scrutinized for absence
of bias, offensiveness, and disparate impact.
Lastly, focus question three gathered data by using a reflective journal, a focus
group, and an observational chart of behaviors. The data was qualitative data and
construct validity that shows how the behaviors chosen described the trait. Salkind (2007)
states that construct validity is “the underlying construct or idea being a test or
Classroom Technology 25
measurement tool” (p. 154).This focus questions shows dependability by establishing a
chain of evidence that is maintained and well organized, and the length of time for data
collections is persistent and prolonged. To avoid bias the observations and questions were
scrutinized for offensiveness and disparate impact.
Classroom Technology 26
Analysis of Data
Focus question one was analyzed by qualitative analysis that is coded for themes
looking for emerging thoughts. Looking for categorical and repeating data that forms
patterns and behaviors within the instructional plan and interview with the three peer
teachers.
Focus question two was analyzed by quantitative analysis that consists of
dependent t, independent t, and effect size calculations. The dependent t this test
determines if there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores.
The decision to reject the null hypothesis has been set at p<.05. The independent t test
was used to determine if there was a significant difference between the pretest and
posttest item analysis. The effect size measurement used effect size r for the dependent ttests and Cohen’s D for the independent t-tests that were used to show the magnitude of a
treatment effect and the overlap that is created. The null statement was that there is no
significant difference between the pretests and posttests given. The decision to reject the
null hypothesis was set at p<.05.
Focus question three, was qualitative and quantative data. The data looked for
recurring themes that showed the patterns of behavior from the students and the teacher
using the reflective journal, focus group, and the observational behavior chart. The chart
was analyzed by an independent t-test showing the average participation in the
classroom.
Validation
The validity of the study was shown by consensual validation faculty review.
There was content and construct validity through the study to gather data. This analytic is
Classroom Technology 27
closely related to the concepts of accuracy and consistency. Eisner (1991) calls the
faculty review process ‘Consensual Validation,’ an agreement among competent others
that the description, interpretation, evaluation and thematic are right. Denzin and Lincoln
(1998) describe the cycling back to your literature review as ‘Epistemological
Validation,’ a place where you convince the reader that you have remained consistent
with the theoretical perspectives you used in the review of the literature.
Credibility
Focus questions one, two, and three examined rubrics, journals, and behavior
charts to create structural corroboration. Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘structural
corroboration,’ where a confluence of evidence comes together to form a compelling
whole. Fairness was found throughout the literature review with opposing points of view.
Rightness of fit was also shown throughout the study by making sure that the study was
coherent and there was strong evidence to assert judgment. Within Eisner’s definition are
embedded the concepts of fairness and precision. To be a fair, you must state that you
plan to present alternative (opposing) perspectives with which you may not particularly
agree. This is done by presenting alternative perspectives in the literature review as well
as selecting participants in the data collection process who have opposing views. To be
precise, you must state how you will present a tight argument, coherent case and have
strong evidence to assert judgments. Eisner refers to precision as ‘rightness of fit.’
Classroom Technology 28
Transferability
Once you have shown that your study is credible you must show that it has
referential adequacy. Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘referential adequacy’ where
perception and understanding by others will increase because of your research. Through
the procedure section the study is explicitly laid out along with an instructional plan with
the lessons that are to be taught during the study.
Transformational
Lastly, another concept to discuss is ‘catalytic validity’ (Lather as cited by
Kinchloe & McLaren, 1998). Catalytic validity is the degree to which you anticipate your
study to shape and transform your participants, subjects or school. Since the teachers that
are participating in the study have had little training on the technology in their classrooms
it helped them to better understand what they are using while also engaging the students
in a positive manner.
Classroom Technology 29
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
FQ One: What is the process of integrating technology in the classroom?
The qualitative data gathering method for this focus question was done through a
detailed instructional plan, rubric and interview with the cooperating teachers.
Throughout the study there was one classroom that was fully incorporated with
technology, while the other classroom was using strictly pencil, paper, and book
techniques. There were lesson plans created for each class that were designed to help the
students achieve their learning goal of mastering the standards taught.
Class 1, treatment group, was fully incorporated with technology, the treatment
group students were taught about reference materials such as: dictionary, thesaurus,
almanac, encyclopedia, atlas, as well as magazines and newspapers, and how they use
them to make their writing stronger and more accurate. Within the grade level, the
treatment group learners were the lower students who were struggling writers and
readers. They discussed modern places that you could find these reference sources that
were not books, but online, as well as how to use them correctly to create informational
writing. The Promethean board was incorporated and allowed students to see firsthand
how to use each of the references. Once the whole group lesson was done the students
would be given time to complete an assignment using what they just learned.
Class 2, the control group, learned without technology. Although, they were
taught the same content from the reference material standard, the control group students
used poster paper, printed games, worksheets, class discussion, and writing assignments.
The control group was comprised with all of the higher achieving students within the 5th
grade.
Classroom Technology 30
Both classes were given a pre-test at the beginning of the week and a culminating
post-test to determine how their learning was affected by technology or the absence of
technology. As a common assessment between the two groups, each class created
something small each day for the teacher to use as a learning assessment. For the
treatment group class 1, it was creating a comic strip one day. For the control group, class
2, it was answering the essential question on a post-it to stick on the door as they exited
the classroom. All students participated in the closing activities.
The study was conducted in the classroom of the lead teacher for the 5th grade
with 20 years of teaching experience. However, all three teachers evaluated the
instructional plan and gave written feedback on how they felt the lessons were designed
and their effectiveness with the students. Once they had given some feedback about the
lessons, a discussion took place where more evidence was gathered looking for recurring,
dominate, and emerging themes. During the discussion the lead teacher was teacher 1, the
two peer teachers were teacher 2 and 3.
At the start of the discussion, the teachers were asked about their first thoughts
about the unit. Teacher 1 states, “The plans are good, depending on the students’ prior
knowledge and experience. I can tell that the county curriculum map had been referred to
so the plans followed closely with the standards.” Teachers 2 and 3 were excited to
incorporate new and engaging lessons. One of the recurring themes found were the
different skill levels and familiarity that the three teachers had with the technology. One
felt very confident, while the other two would love to know more. Also looking at
recurring themes, all three teachers stated that their students were use to being taught
different lessons than the classes so they were not worried with the students thinking one
Classroom Technology 31
was getting to do something more engaging. A dominant theme was the idea of using
“teachable moments” to help the students with their understanding of the standard and
engaging their prior knowledge as well as pulling in other past standards taught earlier.
Lastly, the theme that emerged during the discussion was the suggestion that, if this unit
would be used again, it should be longer and involve more practice for the students
before mastery is expected. Gaining the knowledge about the lessons helped to gain a
broader prospective.
FQ Two: How does technology integration affect student engagement and
achievement?
Upon answering focus question two, there was an evaluation of the students to see
if there was a difference in the engagement and achievement of class 1, with technology,
and class 2, without technology. For each class there was a daily behavior chart kept (see
Appendix c) where tally marks were taken to observe behavior of the students in the
classroom. At the end of the week the tally marks were counted, and a percentage of
engagement was calculated daily for each of the classes, as well as, the mean of all the
days.
To determine if there was a difference in achievement between students with
technology and students without technology a dependent t test was performed. Table 4.1
and 4.2 show the pre-test and post-test results between the two classes.
Classroom Technology 32
Table 4.1- Class 1, Treatment Group
T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Achievement Results
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
Df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Pre Test Post Test
45.33333 61.33333
304
88
9
9
0.317925
0
8
-2.82843
0.011102
1.859548
0.022204
2.306004
Table 4.2- Class 2, Control Group
T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Achievement Results
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
Df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Pre Test Post Test
54
66.8
413.3333 241.9556
10
10
0.868536
0
9
-3.93231
0.001723
1.833113
0.003446
2.262157
When the results from class 1 were examined, the obtained value is 2.82 which is
larger than the critical value which is 1.85. As a result, these data shows significance. In
Classroom Technology 33
class 2, the obtained value 3.93 which was larger than the critical value which was 1.83.
In both classes the null hypotheses is rejected. The test/re-test reliability test, the Pearson
Coefficient, was run and is r=.317925 in class 1, and r=.86868536 in class 2 which
expresses that for class 1 there was a low correlation, while class 2 has a high correlation.
This could be contributed to the fact that there were outliers in the classes who could
have caused the r value to go up or down.
To determine if there was a significant difference in the pre/pre and post/post-tests
means of the two groups and independent t test was done. Table 4.3 and 4.4 show the
results of the independent t tests comparing the test scores.
Table 4.3-Pre/Pre
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Comparing test scores
Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Class 1
Class 2
45.33333333
54
304 413.3333
9
10
0
17
-1
0.165666381
1.739606716
0.331332762
2.109815559
Classroom Technology 34
Table 4.4- Post/Post
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Comparing test scores
Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Class 1
Class 2
61.33333333
66.8
88 241.9556
9
10
0
15
-0.937893472
0.181578157
1.753050325
0.363156315
2.131449536
Looking at the pre/pre test results the obtained value is -1, less than the critical
value which is 1.73 is. The post/post test scores show the obtained value is .93 and the
critical value is 1.75 meaning that for both of the tests the null must be accepted.
Lastly, there was an effect size calculation done to measure the magnitude of a
treatment effect. Effect size r was looked at for the dependent t tests, and Cohen’s D was
calculated for the independent t test. Table 4.5 shows the effect size r and Cohen’s D
results.
Table 4.5- Effect Size and Cohen’s D Output Table
Dependent T
Class 1
Class 2
Effect size R
Independent T
-0.496136612 Pre/Pre
-0.333349422 Post/Post
Cohen's D
-0.457639274
-0.425634043
The effect size r results show that class one had a large effect size while class two
had a medium effect size meaning that there was more overlap for the first class than the
second class. The overlap for class one is 58.9%, and for class two it was 43%. The
Classroom Technology 35
Cohen’s D results show that both classes have a medium effect size showing that they
had the same overlap, which was 27.4%.
FQ Three: What are teacher and student attitudes toward technology in the
classroom?
Lastly, answering focus question three, observing and evaluating teacher and
student attitudes about technology took place. To collect the data, a reflective journal was
kept discussing the lessons, a focus group was conducted with the three 5th grade
teachers. The behaviors of the students were observed and recorded.
While reflecting on the lessons, a recurring theme discovered was how engaged
and willing to learn the treatment group was while keeping the attention focus for class
two, the control group, was found to be extremely difficult. Class two had to be
constantly bribed and motivated to continue to get their work done. Class one was
extremely excited to do whatever was asked of them. Another recurring theme was how
important it was for the students to be able to test what you have just shown them. During
the lessons learning to use the reference materials would be demonstrated and then the
students would have to put those skills into practice. For some of the students, once they
had a chance to put their hands on the materials, the students had an “ah-ha” moment.
The dominant themes discovered were the amount of technology students have at
their fingertips. The observation that emerged from the lessons was that students expect
to find the answer instantly, and if they do not, they just want to give up or have someone
tell them the answer. The lack of motivation was extremely noticeable in class 2 because,
the students did not have access to technology. To go along with the absence of
Classroom Technology 36
technology, an observation was also made that the teacher had a hard time not going to
the computer to pull up an example or show a picture of something.
In conclusion, reflecting on the emerging themes of the unit one observation that
was clear was how important it is for the teacher to have a backup plan if technology is
not working correctly. The students get just frustrated when what they are trying to do is
not responding the way it should. Another thought, make sure the sites are approved by
the school system and have been previewed by the teacher so they know how it works to
instruct the students better. If the teacher does not know how the website runs, the lessons
have more inconsistencies along the way. The fight to keep the students attention is
greater and also distracting for other students.
The themes that were observed through the reflective journal were some of the
same themes that were found in the focus group with the three 5th grade teachers. The
lead teacher has taught for 20 years, the other two peer teachers have taught for 27 years
combined. One of the first questions asked of the teachers was if they liked or disliked
technology. “We love it!! It has changed the way that we teach and really enjoy how
much it engages the students,” states teacher one. While only one of the teachers has had
proper training in technology, she worked hard to help teach her co-workers to the best of
her ability. They also mentioned that it would be nice if their laptops and boards were
reliable. “I have learned to test my lessons before I do them with the students, and to
always have a backup plan because I never know if today would be a good day or bad
with the technology,” explained teacher 3.
These seasoned veteran teachers discussed how it has changed their teaching and
mostly how they plan their lessons. Teacher 2 explains, “You have a bank of lessons that
Classroom Technology 37
are overheads, worksheets, printed a-z books, and homework copies. Now the students email homework; and once you have created a worksheet, all you have to do is pull it up
again while also having instant access to other portals.” With regard to thinking about the
future and how fast things change, it would be so helpful if all of the students could be
given an iPad. “It would allow their learning to grow outside of the school walls,” teacher
1 expressed.
The learning was the biggest difference with the technology in the classroom in a
positive manner. So many of the students know how to use the technology and are vastly
emerged in the technology daily. Since they have such a great knowledge, students can
help the teachers to learn more. However, for the lower students it is especially
important. Teacher 2 shares, “They want to pay attention when you are teaching, and
were not behavior problems. They were excited to be able to do something different.”
When it was revealed that the average participation in class 1 was 84% and in class 2 was
52%, all of the teachers agreed that it was an extremely good reflection of what they see
on a daily basis. Teacher 1 shared surprisingly “This was in my classroom and I thought
there would be a 10% difference, but 30% is shocking!”
Going along with the idea of participation, an independent t test was done to show
if there was a significant difference between the means of the two groups. In table 4.6,
the t-test shows the average engagement and participation levels of the classes throughout
the week.
Classroom Technology 38
Table 4.6
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Participation between Classes
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
Hypothesized Mean Difference
Df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
Class 1
83.8
21.7
5
153.45
0
8
4.084477766
0.001756157
1.859548033
0.003512314
2.306004133
Class 2
51.8
285.2
5
This table shows that the obtained value is 4.08 which is greater than the critical
value which is 1.85, t(8)=1.85, p>.05. This means that the null hypothesis must be
rejected showing a significant difference in the participation between the two classes.
Overall, the findings of this study suggest that technology had a positive effect in
the classroom engaging students, improving their academics, and creating a positive
attitude for both teachers and students.
Classroom Technology 39
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Analysis
The overarching goal of the study was to determine if technology integrated into a
5th grade writing classroom made a difference in student achievement and engagement.
Analyzing focus question one, what is the process of integrating technology into the
classroom, the data gathering methods used were the instructional plan and rubric, as well
as an interview. There was a set of specific lessons used to teach reference materials; one
using a great deal of technology, and the other using no technology. The lesson plans
were examined by peer teachers using the rubric to gain input on the lessons. An
interview was used to discuss with the teachers their thoughts on the lessons provided.
The data was then examined by coding for recurring, dominate, and emerging themes. In
turn, this means examining the qualitative data to see what can information can be
gathered.
Having the use of the promethean board in the treatment group helped to engage
students, as well as open the students’ eyes to the technology available to learn more
about reference materials. Receiving the input from the teachers about the lessons was
also beneficial since I was a visitor in their classrooms, and the teachers were more aware
of what lessons would be more beneficial with the students. A recurring theme
discovered during the research was determining which of the teachers felt more
comfortable with technology integration in the classroom and which ones were more
hesitant. Not all of the teachers had the same skill level when it came to using the
technology. For example, one of the teachers was trained on how to use hers, while the
other two teachers were given boards with no training. The idea of a “teachable moment”
Classroom Technology 40
was found to be a dominate theme. It is so important to pull information from previous
lessons to allow the students to review and build on the knowledge acquired. The last
theme that was examined was the emerging suggestion to make the unit longer if used
again so that the mastery level for students can truly be reached by allowing more
practice time. Jacobs (2010) believes that teachers should always keep themselves up to
date with the new curriculum to keep our students engaged.
Lovell & Phillips (2009) state, “Appropriate technology use and access to
facilitate learning is an important aspect of contemporary education…” (p. 198). The
themes that were discovered in the content were reliable because it helped to show the
pattern of behavior that was found in the instructional plan as well as the interview. The
data is proven to be valid through content validity because inferences were made about
the curriculum and found to be effective. The lessons were significant to the study
because it was the basis for all of the learning. Without a plan to guide the study it would
not have been reliable. Baker (1992) expresses the importance of technology best when
he stated, “Young children should live in a society of technology and technological
change” (p.3).
For focus question two, how does technology integration affect student
engagement and achievement, Jenkinson (2009) states, “As we continue to integrate
technology into teaching practice, we struggle with understanding the true value of these
various media modalities” (p.263). Data was gathered using teacher made pretests and
posttests, and classroom observations. First, looking at the pretests and posttest, the data
was evaluated using dependent t-test, independent t-test, effect size, and a Pearson
Coefficient. The pre/post testing method was used to show if there was a significant
Classroom Technology 41
difference in the engagement and achievement of the students from the treatment group
and the control group. The dependent t-test that was completed between the pretests and
posttests showing that the null hypothesis for both classes was rejected proving that
technology made a significant difference in the learning and achievement of the students.
The Pearson Coefficient was also run showing that the strength of dependence on class
one was lower than class two. I believe this lack of dependence is due to outliers in the
test scores.
The independent t-test was computed to see if there was significant difference in
the pretests and posttests means within the two groups. For both of the tests, pre/pre and
post/post, the null had to be accepted. To conclude the data for focus question two an
effect size calculation was computed analyzing Cohen’s D and effect size r. These tests
were used to show the overlap of the test scores between the classes. I believe that the
large and medium size differences were because of the small size of the classes that were
studied. Johnson, Perry, and Shamir (2010) believe, “One reason mastery learning has
been a success in the classroom is because computers allowed the mastery techniques to
assume a shape closer to what Bloom originally proposed (p.211).”Another factor to
understand is that this was not my classroom and these were not my students. I created
lesson plans and gave them to the teacher, so my only job was to observe how the lessons
went and the behaviors that were displayed during the lessons. I do feel that my study is
valid because there was significant difference in the pretest and posttest scores.
Lastly, investigating focus question 3, observing and evaluating teacher and
student attitudes about technology in the classroom, data was collected using a reflective
journal, focus group, and an observational behavior chart. To explore the data which was
Classroom Technology 42
coded for themes looking for recurring, dominate, and emerging, while also running an
independent t-test. Exploring the themes it was found that a recurring theme was
engagement. The treatment group was actively engaged more often than the control
group showing that their attention was more focused on the available technology rather
than pencil and paper. Looking at the amount of technology that the students had
available to them in the classroom was a dominate theme found throughout. Students are
accustomed to instant gratification which was evident in the control class when they had
to look things up instead of typing it into the computer. Jacobs (2010) sums it up by
saying, “Our students are in the 21st century they are waiting for our teachers and
curricula to catch up” (p.211). Knowing how to correctly use the technology takes
practice, which is one emerging theme that was found throughout the reflective journal
and also in the focus group. Of the three teachers that participated in the focus group only
one of them has been properly trained on how to use their Promethean board. The other
teachers have had to learn by trial and error, as well as, whatever their peer is willing to
teach them, however, they still maintain positive attitudes through the learning process.
Saparniene & Saparnis (2005) believe that “Attitude is an inner psychic state influencing
behavior” (p. 1). The main topic of the focus group was how much the teachers would
love to have more technology available to them and their students. By having up to date
technology in the classroom, students will be prepared for what they will face in the real
world.
The final piece of data studied was an independent t-test that shows the average
engagement and participation levels of the classes throughout the study. There was a
significant difference found between the two classes so the null hypothesis must be
Classroom Technology 43
rejected, meaning that technology does make a difference in engagement and
participation in the classroom. Overall, I feel that this study helped to create better
attitudes towards technology in the classroom with teachers, but also demonstrates how
important technology can be for students to be fully engaged in their own learning.
Discussion
Taking an overall analysis of the results I believe there are a couple of reasons for
the data results that were collected. The first reason, and the one that I think is the most
important, is the fact that this research was conducted in another teacher’s classroom.
These were not my students, and I was not the one that was responsible for teaching
them. Due to this significant factor, I had created lesson plans to fit what students were
currently learning and what the teacher could make work as far as time was concerned.
The treatment group and the control group were their regular classes. I would have liked
to regroup the students but this was not an option since the instructional environment was
already determined by the regular classroom teacher. While the teacher was extremely
helpful by teaching the lessons, I think that with my knowledge of the technology I could
have put even more interactive features into the lessons.
The second reason for my independent t test results would be the small class
sizes. While it is wonderful to be able to work in small groups with the students in this
particular case I feel that it would have been more beneficial for the study to have more
students to investigate results of. That would have allowed for more overlap and
correlation within the results. Looking at the independent t-test where I had to accept the
null, I think would have proved to have come out differently had I used more students as
a whole, or mixed the high and low students instead of keeping them separate. This
Classroom Technology 44
reason has a good deal to do with the simple fact of practice when it comes to conducting
a valid and reliable study. Knowing the correct steps to take and the best steps to take
make all the difference in the end. However, on the opposite end of that my knowledge of
the technology was not a concern because I have a vast knowledge of classroom
technology and how to incorporate it effectively.
My belief is that this study is extremely relevant to teachers today. With the
constant battle of keeping up with technology, as educators we need to make sure that our
lessons were truly beneficial for our students rather than just convenient. I also think that
knowing how to work the technology that you have is important. If available technology
just sits in your classroom and is not taken advantage of, then the students are not having
the opportunity to expand their knowledge of technology which will help them become a
successful adult in society. Appropriate training would be helpful, although, not always
mandatory. Integrating technology can also be economically smart because teachers will
not be dependent on paper to teach a new concept. This study will help teachers learn to
put technology into their lessons daily, from little activities to whole lessons. After all
practice makes perfect.
To ensure credibility in this study there were multiple data sources used to gather
quantitative and qualitative data. For focus question one it was the use of an instructional
plan, rubric and interview. Exploring focus question two, pre/posttests, and classroom
observations were collected. To conclude with focus question three there was a reflective
journal kept, an observational behaviors chart, and a focus group conducted. While many
see how we are headed to a technological future some worry that our students will be too
dependent. According to Collins & Halverson (2009), since computers are merely
Classroom Technology 45
“dispensers of content” (pg. 40) teachers will never be replaced with a computer. They
believe that teachers should use their own creativity and not depend on technology to do
it for us. “Schools are designed to teach us everything we might need to know later in
life,” (p. 48) Collins & Halverson believe.
To ensure that this study has rightness of fit there were measures taken to make
sure that it was consistent, contained no bias, and was reliable and dependable. There was
sufficient evidence to back up the statements that were made believing that technology is
a helpful aid in the classroom for students to be engaged. It was also shown that the
treatment group did have higher test scores than those of the control group. The study
was also found to be very helpful to the teacher that taught the lessons and also gave her
new resources that she could share with her peers as well as use in other units. The
students learned from the study, but the teachers did as well which I feel makes it
extremely valuable for all. I believe that judgments can be made and without a doubt
stating that using technology is effective in the classroom.
Implications
This study found that incorporating technology into an elementary writing
classroom is both positive for engagement and achievement for students. With the study
only lasting one week, it was still able to show significance. A couple major themes were
discovered though out the study. Those consisted of importance of training, engagement
is higher when the lessons are more interactive, and the amounts of technology students
are exposed to and aware of is astonishing. The study is transferable and can be easily
replicated. Other teachers could use the ideas of incorporating technology in their
classrooms just changing the plans to fit their individual needs.
Classroom Technology 46
The transformation of subjects/participants was evident though out this study.
Information was gained for the cooperating teacher to take with her and use though out
the rest of the year. She gained skills that would allow her to build to her lessons for the
following year. Being able to incorporate technology more into the classroom was a
personal goal for her, and with this study she was able to gain the knowledge to meet that
goal. The attitudes of the students were also drastically changed. The lower achieving
students were putting more effort into their work and taking pride in what they were
learning. However, the higher achieving students did not respond well to only using
paper/pencil and books. Sparking the will to learn was shown within the students and the
teacher.
As a future educator, this study allowed me to incorporate my passion for
technology into a classroom. Technology can be used in a positive and productive
manner and that was part of my goal for the study to help others have that same
understanding. I believe that students are more apt to learning when they are fully
engaged in what is being taught. Seeing students reach the “ah-ha” moment when they
are learning is a powerful reaction for most teachers, and using technology to reach that
reaction can be powerful for the student as well when they are truly enjoying what they
are doing. My goal for years to come will be to constantly work to better myself when it
comes to incorporating technology into the classroom, as well as, helping my peers to
learn and be as passionate as I am. Technology is a wonderful tool, and one that should
not be wasted.
Classroom Technology 47
Impact on Student Learning
Student learning was positively impacted in the study by showing achievement
improvements and students more actively engaged. While the control class did not have
as many improvements and the lack of engagement was evident, it proves my theory that
technology is important in the classroom. The treatment group was excited to come to
class and eager to do assignments. For many of those students that was a drastic change.
These students also had better attitudes going through the rest of their classes because
they were not burnt out from doing the same activities over and over. With achievement
and engagement on the rise teachers could soon see a drastic academic differences in
their students.
The study as a whole was also of positive impact for the teacher. She was learning
new skills and observing the attitude change, which encouraged her to keep up the work
of making her lessons more interactive. Teachers can feel the burn out of teaching the
same material in the same manner. Using technology gives them the opportunity to step
out of their comfort zone and try new lessons. Students appreciate the differentiation as
much as the teachers do.
Recommendations for Future Research
Reflecting on the study there were a couple of things that I would have done
differently. For instance, I would have had more students and classes participate in the
study to gather more data. I would have also conducted the study for a longer period of
time, perhaps two to four weeks. I might have also tried to differentiate more of the
classes, and put students into certain classes’ special for the study. To add more
technology to the study I would add testing the students electronically and not with
Classroom Technology 48
paper/pencil. For my data collection methods, I would have a better method for the
recording of the observational charts. Lastly, for the pretests and posttests I would write
and create my own tests instead of using practice Criterion Reference Competency Test
or CRCT questions to make sure that it covers only the topics discussed.
Thinking into the future, in order to extend this study I would like to look at the
effects of testing digitally. It is becoming more and more common to test students on the
computer to get their scores back quicker. I know that some students test well this way
and others do not. I would like to see what the difference is academically, their attitudes
towards a digital test, and also if the preparation for these tests would be conducted
differently than a paper/pencil test.
Classroom Technology 49
References
Baker, B. (1992). Computer and young children: Procedures and practices in the
computer laboratory. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED351114)
Chen, M. (2010). Education Nation: Six leading edges of innovation in our schools. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ISBN: 978-0-470-61506-5].
Collins, A. & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The
digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press. [ISBN: 978-0-8077-5002-5].
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.
Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson [ISBN: 978-0-205-57846-7].
Jacobs, H.J. (2010). Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world. VA.
ASCD.
Jenkinson, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of education technology: What are we
attempting to measure? Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(3), 273-280.
Classroom Technology 50
Johnson, E.P., Perry, & J., Shamir, H. (2010). Variability in reading ability gains as a
function of computer-assisted instruction method of presentation. Computer&
Education, 209-217. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.000.
Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In
N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories
and issues (pp. 260 – 299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). The Conceptual Framework. The
Education Department: LaGrange.
Lovell, M., & Phillips, L. (2009). Commericial software programs approved for teaching
reading and writing in the primary grades: Anbother sobering reality. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 197-216.
Popham, W.J. (2008). Classroom Assessment: What teachers need to know. New York,
NY:Person Publishing.
Salkind, N. J. (2007). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics. Los Angeles,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Saparniene, D., Merkys, G., & Saparnis, G. (2005). Students’ attitudes towards computer:
Statistical types and their relationship with computer literacy. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED 494972)
Tosun, N., Sucsuz, N, & Yigit, B. (2006). The effect of computer assisted and computer
based teaching methods on computer course success and computer using attitudes
of students. The Turkish Online Journal of Education Technology, 5(3), article 8.
Classroom Technology 51
Yang, Y.F., Yeh, H.C., Wong, W.K. (2010). The influence of social interaction on
meaning construction in a virtual community. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(2), 287-306. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00934.x.
Classroom Technology 52
Appendix A
Teacher Candidate: Mary Katherine Drescher
Grade Level: 5th
Lesson Topic: Writing and Grammar
Approximate Time: 1 week
Stage 1 – Desired Results
National Standards:

Students employ a wide range of strategies as they write and use different writing
process elements appropriately to communicate with different audiences for a variety
of purposes.

Students use a variety of technological and information resources (e.g., libraries,
databases, computer networks, video) to gather and synthesize information and to
create and communicate knowledge.
Georgia Performance Standards:
ELA5W2 The student produces informational writing (e.g., report, procedures,
correspondence).
ELA5W3 The student uses research and technology to support writing.
c. Uses various reference materials (i.e., dictionary, thesaurus, encyclopedia, electronic
information, almanac, atlas, magazines, newspapers) as aids to writing.
Essential Question:
What is informational writing?
What are reference materials?
How do I use resource material to support my writing?
How and why do I use a dictionary, thesaurus, encyclopedia, almanac, atlas, magazines, and
newspapers?
Stage 2 – Assessment Evidence
Performance Tasks:
o
Students will be assessed by a quiz that
will be given at the end of the week.
Other Evidence
o
They could be given a test where
they are given situations and they
Classroom Technology 53
o
o
o
There will also be observational
assessments that will be completed by
the teachers.
Each day the students will have to
complete a task to exit the classroom
and this will be used assess what they
know.
Also the assignments that they are
completing will show their knowledge of
the topic.
o
have to decide what reference book
to use. (This is how they will find it
on the CRCT.)
I could use their writing as part of a
formal assessment and give them a
rubric so they would know what the
teacher is looking for.
Stage 3 – Learning Plan
Materials and Resources (Attach all templates.):
 Promethean board
 Activotes
 Online references as well as book references
 Jeopardy game
 Post it notes
 Xtranormal Video
 Word splash
 Matching game
 Who am I?
 Act it out
Technology (If no technology is used in this lesson, provide a justification for choosing not to
use technology.)
A promethean board will be used for all lessons to evaluate if the use of technology in a
classroom makes the lesson more effective. There will be two classes where one will heavily
taught with technology and the other will not be. For the class that will be taught normally there
will be book references that the students may use. The students will also be using the
computers that are in the classroom. For a few assessments the students will be using the
activotes to check in. There will be videos shown through the board as well.
Classroom Technology 54
Activating Thinking Strategies :(KWL, Questions, PBL, Word Splash, Concept Attainment
Activities, Anticipatory Guide…):
The Class with Technology
 Interactive word splash
 Xtranormal videos
 PowerPoint
 Activotes to check in
 Matching Game on the board
The Class with NO Technology
 KWL
 Scavenger hunt around room
 Act it out
 Write brief autobiographies
 What Am I?
Teaching Strategies (whole group, small group, active engagement of ALL students):
The Class with Technology:





Day 1
o Xtranormal Video to start going over what informational writing is. Then I will
divide them into groups. As a group we will then create a comic strip using
http://www.makebeliefscomix.com/Comix/ on one of the reference materials.
Day 2
o Interactive word splash will go over the different types of reference materials.
Then visiting each of these websites we will discuss what the main differences
are between all of the reference materials. The students will also have a
handout to take notes following along with the websites.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/. http://www.almanac.com/content/2010digital-almanac-0. www.dictionary.com. http://www.onlineatlas.us/.
www.thesaurus.com/.
Day 3
o PowerPoint showing how informational text and references go together. We
will discuss what informational text consists of. Using the House reference they
will write about their favorite movie and then will revise it after the lesson.
Day 4
o The class will play a game of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. This will cover all of
the material that they have discussed throughout the week.
Day 5
o The students will play a game of hangman on the promethean board to review
the materials before they take their test. Then they can read AR or complete
other work from the week.
Classroom Technology 55
The Class with NO Technology:




Day 1
o KWL chart. We will discuss what reference materials are and what it consist of.
They will then make a greeting card explaining what reference materials are.
Day 2
o Doing Team, Pair, Solo the students will have different situations to read
through and decide what text they should use to answer each question.
Day 3
o The students will be asked what their favorite movie is and to write telling us
what it is about the information of the movie. Then they will talk about the
House showing Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How. After discussing the
parts they will be asked to revise their original writing.
Day 4
o Write a brief autobiography. Find a person that interests them. Do research and
write about them following the writing process.

Day 5
o Scavenger hunt through the room to review. The students will be taking a
paper/pencil quiz over informational writing and reference materials.
Evidence of Differentiated Instruction (Content, Process, and Product: MI, Learning Styles,
Flexible Grouping, Stations, etc.):

Visual- The lessons with technology will allow the students to have the Promethean
Board to look at which will include videos and charts that will keep their attention. For
those students without technology there will be worksheets, books, and charts.
 Auditory-In both classrooms there will be a great deal of discussion and questions posed
that will allow for the students to learn the material by listening to the teacher and their
peers.
 Kinesthetic- The classroom with technology will allow the students to interact with the
board as well as their peers and the writing will help them to fully understand the topic.
The classroom without the technology will mainly focus on the writing aspect for their
full understanding.
Modifications for Special Needs Students: (IEPs, etc.)



Physical-If there is a student that has a physical disability I will make sure that the
classroom is set up comfortably with that student. I will also make sure that all of the
activities that we will be doing can be done by the student.
Visual-If there are any worksheets or handouts I will blow up the text so the student can
read what we are doing. I will also be cautious of doing things on the board that are too
small. This student will also be allowed to sit as close to the board as needed.
Hearing-If needed I can wear a microphone for the student to hear me with his/her
hearing device. They can also be placed close to me while I am speaking and given all
directions in writing.
Classroom Technology 56

ADD/ADHD-For these students I will try to make the lessons as interactive as possible so
as not to lose them during the lesson. Also when working in groups I will place them
with students who can help them to be successful instead of getting in trouble.
Directions can also be written and given to the student in a checklist format so they will
know what is expected of them for the day.
Summarizing (List higher order thinking questions to determine what students have learned;
Students answer essential question):
The Class with Technology:

Day 1- They will print their comic strip and answer the questions on the Promethean
Board and they will stick it on the door on their way out.
 Day 2-The students will be answering the EQ by buzzing to their neighbor.
 Day 3-Their writing will be their ticket out the door.
 Day 4-Each group of students will be given a situation and they have to read it to the
class and decide what reference material they would use.
 Day 5-Their test will be their ticket out the door.
The Class with NO Technology:





Day 1-They will complete their greeting card and answer the EQ for the day.
Day 2-Answering the situation they are given they will use a post it and place it on the
door when they leave.
Day 3-Buzzing to their neighbor they will discuss a situation and then being numbered 1
or 2 they will answer out loud.
Day 4- There will each share who they chose and an interesting fact that they learned
about them.
Day 5-Their test will act as their ticket out the door.
Classroom Technology 57
Appendix B
Instructional Plan Evaluation
1. From looking at the lesson what are your first thoughts about the unit that will be
taught?
2. Looking at the standards that are used are there any others that could be used?
3. Is there any particular order that you think the essential questions should be presented
in?
4. Since assessment is a large part of teaching do you feel that there are enough
assessments found in the plans?
5. Do you feel comfortable using all of the materials that are given? What would you like
to work on using?
6. Are you worried about students noticing that they are not doing the same lessons? Are
there any parts of the lessons you might like to change?
7. In your experience, do you feel that there are any lessons that truly will not be
successful with the students?
8. Are there any further modifications that should be made for students?
9. Do you feel that by answering the EQ for the summarizing activity is enough of a
summarizer?
10. Do you have any other questions or comments on the unit?
Classroom Technology 58
Appendix C
Observational Behaviors
Behavior
On-Task
Off-Task
Engaged in the Lesson
Talking
Roaming around the room
Not following directions
Hesitant/Anxiety to work with technology
Frustrated by the lesson
Number of Times Exhibited
Classroom Technology 59
Appendix D
Reflective Journal Prompts
1. What were three main things I learned from this lesson?
2. What have I changed my mind about, as a result of this session?
3. One thing I learned in this session that I may be able to use in the future is…
4. In am still unsure about…
5. What I liked most about this session? What I most disliked about this session?
Focus Group Questions:
1. Opening Question
a. Tell us who you are, how long you have been teaching, and what you like
to do when you are not teaching?
2. Introduction
a. How do you, as a teacher, feel about using technology in your classroom?
What are your likes and dislikes?
3. Key Questions
a. Have you been properly trained to use the technology that you have? Do
you feel that it was enough to use it effectively in your classroom?
b. How has it changed the way that you teach and how you plan your
lessons?
c. Do you find that with teaching lower students technology helps their
learning process?
Classroom Technology 60
d. The average participation of the higher group with no technology was
52% and the average of the lower group with technology was 84%. Do
you find this is in your classrooms?
4. Ending Questions
a. Do you ever feel that technology is a hindrance rather than a help in the
classroom?
b. If you had the ability to change one thing about the technology in your
classroom what would you change?
5. Summary
6. Final Question
a. Is there anything that we have not talked about that you would like for me
to know about your technology or your feelings about the technology?
Classroom Technology 61