Running Head: TECHNOLOGY ACCESS IN THE COMMON CORE … · Running Head: TECHNOLOGY ACCESS IN THE...

Running Head: TECHNOLOGY ACCESS IN THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS

AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE 1

Technology Access in the Common Core State Standards and Student

Performance Aimee M. Sanders-Plette

California State University San Marcos



Thesis Abstract

Access to technology in the classroom is expanding rapidly across the United States.

Most recently, school districts have received extra funding as part of the monies being pushed

out to schools to support the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). This study was conducted

to show if there was a correlation between student access to technology and performance on the

district-wide English Language Arts (ELA) benchmark test. Technology access and ELA

benchmark scores of seventh and eighth grade students were compared at two schools in the

Grove Union Elementary School District. One school had more computers in the classroom,

more access to the computer lab, and mobile iPad carts which are shared in the grade level. This

site also had a technology focus with the support of a site instructional coach who is very

passionate and knowledgeable about instructional technology. The other school had limited

classroom computer, less access to computer labs, and no mobile iPad carts. The initial findings

suggested access to technology does affect student performance based on the performance of

students enrolled in courses, which offer more access to technology, compared to those who do

not. Further study will be needed, however the results suggested that a relationship between

student achievement and increased access to technology exists. Additionally the researcher

suggests as more and more districts secure funding to implement greater access to technology in

the schools, teachers must be supported in building shared knowledge to embrace the power

technology has to positively change the education of students’ lives



Table of Contents

Chapter One .................................................................................................................................. 5

Introduction

Purpose of Study

Preview Literature

Preview Methodology

Conclusion

Definitions

Chapter Two ................................................................................................................................ 10

Common Core and the 4Cs

The One-to-One Laptop Environment

Effects of Student Learning

Factors Influencing Successful Implementation

Support for Teachers

Conclusion

Chapter Three ............................................................................................................................. 19

Design

Participants and Setting

Procedures and Instruments

Chapter Four ............................................................................................................................... 22

Introduction

Data Presentation: Demographic Data

Data Presentation: Grade 7 Benchmark One Data

Data Presentation: Grade 8 Benchmark One Data

Data Presentation: Comparison Data

Tests of Significance

Summary

Chapter Five ................................................................................................................................ 40

Summary of Findings

Findings in the Context of Existing Literature

Implications for further research

Recommendations for further study

Conclusion

References .................................................................................................................................... 48



Figures

Figure 1 .........................................................................................................................................23

Figure 2 .........................................................................................................................................24

Figure 3 .........................................................................................................................................25

Figure 4 .........................................................................................................................................26

Figure 5 .........................................................................................................................................27

Figure 6 .........................................................................................................................................28

Figure 7 .........................................................................................................................................29

Figure 8 .........................................................................................................................................30

Figure 9 .........................................................................................................................................31

Figure 10 .......................................................................................................................................32

Figure 11 .......................................................................................................................................33

Figure 12 .......................................................................................................................................34

Figure 13 .......................................................................................................................................35

Figure 14 .......................................................................................................................................36

Figure 15 .......................................................................................................................................37



Chapter One

Introduction

Access to technology in the classroom is expanding rapidly across the United States.

Most recently, school districts have received extra funding as part of the monies being pushed

out to schools to support the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Districts have been given

freedom to choose how to spend the funds. Some have chosen to purchase more computers for

classrooms and build computer labs. Others have used the funds to purchase mobile carts for

classroom and grade level use. Districts have also used funding to strengthen the infrastructure

of the schools and allow students and staff to have access to high speed Internet.

Regardless of the type of program the school utilizes, there are ranges of student goals

when given access to technology on a regular basis. Improving student learning and academic

achievement are paramount. However, access to technology also facilitates a differentiated,

problem-based learning which demands higher-order thinking skills. Students are also

encouraged to work collaboratively and learn to develop computer-based literacy skills. This is

especially important for students that may not have immediate access to computers or technology

outside of the school setting. Technology access also prepares students to better compete in

technology-rich work places, which in turn prepares them to compete in the global marketplace.

Access to technology on a regular basis empowers students to take control of their own learning

and allows them to show their knowledge in creative ways.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to show if there is a correlation between student access to

technology and performance on the district-wide English Language Arts (ELA) benchmark test.



I will be analyzing the technology access and ELA benchmark scores of seventh and eighth

grade students at two schools. One school has more computers in the classroom, more access to

the computer lab, and mobile iPad carts which are shared in the grade level. This site also has a

technology focus with the support of a site instructional coach who is very passionate and

knowledgeable about instructional technology. The other school has limited classroom

computer, less access to computer labs, and no mobile iPad carts.

My research will focus on answering the following questions:

1. What is the effect of increased access to technology on school achievement among 7/8

grade students?

a. Does increased access to technology affect demographic groups differently?

b. Does increased access to technology close the achievement gap?

Preview Literature

The key areas of literature for research in this study are: CCSS and the 4Cs (creativity,

communication, collaboration, and critical thinking) and the power of collaboration on student

learning; the one to one laptop environment and the increased opportunities for cooperative

learning; the effects of technology on student learning; the classroom uses of laptops; and

support for teachers using technology in their classrooms. These areas will support my research

question by showing a correlation between student access to technology and improved student

achievement.

The CCSS and the 4 Cs are the cornerstones of the new standards. Technology plays an

integral role in allowing students to demonstrate their knowledge in an integrated way.

Olmstead and Rowell (2014) state students are expected to be able to use technology, including

the Internet, to produce and publish writing and interact and collaborate with others. In a



technology-rich environment teachers are mostly engaged in demonstration, directing activities

and talking to and listening to students. Students are often working on projects, working

collaboratively in small groups, and communicating with other students. The study by Gulek &

Demirtas (2005) indicates that student learning and the ability to transfer knowledge across

subject areas can be enhanced by laptops as a result of project-based work which is collaborative

and includes problem-solving and critical thinking. As a consequence of the appropriate use of

laptops for learning, Swan, Kratcoski, Mazzer & Schenker (2005), report that teachers believe a

learning environment where students use laptops facilitates more authentic, collaborative, and

project-based learning where students are more engaged and motivated to learn, producing

higher-quality work.

Preview Methodology

I will collect quantitative data on access to computer labs and mobile carts in classrooms

as indicated on school site shared schedules, as well as student enrollment in classes which use

technology as a part of the curriculum. I will also I will collect quantitative data from the

District's ELA Benchmark One assessment. I will then sort the data by demographic groups,

grade level, and site. I will analyze results from the site schedules and student performance on

Benchmark One to determine if a connection exists.

Technology is an ever-growing important part of today’s education system. My study is

significant as it can potentially show a correlation between access to technology in the

instructional setting and student performance. This is significant because access to technology

can differ from classroom to classroom at the same site depending on the teachers’ comfort with

using technology as a part of their instructional practice. Technology access can also differ from



school site to school site based on how each site uses its funding to purchase hardware and/or

software.

Conclusion

Technology in schools has emerged as important instructional tools in districts. There is

no doubt that technology in schools is here to stay. With districts spending thousands of dollars

on new technology each year, it is important to understand the effects technology has on student

achievement. This study will look to further examine the connection between access to

technology and student achievement. A review of the literature related to CCSS and the 4 Cs, the

one-to-one laptop environment, the effects of technology on student leanings, classroom uses of

laptops, and support for teachers will be discussed in Chapter 2.

Definitions

1. 4 Cs of the Common Core State Standards: the 4 Cs of the CCSS are creativity,

communication, collaboration, and critical thinking.

2. Benchmark Test: are typically periodic or quarterly assessments used to determine where

students are in their learning progress or whether they are on track to meeting expected

learning standards

3. Classroom Computers: a small bank of computers in each classroom for student use

4. Common Core State Standards (CCSS): are a set of high quality academic expectations in

English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics that define the knowledge and skills all

students should master by the end of each grade level in order to be on track for success

in college and career.

5. Computer Labs: classrooms with computer workstations



6. Mobile Classroom Carts: mobile computer stations (typically carts filled with laptop

computers that can be wheeled around a school and shared by teachers and students)

7. One-to-One: The term one-to-one is applied to programs that provide all students in a

school, district, or state with their own laptop, netbook, tablet computer, or other mobile-

computing device. One-to-one refers to one computer for every student.



Chapter 2

This literature review will address areas related to the Common Core State Standards

(CCSS) and student collaboration in a one-to-one laptop environment. The first section will

address an overview of the CCSS. The second section focuses on the one-to-one laptop

environment. Next, will be a discussion of the effects on student learning. The fourth section

looks at factors influencing a successful implementation, and the final section discusses support

needed for teachers to integrate technology and student collaboration into their classrooms.

Common Core and the 4 Cs

State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlaksen stated, “Common Core is a

state-led effort adopted by 45 states, so that all children—no matter where they come from or

where they live—will receive a world-class education that is consistent from school to school

and state to state”( 2013, para. 6).

With the implementation of the CCSS across the country, teachers have been given an

opportunity to give students standards-aligned lessons which promote collaboration, creativity,

communication, and critical thinking in classrooms. Learners must effectively communicate

with each other cross-curricularly. According to Olmstead and Rowell (2014), The College and

Career Readiness Standards that anchor the English Language Arts Common Core standards

provide cross-disciplinary literacy expectations that must be met for students to be prepared to

enter college and workforce training programs with the tools to be successful. Students are

expected to be able to use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and

to interact and collaborate with others. Additionally, they need to prepare for and participate

effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on



others’ ideas, and expressing their own clearly and persuasively. An educator’s role is to find a

balance, deciding when to encourage collaboration and when to promote independence to

prepare students to be college and career ready (Olmstead & Rowell, 2014, para. 2).

Student independence regarding group membership has a strong correlation to student

motivation and collaborative learning as an instructional tool (Ciani, Summers, Easter, &

Sheldon, 2008). Teachers must consider the power of student choice and motivation when using

collaborative learning in the classroom setting. When students are given access to technology on

a regular basis, collaborative learning can take place more seamlessly.

“Collaborative learning is an active, student-centered approach that requires students to

engage with their peers in investigation, creative design, problem-solving, decision-making, as

well as applying, analyzing, and synthesizing content” (Project RED, p. 101). Collaborative

learning is not only achieved by using technology. However, the tools such as social media, web

2.0 and 3.0 applications, allow teachers to provide engaging platforms for students. Here, they

can become co-creators of content through communication and creativity.

According to a study on the Michigan Freedom to Learn 1:1 Program, teacher and

student surveys showed a high rate of engagement based on their consistent access to technology

(Franceschini, Allen, Lowther, Strahl, 2007). In a one to one program, students can access

information immediately and have control of their learning. This helps students feel in control

and make connections across content areas. This may translate to increased student achievement

since they will be able to apply and demonstrate their learning in a variety of ways through the

use of technology.



The One-to-One Laptop Environment

The one-to-one laptop environment is a powerful tool to allow for student collaboration.

A one-to-one learning environment tends to be more project-based and driven by students’

independent inquiry and research (New South Wales Department of Education and Training,

2009). Barrios (2004) states “Today’s students expect their school assignments to be relevant,

challenging, and related to the real-world. They value problem solving, communication and the

chance to collaborate as adults do in the real world” (Barrios, 2004, p. 6). In a technology rich

environment, teachers are mostly engaged in demonstration, directing activities and talking to

and listening to students. Students are working in small collaborative groups and work on real

world application of their knowledge. The teacher is seen more as a coach or facilitator of the

learning. Teachers must create instructional environments in which students use higher-order

cognitive skills to construct meaning or knowledge, engage in disciplined enquiry, and work on

products that have value beyond school (Barrios, 2004).

Research findings by Owen, Farsail, Knezek & Christensen (2005) note that as students

don’t have to wait for teachers to convey information—much of it is available on the internet—it

forces a focus on the changing role of the teacher. If educators think differently about learning

environments, there are opportunities for differentiated instruction and engaging learning. One-

to-one laptops can provide students with access to a vast array of information enabling them to

work quickly and collaboratively. Students can build on knowledge and understandings within a

class, between classes, and beyond.

As a consequence of the appropriate use of laptops for learning, Swan, Kratcoski, Mazzer

& Schenker, (2005) report that teachers believe a learning environment where students use

laptops facilitates more authentic, collaborative and project-based learning, where students are



more engaged and motivated to learn, producing higher-quality work. The one-to-one

environment gives students more opportunities for cooperative learning and collaboration. As

students can easily and quickly access a variety of technologies, it encourages them to reflect on

their ideas to deepen their understandings of concepts and ideas. Exploration and

experimentations allow students to collaboratively communicate their ideas in multimodal ways.

Students can work together collaboratively to show their knowledge to peers and teachers using

the laptop as a vehicle for display.

Effects on Student Learning

As discussed earlier, when students are able to work collaboratively with increased

access to technology and teacher expertise, technology can be a tool that adds another dimension

to student learning. When students are pursuing their own learning experiences, teachers are

able to work directly with individuals and small groups. According to the Project RED study

(2010), “Project RED shows that the lower the student-computer ratio, the greater the

individualization of instruction and the more students take responsibility for their learning.

Eighty-eight percent of respondents say that teachers in 1:1 classrooms spend more time on

individual and small-group instruction. Seventy-five percent of respondents from the 997 schools

surveyed say that students in 1:1 environments take control of their own learning” (p. 98).

Additionally, students are more willing to share ideas and work to help each other. Reilly

(2011) conducted new research called Participatory Learning and You (PLAY!) where a focus is

placed on heightened motivation, real world situations, and considerations to guide authentic

learning. Students’ creativity is also nurtured with media, tools, and practices. More

importantly, is the sharing of knowledge between teachers and students. Using computers,



teachers and students can easily communicate and collaborate with one another in real-time,

using the tools that are a part of students’ everyday life.

In a one-to-one environment, students are more self-directed and problem-solving skills

across content areas are promoted. This can be accomplished through real-world application of

knowledge. Tagliaferro (2012) states, “What becomes important is to weave skills students are

being asked to understand with real world texts and situations” (p. 50). Students can make

connections between what they are learning and the world beyond the classroom. Motivated

students have control over their learning and the ability to share their learning with others.

Students can leverage technology and be given opportunities to move from the role of passive

content consumers to content creators with authentic audiences (Olmstead & Rowell, 2014, para.

6). The use of technology in the classroom allows students to reach audiences outside of the

classroom. Access to a broader audience allows students to feel as though their work has more

influence.

Project RED’s 2010 survey and study analyzed United States 997 schools, representative

of 49 states and the District of Columbia; 11 diverse education measures; 22 categories of

independent variables; comparison of findings by student-computer rations; and comprehensive

demographic data correlated to survey results. Based on this survey data, Project RED tested

three hypotheses, two being “Properly implemented education technology can substantially

improve student achievement” and “Continuous access to a computing device for every student

leads to increased academic achievement” (p. 2). ISTE’s 2008 Policy Brief states in the

executive summary, “Education Technology has a positive effect on student achievement. ISTE

members have monitored research on the effectiveness of technology in education on student



outcomes for more than 20 years, and one convincing trend has emerged: when implemented

appropriately, the integration of technology into instruction has positive effects on student

achievement” (p. 3).

Factors Influencing Successful Implementation

Teacher attitudes and beliefs can be a major obstacle to changing the learning

environment in a one-to-one laptop classroom. Penuel (2006) described the influence teachers’

attitudes can have on the use of technology in the classroom. Teachers need to be aware of and

convinced that laptops can enhance teaching and learning. They also need to believe that

technology can transform teaching and learning into a current, relevant, and highly engaging

experience for students. Penuel (2006) found the factors related to a successful implementation

include extensive teacher professional development, access to technical support, and positive

teacher attitudes toward student technology use. Ongoing professional development and support

are very important factors essential in changing a teacher’s attitude and practice in a one-to-one

environment.

Frequency of technology use in the classroom plays a very powerful role in increasing

student and teacher expertise and efficiency in using education technology tools. New research

from Walden University, Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership (2010)

indicates that as teachers use technology more frequently, they become more aware of its

potential to boost student learning, engagement, and 21st century skills. When technology is

integrated into the daily core curriculum, students and teachers have the opportunity to practice

and improve their skills on an ongoing basis.



Support for Teachers

Integration of digital technologies into teaching programs can expand the repertoire of

learning activities for students. In the classroom, teachers guide and become partners in learning;

students are the architects of their learning with their laptop as the toolbox. However, laptops

should never become the focus of the class. Sometimes laptops are not the best teaching and

learning tool. Teachers should confidently use the most appropriate medium for the classroom

activity.

Many reports indicate that teachers progress through stages in integrating technology.

Penuel (2006) found that teachers commonly start by adapting traditional teaching strategies

rather than embracing collaborative, project-based learning environments. With support, teachers

are encouraged to explore different ways to cover curriculum and extend students’ thinking using

technology. In time, teachers imagine other ways to use technology as a teaching tool, creating

new learning environments in their classrooms. According to Lei’s 2010 study, the most

important aspect of supporting teachers to change their practices is to allow for the time to

progress through integrating technology. Lei (2010) surveyed and interviewed seventh and

eighth grade students and teachers at a small northwestern middle school at the end of every

academic year for four years, beginning the year that the school launched its one-to-one program.

Overall, teachers expressed positive views on the 1:1 program. At the beginning of the program,

they felt time was a serious constraint, because it took them a while to learn how to use the new

technology and create lesson plans that incorporated it. However, this concern lessened over

time.

Swan, Kratcoski, Mazzer and Schenker (2005) describe professional learning about

educational technology and its integration into teaching and learning as focusing on learning in



context situated in authentic classroom practice. This approach involves teachers working with

experts to become familiar with available technology and develop lessons integrating

technologies appropriate to the learning outcomes. Ongoing peer support helps lesson planning

and encourages teacher reflection. This can be facilitated through planning time within and

across grade levels, as well as department meetings.

Teachers can become more confident in integrating technology into lessons from hearing

and seeing effective strategies in operation. Professional development that is tied to curriculum

is most successful. It needs to be varied and continue throughout the year. Teachers need to be

given time to collaborate with their colleagues to plan lessons and support each other in using

laptops to facilitate learning in the classroom. The best way to insure collaboration using the

laptop as a tool is to give teachers time to plan meaningful technology-based lessons (Stansbury,

2010).

Conclusion

This review examined literature focusing on learning with one to one classroom

technology. The studies reveal many opportunities to support and foster student collaboration as

it aligns with the Common Core State Standards. This applies to my study since I will be

comparing a school with significantly more student access to technology to another school with

limited student access. While the former is not a true one-to-one model, the level of support and

the expectation for teachers to use technology with their students on a regular basis has started to

change the teaching practice for that particular site.

In a one-to-one laptop classroom, students have immediate access to technology. There

are opportunities to promote collaborative activities, independent inquiry, and research. Students



are able to apply their new knowledge across content areas and real-world applications.

Students’ motivation and interest can be self-directed in their learning.

Teachers need to be given time and training to implement the 4 Cs of the CCSS,

technology, and designing lessons which promote student collaboration on a more regular basis.

This time will allow teachers to move from being the possessor of the knowledge, to a

coach/facilitator role. If given this support, teachers can create learning spaces that foster

collaboration and a presentation of knowledge in a variety of ways. This work can be done

through professional development and through time and effort. Access to colleagues to share best

practices is also key. This can take the form of peer coaches or a colleague who is having

success in trying something new in the classroom. Depending on the teachers’ attitudes toward

change, this development can happen swiftly or slowly. The role of technology in the CCSS is a

powerful one and can provide myriad collaborative opportunities for students.

Chapter 3 will discuss the methodology for this study including methods, participants,

setting, and procedure for the study.



Chapter Three My research seeks to understand the relationship between access to instructional

technology and student academic success on district English Language Arts (ELA) benchmark 1.

Benchmarks are CCSS standards-aligned tests which all students in grades 2-8 take three times

per year to judge their progress towards mastering the standards. They are used to help teachers

gauge student learning and adjust their instruction to meet the needs of the students. The

question is important because my district has one school site with an abundance of technology

and one school site with a scarcity. My study will attempt to answer this question by analyzing

whether or not students who have access to instructional technology and its appropriate project-

based curriculum score higher on the academic standardized district benchmark tests than

students who did not have the same access to technology and curriculum.

This study looked to answer the following questions:


grade students?



Design

This study used causal-comparative research. As defined by Mertle and Charles (2011),

“Causal-comparative research is used to explore the possibility of cause and effect. Causal-

comparative research does not convincingly demonstrate cause and effect but can strongly

suggest it (p. 273).” The purpose of my study was to determine if access to instructional

technology correlated to improved student academic success on the district English Language

Arts (ELA) Benchmark 1.



This study was quantitative. Student performance on the District Benchmark test was

used for data collection. According to Mertle and Charles (2011), “Instruments frequently used

in data collection include standardized tests (p. 259)”. Research also included collection and

analysis of computer lab schedules. A collection of data on student enrollment in technology-

oriented classes was also conducted.

Participants and Setting

The participants in this study included 654 seventh and eighth grade students at Avocado

Junior High School (AJHS) in a small California rural town and all 74 seventh and eighth grade

students at San Mateo School (SMS) in a coastal town in California. Both schools are a part of

the Groves Union Elementary School District (GUESD). AJHS is a comprehensive junior high

school located in Groves, which serves seventh and eight grade students only. Five K-6

elementary schools feed into AJHS. SMS is a K-8 school on board a military base. Students

which reside in base housing on the north end of the base attend SMS. The two sixth grade

classes at SMS feed into the seventh and eighth grade classes. This accounts for the smaller

numbers. There are only two seventh grade classes and two eights grade classes. There is one

single subject credentialed teacher per department.

Procedure and Instruments

Because I was looking to find a potential cause/effect relationship between access to

technology and student performance on the ELA Benchmark test, I chose to use standardized test

results, access to technology by looking at computer lab and iPad cart schedules, and evidence of

student enrollment in classes using technology. This method allowed me to reach a large

population of participants, which included about 728 seventh and eighth grade students. The

procedures for collecting data are outlined below:



1. I asked permission from the sites to conduct the study.

2. I collected quantitative data on access to computer labs and mobile carts in classrooms as

indicated on school site shared schedules.

3. I collected quantitative data on student enrollment in technology-oriented classes.

4. I collected anonymous quantitative student data from the District's Benchmark One

assessment.

5. I analyzed results from the site schedules and student performance on Benchmark One to

determine if a cause-effect relationship exists.

6. After results were analyzed separately using a tests of significance, I compared the data

from the two sites to determine if a cause/effect relationship existed. The results of this

comparison were displayed through graphs and written response.

7. Based on results, and conclusions drawn from research, a discussion of suggestions for

further research was provided.



Chapter 4

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine student performance on the district ELA

benchmark assessment at two junior high school programs to identify the potential effect access

to technology has on student achievement.

According to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) “The research

findings presented demonstrate that technology is being effectively integrated into teaching and

learning is having a positive impact on increasing student achievement though test scores” (p. 5).

In an effort to better understand the achievement gap between two schools in the same district a

study was conducted. In this the researcher looked to answer the following questions:


grade students?



Seven hundred twenty eight seventh and eighth grade student were administered the ELA

benchmark assessment during November 2014. The test was standards-based and assessed

students on the standards instructed upon based on the curriculum-pacing guide used by all

seventh and eighth grade teachers. Instruction on these standards occurred from August 11,

2014-November 7, 2014. This twelve-week period of time coincides with the first trimester of

the school year.

Of the participants (n=728), 89.8% (n=654) attend AJHS and 10.2% (n=74) attend SMS.

The test was administered in a paper and pencil format. Students were asked a combination of



selected response questions and constructed response questions. Questions were categorized into

the following categories: Reading: Literature, Reading: Informational Text; Writing; Language;

Selected Response; and Constructed Response. Student scores were identified as follows based

on the percent of correct answers: Intensive (0%-54%); Strategic (55%-69%); Benchmark (70%-

85%); and Challenge (86%-100%). The district sets these cut points. Student whose results are

Benchmark or Challenge are considered proficient or above on the assessment.

Results of the benchmark assessment, including an explanation of data, visual

representations, research analysis, and researcher interpretations will be discussed in Chapter 4.

Data Presentation: Demographic Data Figure 1

SMS Demographics

White

Hispanic

Black/African American

Asian

Multiple Ethnicities

Other

According to the district’s student registration system, of the 74 SMS students which took

the ELA benchmark test in November 2014, 65.4% were registered as white, 22.6% Hispanic,

7.1% Black/African American, 1.1% Asian, 3.5% multiple races, and 1% other. Parents and/or



guardians indicate ethnicity as a part of the district registration process. Based on the data, the

largest ethnic group at SMS is white, followed by Hispanic.

Figure 2

AJHS Demographics

White

Hispanic

Black African American

Asian

Multiple

Other

According to the district’s student registration system, of the 654 AJHS students which

took the ELA benchmark test, 24.6% self-identified as white, 70.9% Hispanic, 1.2%

Black/African American, 1.5% Asian, 3.1%, 1% multiple races, and 0.7% other. Parents and/or

guardians indicate ethnicity as a part of the district registration process. Based on the data, the

largest ethnic group at AJHS is Hispanic, followed by white.



Data Presentation: Grade 7 Benchmark 1 Data

Figure 3: SMS District Benchmark Report (Online Assessment Reporting System, 2015)

30 seventh grade students took the ELA benchmark in November 2014 at SMS. 60% of

seventh grade students were Benchmark or Challenge. 40% of students were Strategic or

Intensive. Currently, SMS students receive one 56-minute period daily of ELA instruction. This

equates to an average of 280 minutes per week of ELA instruction. The average seventh grade

ELA class size at SMS is 16 students. There are two seventh grade ELA classes, which are

heterogeneously mixed.



Figure 4: AJHS District Benchmark Report (Online Assessment Reporting System, 2015)

314 seventh grade students took the ELA benchmark in November 2014 at AJHS. 22%

of seventh grade students were Benchmark or Challenge. 78% of students scored Strategic or

Intensive. Currently, AJHS students receive two periods of ELA instruction daily. This double-

block is 88 minutes long. This equates to an average of 440 minutes per week of ELA

instruction. Students at AJHS receive 1.57 times more ELA weekly instruction than their

counterparts at SMS. The average seventh grade class size at AJHS 28 students; 1.75 times

larger than the average class size of SMS. There are 8 seventh grade ELA classes at AJHS.

Additionally, there are 3 seventh grade honors classes, 2 Accelerated English classes, 1 English

Language Development (ELD) Class, and 3 Developmental Reading classes.

Data Presentation: Grade 8 Benchmark 1 Data



Figure: 5 SMS District Benchmark Report (Online Assessment Reporting System, 2015)

44 eighth grade students took the ELA benchmark in November 2014 at SMS. 75% of

the eighth grade students were Benchmark or Challenge. 25% of students scored Strategic or

Intensive. Similarly to the seventh grade students, eighth grade students receive one 56-minute

period daily of ELA instruction. This equates to an average of 280 minutes per week of ELA

instruction. The average eighth grade class size at SMS is 22.5 students.



Figure 6: District Benchmark Report (Online Assessment Reporting System, 2015)

340 eighth grade students took the ELA benchmark in November 2014 at AJHS. 21% of

eighth grade students were Benchmark or Challenge. 79% of students scored Strategic or

Intensive. Similarly to the seventh grade students, eighth students receive two periods of ELA

instruction daily. This double-block is 88 minutes long. This equates to an average of 440

minutes per week of ELA instruction. Students at AJHS receive 1.57 times more ELA weekly

instruction than their counterparts at SMS. The average eighth grade class size at AJHS 29.3

students; 1.3 times larger than the average class size of SMS. There are 8 8th grade ELA classes

at AJHS. Additionally, there are 3 seventh grade honors classes, 3 accelerated English classes, 1

English Language Development Class, and 3 Developmental Reading classes.



Data Presentation: Comparison Benchmark 1 Data Figure 7: SMS/AJHS B1 Comparison Grade 7 Percentage of Students At or Above Proficiency

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Reading:Literature

Reading: Informational Text

Writing

Language

Selected Response Total

SMS

AJHS

When comparing SMS and AJHS seventh grade benchmark data a gap exists. SMS

students outperformed AJHS in all categories. 60% of SMS students scored in the proficient

range compared to 22% of AJHS students in the Selected Response Total category. When

factoring in the 1.57 times more ELA instruction time AJHS students receive on a weekly basis,

leads the researcher to look for a quantifiable reason for the achievement gap. Class size

differences in seventh grade may also be a contributing factor to the gap.



Figure 8: SMS/AJHS B1 Comparison Grade 8 Percentage of Students At or Above Proficiency

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Reading: Literature

Reading: Informational Text

Writing

Language


Overall Total

SMS

AJHS

When comparing SMS and AJHS eighth grade benchmark data a gap exists. SMS

students outperformed AJHS in all categories. 75% of SMS students scored in the proficient

range compared to 21% of AJHS students in the Overall Total category. When factoring in the

1.57 times more ELA instruction time AJHS students receive on a weekly basis, leads the

researcher to look for a quantifiable reason for the achievement gap. Class size differences may

still be a contributing factor here, as well.



Figure 9: Seventh Grade White Students At or Above Proficiency

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reading: Literature

Reading: Informational

Writing

Language


SMS

AJHS

Seventh grade white students at SMS (n=27) outperformed white students at AJHS

(n=280) in all categories. In the Selected Response category 56% of SMS students were

considered proficient compared to 22% of AJHS students. Another noticeable area was in the

category of Reading: Literature. 81% of SMS students were proficient, while AJHS students

were 54% proficient.



Figure 10: Seventh Grade Hispanic Students At or Above Proficiency

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reading: Literature


Writing

Language


SMS

AJHS

Seventh grade Hispanic students at SMS (n=5) outperformed Hispanic students at AJHS



category of Reading: Literature. 80% of SMS students were proficient while AJHS students

were 46% proficient. It is important to note the students that indicated being of Hispanic decent

for SMS are identified as English Only students. Of the 212 seventh grade students, only 46

students are identified at English Only students.



Figure 11: Eighth Grade White Students At or Above Proficiency

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reading: Literature


Writing

Language


Constructed Response Total

Overall Total

SMS

AJHS

Eighth grade white students at SMS (n=27) outperformed white students at AJHS



category of Reading: Literature. 81% of SMS students were proficient while AJHS students

were 54% proficient.



Figure 12: Eighth Grade Hispanic Students At or Above Proficiency

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Reading: Literature


Writing

Language


Constructed Response Total

Overall Total

SMS

AJHS

Eighth grade Hispanic students at SMS (n=11) outperformed Hispanic students at AJHS

(n=239) in all categories. In the Overall Total category 100% of SMS students were considered

proficient compared to 16% of AJHS students. Another noticeable area was in the category of

Reading: Literature. 91% of SMS students were proficient while AJHS students were 15%

proficient. It is important to note the students that indicated being of Hispanic decent for SMS

are identified as English Only students; except for one, which is identified as Reclassified Fluent

English Proficient (RFEP). Of the 240 seventh grade students, only 40 students are identified at

English Only students.



Figure 13: Percentage of 7/8 Students in Technology Elective Wheel Per Site

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Robotics Broadcasting Coding/Digital Citizenship

SMS

AJHS

Access to technology differs at both sites. In an effort to bring more technology to AJHS,

the elective wheel was changed for the 2014-2015 school year to offer Robotics, Broadcasting,

and Coding/Digital Citizenship. The courses are 12 week long and serve seventh and eighth

grade students. By the conclusion of the school year, students in the elective wheel will have all

three classes. However, the percentage of students reached is very small considering the student

population. 2.7% of AJHS students are enrolled in the Robotics course, 3% are enrolled in

Broadcasting, and 3.3% are enrolled in Coding/Digital Citizenship.

SMS offers elective course in technology as well; Robotics and Broadcasting. However,

because the population is smaller a larger percentage of students are enrolled. 28.3% of seventh

and eighth grade students are enrolled in the Robotics course and 27% are enrolled in the

Broadcasting course. Currently, Coding/Digital Citizenship is not offered at SMS.



Figure 14: SMS Technology Breakdown

SMS students have access to iPads, the computer lab, and in-class computers as a part of

their weekly schedules. On average, students at SMS are in class 1,890 minutes per week; and

43%, on average 825 minutes, of that time utilizes some form of technology. Of that time,

19.8% is spent using iPads, 11.9% is spent in the computer lab, and 11.9% is spent using the in-

class student computer bank. Depending on their class assignments, students are spending an

average of 1.5-2.5 hours per day using technology to support their learning. iPads are used to

support learning in their Science class. One classroom cart is assigned to that department and

students use them daily. The other core classes such as ELA, Math, and Social Studies, share

another cart of iPads, a computer lab with 35 computers, and each classroom has 5-7 student

computers.

AJHS does not have access to iPads. Additionally, not every classroom has a bank of

student computers. The school decided to create an additional computer lab and took the

SMS Technology Breakdown ~825 minutes per week

iPads

Computer Lab

In-Class Computers



computers from the classrooms to supply it. Consequently, students only have daily access to

technology if their teacher signs up for the computer lab, or they are enrolled in the STEM

elective wheel. A careful look at the AJHS computer lab schedule shows that they lab is being

used sporadically. On average, other content area teachers, Science, Social Studies, ELA, or

Math, uses the computer lab only one 44 minute period per day.

Figure 15: Comparison of Weekly Time on Technology

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-200 mins 201-400 mins 401-600 mins 600-800 mins 801 mins ormore

SMS

AJHS

When comparing the time students at SMS have using technology to the time students at

AJHS, the data shows all students at both sites have access to 0-200 minutes of technology per

week. Students at SMS are guaranteed a minimum of 800 minutes weekly due to the way

technology is integrated into their courses. At AJHS, students are not guaranteed even 200

minutes of time. It is dependent upon teacher discretion. 50% of SMS students are guaranteed

801 or more minutes of time weekly using technology due to their enrollment in Robotics or TV

Broadcasting electives.



When looking at the ELA Benchmark 1 data for AJHS, 42 of the 99 seventh grade

students, which scored proficient, were enrolled in the STEM elective wheel. Of the 42 students,

23 were Hispanic and 17 were white. Additionally, 18 of the 99 eighth grade students, which

scored proficient, were enrolled in the STEM elective wheel. Of the 18 students, 8 were

Hispanic and 9 were white. This shows a connection between increased access to technology on

a regular basis and increased student achievement.

Tests of Significance

Tests were conducted to test for significance under conditions of ethnicity and grade

level. The two largest demographic groups at AJHS and SMS, white and Hispanic, were

compared in seventh and eighth grade. The results are discussed below.

A paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare benchmark one test scores of seventh

grade Hispanic students at AJHS and seventh grade Hispanic students at SMS. There was a

significant difference in the scores for Hispanic students from AJHS (M= 14.5; SD = 4.33) and

Hispanic students from SMS (M= 19.2, SD = 2.58); t (217) = -2.70, p= 0.0074. These results

suggest that access to technology has an effect on student achievement. Specifically, our results

suggest that when students have more time using technology their test scores on the benchmark

assessment increase.

Additionally, a paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare benchmark one test scores

of eighth grade Hispanic students at AJHS and eighth grade Hispanic students at SMS. There

was a significant difference in the scores for Hispanic students from AJHS (M=15.8; SD = 4.86)

and Hispanic students from SMS (M= 24.1, SD = 1.70); t (248) = -5.64, p= 0.0001. These results

were similar to their seventh grade counterparts and suggest that access to technology has an



effect on student achievement. Specifically, our results suggest that when students have more

time using technology their test scores on the benchmark assessment increase.

Next, a paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare benchmark one test scores in

seventh grade white students at AJHS and seventh grade white students at SMS. There was a

significant difference in the scores for white students from AJHS (M=16.2; SD = 4.24) and white

students from SMS (M= 18.9, SD = 3.88); t (110) = -2.69, p= 0.0083. Again, these results

suggest that access to technology has an effect on student achievement. Specifically, our results

suggest that when students have more time using technology their test scores on the benchmark

assessment increase.

Lastly, a paired-sample t-test was conducted to compare benchmark one test scores in

eighth grade white students at AJHS and eighth grade white students at SMS. There was a

significant difference in the scores for white students from AJHS (M=18.4; SD = 5.13) and white

students from SMS (M= 21.0, SD = 3.81); t (106) = -2.40, p= 0.018. As in the other tests, these

results suggest that access to technology has an effect on student achievement. Specifically, our

results suggest that when students have more time using technology their test scores on the

benchmark assessment increase.

Summary

The data presented in this chapter was intended to answer the research questions which

each focused on how increased access to technology positively affects student achievement. The

initial findings suggest access to technology does affect student performance based on the

performance of students enrolled in courses, which offer more access to technology, compared to

those who do not. Interpretations of the data will be discussed in more detail in chapter 5.



Chapter 5

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to identify if there was cause/effect relationship between

student access to technology and student performance on the district benchmark assessment. The

quantitative study used test scores and time on technology during the school day to determine a

relationship. This chapter will summarize findings, and discuss suggestions for further research

in this area.

Summary of Findings

Data for this study was collected in an effort to answer the following research questions:

1. What is the effect of increased access to technology on school achievement among 7/8 grade

students?

a. Does increased access to technology effect demographic groups differently?


Research question number one focused on the effect of increased access to technology

and how that effects student achievement. Based on the data collection from Benchmark One

and access to technology between the two sites, it appears technology may have had an effect on

student achievement. As evident in Figures 3-6, seventh and eighth grade students at SMS

outperformed AJHS in all areas of Benchmark One. Figure 7 shows that 60% of seventh grade

SMS students scored in the proficient range compared to 22% of AJHS students in the Selected

Response Total category. When factoring in the 1.57 times more ELA instruction time AJHS

students receive on a weekly basis, as well as the access to more differentiated ELA course

choices in the form of Honors, ELD, Accelerated English, and Developmental Reading, and

students receive 1.57 times more ELA instruction per week due to the double-block schedule.



The average seventh grade class size at SMS is 1.75 times smaller than the average seventh

grade class size at AJHS.

The data in Figure 8 shows a similar trend regarding eighth performance gaps between

the two sites. SMS students outperformed AJHS in all categories. 75% of SMS students scored

in the proficient range compared to 21% of AJHS students in the Overall Total category. Eighth

grade students at AJHS have the same access to differentiated ELA courses as their seventh

grade counterparts. Additionally they receive more 1.57 times more ELA instructional minutes

per week due to the double-block schedule.

Based on having more instructional time via the double-block, AJHS students should be

able to cover more standards and spend more time learning them. This should equate to

performing better on the Benchmark since students have more time to interact with the material

and go deeper into their learning. The differentiated course offerings should also allow teachers

and students to focus in on their instructional needs. However, according to the data, this is not

the case. There is large achievement gap when the data is compared with the performance of

seventh and eighth grade students at SMS.

The data established that an achievement gap does exist between SMS and AJHS based

on the results of ELA Benchmark One. The second part to research question one was to

determine if access to technology had any effect on student achievement. According to Figure

15, 100% of SMS students have access to technology 600-800 minutes per week. This is a

combination of iPads, computer lab access, and student computers banks in the classroom as

described in Figure 14. All teachers use technology as a part of their daily coursework.

Additionally, the instructional coach assigned to SMS has a very strong background in



Educational Technology and supports teachers in creating lessons and student projects that

utilize technology.

Conversely, AJHS students 100% of students have access to 0-200 minutes per week of

technology. However, this time is not guaranteed due to the fact a review of the shared computer

lab schedule at AJHS shows an average of only one teacher per day reserving the lab for one 44

minute period. That equates to an average of 30 students a week having access to the lab in their

core courses. Students enrolled in the STEM elective wheel courses have guaranteed access to

technology. According to Figure 15, 24% of AJHS students have 201-400 minutes per week

access to technology in either their Robotics, TV Broadcasting, or Digital Citizenship/Coding

class.

The purpose of the two sub questions was to examine if access to technology affected

demographic groups differently. According to Figure 1 SMS’s largest demographic is white

students at 65.4%. While Figure 2 shows white students at AJHS, 24.6%, is the second largest

demographic group. Figure 9 and Figure 11 compared the performance of seventh and grade

white students at SMS and AJHS. White students at SMS outperformed white students at AJHS

in both grade levels and in all categories.

Figure 2 shows Hispanic students at AJHS, 70.6%, as the largest demographic group.

Figure 1 demonstrates SMS’s second largest demographic is Hispanic students at 22.6%. Figure

10 and Figure 12 compared the performance of seventh and grade Hispanic students at SMS and

AJHS. Hispanic students at SMS outperformed white students at AJHS in both grade levels and

in all categories. It is important to note the students that indicated being of Hispanic decent for

SMS are identified as English Only students; except for one, which is identified as Reclassified



Fluent English Proficient (RFEP). Of the 240 seventh grade students, only 40 students are

identified at English Only students.

When looking at the ELA Benchmark 1 data for AJHS, 42 of the 99 seventh grade

students, which scored proficient, were enrolled in the STEM elective wheel. Of the 42 students,

23 were Hispanic and 17 were white. Additionally, 18 of the 99 eighth grade students, which

scored proficient, were enrolled in the STEM elective wheel. Of the 18 students, 8 were

Hispanic and 9 were white. This shows a possible connection between increased access to

technology on a regular basis and increased student achievement.

The data makes a compelling case for access to technology as a contributor to the

disparities in the level of achievement between SMS and AJHS. While, the data shows evidence

of higher levels of student achievement based on access to technology, there is not enough

evidence to support a relationship between the two.

Findings in the Context of Existing Literature

Project RED’s findings regarding student achievement were similar to the research done

in this study as stated by Project RED that “core curriculum using technology at least weekly

will improve high-stakes test scores” (p. 14). The study also pointed out that daily use of

technology in intervention classes will increase student achievement, too. Students are able to

move at their own pace using technology, which frees up teachers to work with small-groups or

students on a one-to-one basis. “Project RED found that technology-transformed interventions in

ELL, Title I, special education, and reading intervention are the top-model predictor of improved

high-stakes test scores” (p. 16). This connects to the achievement gap of students at AJHS

enrolled in the Accelerated English, ELD, and Developmental Reading classes. If those students



had better access to technology, teachers would be freed up to differentiate instruction, and

according to Project RED, student scores would improve.

ISTE suggests that appropriate implementation is “Teachers’ direct application of

technology must be aligned to local and/or state curriculum standards. Technology must be

incorporated into the daily learning schedule (i.e., not as a supplement or after-school tutorial)”

(p. 3). It is interesting to make the connection to the daily access to technology that SMS

students have in their core classes and how they are aligned to the CCSS. This matches with

ISTE’s earlier statement regarding the relationship between student achievement and the

integration of technology in instruction. ISTE evaluated the effectiveness of Missouri’s eMINTS

program. The quasi-experimental study compared students with access to multi-media and

computer technology to those at the same grade level and school without access. “Students who

participated in eMINTS classrooms have consistently outperformed their peers in statewide math

assessments” (p. 5). This is similar to the data comparing the performance of SMS and AJHS

students on the ELA benchmark test. SMS has integrated technology into the daily lives of

students in their core classes.

Penuel (2006) discussed the importance of allowing teachers to progress through stages

of integrating technology into their lessons on a daily basis. On-going support is key. The daily

support received from the instructional coach at SMS has undoubtedly facilitated the progress of

the SMS teachers to embrace the use of technology as way to bolster student achievement. The

coach helps to design lessons, models lessons in the classroom, and finds resources, in the form

of apps and Web 2.0 programs for the teachers to use with their students. It is important to note

that AJHS also has an instructional coach assigned to their site. However, the focus is not on



infusing technology into the daily coursework of students. The focus is student engagement

strategies and writing.

Implications for further research

As this school district looks for additional funding to put technology into the hands of

more students, and truly implement a one-to-one program, it is important to recognize the

potential effect technology has to improve student achievement. Much of the research presented

has stated that student achievement with technology has tremendous potential when integrated

using the current standards and on a daily basis in core subjects.

A true one-to-one implementation would need to provide on-going, meaningful, and

targeted support to teachers. Training on Project-Based Learning activities in the classroom

would be paramount. Teachers would need to be supported in looking for ways to infuse

technology into their everyday practice. Once this occurred, students could work cooperatively

as teams, collaborate on problem solving activities, create new ways of demonstrating their

knowledge, and communicate with a broader audience outside of the classroom. A reevaluation

of the instructional coach model may be the easiest way to insure this change and provide

teachers with the on-going support needed to effectively integrate technology into their

coursework.

Based on the demographics of AJHS technology should be playing a bigger role in

academic achievement of all students. While the numbers were very small, those students who

were enrolled in the STEM elective wheel did out perform those students who were not enrolled.

While this is not enough to show a cause/effect relationship due to the sample size, it does show

the potential technology has to support students and close the achievement gap. Considering the

course offerings at AJHS for EL and students below grade level, based on the aforementioned



research, increased technology in those courses should lead to helping to close the achievement

gap. Technology-based intervention programs would need to be further investigated and

additional teacher training would need to occur for proper implementation.

Recommendations for further study

The results suggest that a relationship between student achievement and increased access

to technology exist, but the research model used is unable to determine causation. Further study

should include: correlational studies to attempt offer stronger connections, further achievement

gap analysis using additional benchmark data, the broadening of the study to bring in other

districts’ data, and multivariate analysis to establish causation and control for the effects of

demographic characteristics, such as ethnicity, socio-economic status, parents’ education levels,

and access to technology at home. In hindsight, looking at prior benchmark data to establish a

baseline would have been very powerful. However, no benchmarks were administered last year

due to the shift to CCSS.

Conclusion

The lives of most students are filled with technology. They use it to communicate with

each other, to create things, for recreation, and to most importantly to make meaning of the

world. However, many students are not experiencing that same access during their time at

school. Technology allows students to personalize their learning experiences and reach a

broader audience outside of their classroom. Technology not only helps to raise student

achievement, as mentioned in numerous studies, but the integration of it into daily instruction

allows students to hone the skills necessary to compete in the global marketplace. Technology

allows students to learn and apply skills that are rarely addressed in the paper-and-pencil format

of the traditional classroom setting. As more and more districts secure funding to implement



greater access to technology in the schools, teachers must be supported in building shared

knowledge to embrace the power technology has to positively change the education of students’

lives. According to ISTE (2008), “Our job as educators is to implement instructional strategies

that use technology appropriately and prepare students for the world they will face beyond

school” (p. 10).



References

Barrios, T. (2004). Laptops for learning: Final report and recommendation of the laptops for

learning task force March 22, 2004. Retrieved from http://etc.usf.edu/l4l/report.pdf

California adopts first math aligned framework with Common Core. (2013). Retrieved from

http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr13/yr13rel108.asp

Ciani, K. D., Summers, J. J., Easter, M. A., & Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Collaborative learning and

positive experiences: Does letting students choose their own groups matter? Educational

Psychology, 28(6), 627-641. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/

Francisco, J. M. (2013). Learning in collaborative settings: Students building on each other’s

ideas to promote their mathematical understanding. Educational Studies in Mathematics,

82(3), 417-438. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/

Franceschini, Louis; Allen, Lee E.; Lowther, Deborah L.; & Strahl,

J. Daniel (2008). “Freedom to Learn Program Michigan 2007-2008 Evaluation

Report,” Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of

Memphis, September 2008.

Greaves, T.; Hayes, J.; Wilson, L.; Gielniak, M.; & Peterson, R., (2010). The technology factor:

Nine keys to student achievement and cost-effectiveness.

Grinager, H. (November 2006). How education technology leads to improved student

achievement. Education Issues.

International Society for Technology in Education (2008) Technology and student achievement:

The indelible link. ISTE Policy Brief.

https://search.ebscohost.com/



Lei, J. (2010). Conditions for ubiquitous computing: What can be learned from a longitudinal

study. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 35-53.

New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2009). One-to-one computing:

literature review. Retrieved from http://www.dec.nsw.gov.au/detresources/about-us/how-

we-operate/national-partnerships/digital-education-revolution/rrql/support/lit_review.pdf

Olmstead, C., & Rowell, L. (2014). How the 4 Cs fit with the Common Core. Retrieved from

http://www.eschoolnews.com/2014/01/17/four-cs-common-core/2/

Owen, A., Farsaii, S., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2005). Teaching in the one-to-one

classroom: It’s not about laptops, it’s about empowerment! Leading and Learning with

Technology, 33(4), 12-16. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/

Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A

research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329-348.

Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/

Reilly, E. (2011). Participatory learning environments and collective meaning making practice.

The National Association for Media Literacy Education’s Journal of Media Literacy

Education, 3(1), 6-7. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/

Stansbury, M. (2010, February 16). One-to-one computing programs only as effective as their

teachers [Supplemental material]. eSchool News. Retrieved from

http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/02/16/11-programs-only-as-good-as-their-

teachers/2/?ast=122&astc=11200



Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Mazzer, P., & Schenker, J. (2005). Bringing Mohamed to the mountain:

Situated professional development in a ubiquitous computing classroom. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 353-365. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/

Tagliaferro, H. (2012). The power of collaboration: Connecting the classroom to the real world.

Language and Literacy Spectrum, 22(), 49-51. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/

Walden University, Richard C. Riley College of Education and Leadership, “Educators,

Technology and 21st Century Skills: Dispelling Five Myths – A Study on the Connection

Between K-12 Technology Use and 21st Century Skills,” Walden University, 2010.

http://eric.ed.gov/

Running Head: TECHNOLOGY ACCESS IN THE COMMON CORE … · Running Head: TECHNOLOGY ACCESS IN THE...

Documents

Transcript of Running Head: TECHNOLOGY ACCESS IN THE COMMON CORE … · Running Head: TECHNOLOGY ACCESS IN THE...